Gender: early

socialization
Last update: August 2014
Topic Editor:
Carol L. Martin, PhD, Arizona State University, USA

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 1

Table of content
Synthesis 5

Parents’ Socialization of Gender in Children 8

CAMPBELL LEAPER, PHD, AUGUST 2014

Peer socialization of gender in young boys and girls 14

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

The Role of Schools in the Early Socialization of Gender Differences 19

REBECCA BIGLER, PHD, 2AMY ROBERSON HAYES, MA, 3VERONICA HAMILTON, BA, DECEMBER 2013
1

Gender Self-Socialization in Early Childhood 24

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

The Complex Causes and Modification of Gender Development: Commentary 30

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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 2

Topic funded by:

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 3

Synthesis

How important is it?

Gender socialization1 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 4

endorse gender stereotypes. In addition, father’s participation in domestic duties and/or child
care is associated with a lower likelihood of violence toward children.2 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 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,

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 5

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:
[Link] 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: [Link] Accessed
December 11, 2013

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 6

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 activities in sons
and daughters.1

Problems

One of the challenges for researchers studying parental socialization is to separate the influences
of parents on children and the influences of children on parents.2 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?

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 7

 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., “girls are good at reading”), activities, and roles (e.g., “men are scientists”).3 As
gender equality has increased 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 traditional expectations and some
expressing egalitarian expectations for their daughters and sons.4,5 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 their expectations for sons than daughters.6

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 domestic responsibilities continue to be handled mostly
by women in most dual-career families.6 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 instrumental
activities.7

The potential influence of parental gender-role modeling has also been implicated in studies of
children raised by lesbian or gay parents.8 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 breadwinner, their children were more
likely to express stereotyped views about adult roles and occupations.8

Parents’ differential treatment of daughters and sons.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 8

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 daughters.9 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 by which parents treat girls and boys differently is through the encouragement
of gender-stereotyped activities.10 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
children’s play activity preferences as opposed to acceding to their children’s stated preferences.11

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

On average, parents in many industrialized cultures are more flexible about the play activities
they consider acceptable for daughters than sons.6,10 (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 in encouraging gender-typed play (especially in
sons).6,10 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
than seen in earlier decades.4,14

Research Gaps

More research is needed that addresses the extent and the manner by which parents influence

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 9

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 genetic influences (e.g., activity level is partly inherited).
2
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 family.15 Finally, we need a better understanding of how cultural
contexts shape gender roles in the family and the socialization of girls and boys.16

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 parents
with gender-egalitarian attitudes may nonetheless act differently with daughters and sons.12
Longitudinal studies suggest that parents’ treatment of sons and daughters may have an
influence on some aspects of their gender development.3,6

Implications for Parents, Service Providers, and Policy Makers

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, friends, the media,
and teachers.11 As children get older and become more autonomous, the influences of peers and
the media often become especially powerful.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 10

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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 11

 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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 12

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

By the time children are about 3 years old, they have already begun to form their gender identity.1
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 than boys.2 One
important way in which children learn about gender roles and develop gender-typed behaviour
and attitudes is through their interactions with peers.3

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 development – children’s gendered behaviour becomes more similar to
those they spend time with.4 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:

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 13

 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?

Research Results

From an early age, children are interested in and responsive to their peers, and they form
meaningful relationships with them.5 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 peers the more similar they become to one another in interests, behaviours, and
interactional styles.4

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 engage in behaviours that are more typical of girls.6 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 did so in the fall, the more gender-typed they were in the spring.6

Boys and girls spend large amounts of time playing with same-sex peers and relatively small
amount of time playing with peers of the other sex.6,7 This pattern is known as gender segregation.
8
Gender segregation begins by age 2.5 to 3 years and increases in strength and intensity
through the elementary school years.9 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 play
more cooperatively with other girls.10 Over time, these same-gender peer preferences become
stronger, strengthening gender segregation and the promotion of gender-typed behaviours and

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 14

interests. This gender segregation cycle makes it less likely that boys and girls interact and learn
from each other, and promotes gender stereotypic beliefs, attitudes, and biases about and
towards the other sex.11

Research Gaps

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 doing together.12 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 each other.2,4,8 In addition, there is some speculation
that this separation and lack of understanding carries forward into later male-female relationships
in adolescence and adulthood.2 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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 15

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 from each other that they must be taught in
separate classrooms – one for boys and another for girls.13,14 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 will
only strengthen and reinforce gender-typed behaviours and differences.11,15,16 Moreover, gender-
segregated classrooms per se do not result in improvements in learning and achievement.17
Efforts should be directed towards finding ways to bring boys and girls together so that they have
positive experiences with each other and develop an enhanced understanding, appreciation and
respect of one another.18

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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 16

 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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 17

The Role of Schools in the Early Socialization of
Gender Differences
1
Rebecca Bigler, PhD, 2Amy Roberson Hayes, MA, 3Veronica Hamilton, BA
1,2
University of Texas at Austin, USA, 3University 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 differences.1 The experiences afforded to girls and boys
within schools are known to affect gender differentiation both directly, by providing differential
skill practice and reinforcement,2 and indirectly, by providing input that leads children to actively
socialize themselves along gender-differentiated pathways.3

Subject

Schools are major contexts for gender socialization, in part because children spend large amounts
of time engaged with peers in such settings.4 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 internalize gender stereotypes and
prejudices, which in turn guide their own preferences and behaviours.1

Research Context

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 18

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

How do teachers contribute to gender differences?

Many educators endorse cultural gender stereotypes (e.g., math is easier for boys than girls) and
prejudices (show preferences for same-gender individuals).5 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” behaviours.6 Second, teachers often exhibit differential expectations
for males and females (e.g., creating “dress-up” and “construction” centers and accepting—even
facilitating—gender-differentiated use).7 Third, teachers facilitate children’s gender biases by
marking gender as important by using it to label and organize students.8 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 showed higher levels of gender stereotyping than their peers.9 Preschool teachers’
labeling and use of gender increases their pupils’ gender stereotyping and avoidance of cross-
gender playmates.10

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,

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 19

children tend to select same-sex playmates.11 Children’s gender segregation, in turn, affects their
play experiences, leading them to spend more time in stereotypic play.12 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 gender stereotypic.11

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 aggression.7 Importantly, intervention programs can teach young
children to recognize and challenge their peers’ sexist remarks (e.g., “You can’t say girls can’t
play!”).13

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. 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 maintain—rather than
counteract—traditional gender stereotypes, biases, and differences.14 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 20

(e.g., single-sex schools) and instead seek to enhance co-educational schools’ promotion of
gender egalitarian attitudes and behaviour.15 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 biases, so that they reduce peer
policing of gender normativity.16 Parents should seek educational settings for their students that
are gender integrated and that make use of curricula that directly teach about, and challenge,
gender bias and inequality.17

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:[Link]

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:[Link]

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: [Link]

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.

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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 21

 17. Moss P. Not true! Gender doesn’t limit you! Teaching Tolerance Magazine. 2007;32. Available at:
[Link]

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 22

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 gender development: biology,
socialization and cognition.1 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 seeking out information about gender.2 Further, children’s understanding and
awareness of gender affects how they organize and interpret the information they collect.1
Gender schemas, or organized knowledge structures, provide standards for them to guide their
behaviour. Finally, these theories emphasize developmental change in children’s knowledge
about gender and in their gender-related behaviours.3

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 that children will be exposed to a wider variety of situations and
people to develop a broader array of skills.4 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 23

Research on gender development has received broader attention since the late 1960s,
accompanying the feminist movement.5 An emphasis on cognition in gender development
became prevalent in the late 1970s to early 1980s when psychology in general became
influenced by cognitive theories.6 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.

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 perceptually discriminate males and females even in infancy.7,8
However, children are not thought to conceptually understand gender categories until 18 to 24
months.9 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 own gender
(“boy”/“girl”).10,11

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 (gender constancy).12 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 age 6 to 7.13

A third type of knowledge that children gain are gender stereotypes. As early as 18 months of
age, children have knowledge of gender stereotypes that grows in amount and in complexity
across development.14 Young children often rigidly believe and endorse these gender stereotypes,
but start to show flexibility (both girls and boys can be strong) around age 6 to 8.15 The

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 24

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 from those of the other gender.3 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 also distorting
information to fit their schemas.16,17,18 With this constructed and consolidated information, children
learn how to act in gender-stereotypical ways.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 increasingly dress in gender-stereotypical ways.20,21,22 In support of these theories,
research has sometimes found that children’s knowledge about gender predicts gender-
stereotypical behaviour in early childhood.8,9,23 For example, children who understand gender
labels sooner tend to hold stronger gender-typed preferences and use gender stereotypes to
guide their behaviours.24

Children’s knowledge about gender is theorized to also have immediate consequences for their
feelings and attitudes toward own-gender and other-gender peers.25,26 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 They also tend to favor their own gender in their
behaviour, such as in allocating rewards.27 Gender segregation begins in early childhood as well.28
Girls and boys increasingly prefer associating with their own gender, a phenomenon that
continues through elementary school. Some research supports the idea that children’s knowledge
about gender relates to gender attitudes and sex segregation.16,29,30 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 25

related to their gender-stereotypical behaviour and attitudes, some studies, however, find no
connections.8,9 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 behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes; however these connections are not
always found.9

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. A downside of highlighting gender to such a degree is
that it can increase gender stereotyping and negative gender discriminatory behaviour.31,32 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 26

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 like a girl and being preoccupied with appearance.21
Boys attune to messages that they need to be tough like superheroes.33 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; [Link] 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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 27

 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.

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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 28

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

The authors of the papers1-4 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

As documented in the four papers1-4 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 the moderators of such links.5 Gendered attitudes are sometimes, but
not always, related to gendered behaviour, and most associations are surprisingly modest in size.6
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 behaviour, rather than the

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 29

reverse.5 It is, therefore, important to identify conditions under which gender-related attitudes
influence and are influenced by gender-related behaviours.

c. What is missing?

The papers in this section1-4 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 direction.7,8 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
occupations that involve things rather than people;8 as adults, they are more likely to have jobs
typically occupied by men.11 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 (e.g., hormones at puberty, circulating
hormones in adulthood).12

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 to be female-typical, although little is
known about the effectiveness of such socialization.13,14 This topic represents an exciting research
opportunity; elsewhere, we have provided examples of how work on gender development
pursued from a socialization perspective could be enhanced by attention to biological processes.15

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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 30

modify the effect of socialization experiences, given the increased autonomy, peer contact and
parent-child conflict at that time compared to childhood.16

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 parents’ marital relationship.17 Consider two examples.
Change in gendered attitudes from age 7 to 19 varies across context and personal characteristics:
18
on average, traditionality declines with age, but traditional attitudes increased in firstborn boys
with brothers and traditional parents. When husbands have more job-related resources than
wives (income, job prestige), women tend to have less power in the marital relationship19 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 activity interests by the time their children reach middle childhood.20

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 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 that make gender salient increase children’s
gender stereotypes, but not their own sex-typed interests.21 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
([Link]) has “professional cheerleaders pursuing science careers who

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 31

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.

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:
[Link] 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

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 32

 Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2013:1-5. Disponible sur le site:
[Link] 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: [Link]
[Link]. 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:
[Link] 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.

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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 33

 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.

©2013-2021 CEDJE | GENDER: EARLY SOCIALIZATION 34