Gender Role Portrayals inPreschool Picture Books

Stuart OskampKaren Kaufman

Lianna Atchison WolterbeekPsychology Department

Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA 91711

Children's preschool books are important sources of gender rolesocialization, teaching children traditional gender-stereotyped expec-tations and behavior. Past studies on award-winning preschool bookshave noted much gender stereotyping but gradually increasing visibilityof female characters. This research updated the past studies andexpected to find decreasing gender stereotyping. Results showed tliathuman female characters liave become increasingly visible, with closeto equal numerical representation, and a wider variety of attributes andactivities. Though significant male-female differences in depiction ofgender-stereotypic traits have diminished, subtle traditional expecta-tions are still present in many of these books.

Socialization into expected gender roles is one of the most importantlessons that young children learn. In addition to parents' and teachers'intentional efforts to shape gender roles, they are also learned from themass media (television, radio, hooks, magazines, and newspapers), towhich children are exposed every day. For preschool-age children, animportant source of such information is the picture books written specifi-cally for their age group. These are often read and reread to them in theirimpressionable early years.

Children's books provide their audience with cues about life—inparticular, about what goals and social norms are available and appropri-ate for members of their sex. Social learning theories and researchfmdings both emphasize that children learn to believe and do what theysee and hear. The learned bases for gender differences are well-estab-lished in the first few years of life (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Richardson,1988). There are ample research precedents for using children's books as

Authors' Note: We thank our colleagues Ray Gamba, Barbara Mininger, and Jane Gray andseveral helpful librarians for their assistance. Correspondence regarding this article shouldbe addressed to the first author.

Crandall, R. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of gender research [Special issue]. Journal of SocialBehavior and Personality, Vol. 11, No. 5, 27-39.©1996 Select Press, Corte Madera, CA, 415/924-1612.

28 HANDBOOK OF GENDER RESEARCH

indicators of dominant societal values (e.g., McClelland, 1961). Ifchildren's literature displays stereotyped gender roles, it will presentrestricted role models for children and help to shape their behavior instereotyped directions.

In recent decades there have been strong claims that children'sliterature is highly gender stereotyped. Several studies have demonstratedsuch gender-role stereotyping (e.g.. Women on Words and Images,1975). In one classic study, Weitzman, Eifler, Hokada, and Ross (1972)studied sexist messages in books which won the prestigious CaldecottMedal. This medal is awarded annually by the American Library Asso-ciation to several illustrated children's books which are judged as beingthe most outstanding of their genre for that year. As award winners, thesevolumes immediately achieve high visibility to librarians and discrimi-nating purchasers, and set much higher sales records than other children'sbooks (as much as 60,000, according to Weitzman et al., 1972). Thus theypresent a model of preschool literature to which writers and publishersaspire, and they become some of the most widely read and influentialchildren's books that are published each year.

A striking finding of Weitzman et al.'s (1972) study was that girlsand women were nearly invisible in these books' titles, central characters,and illustrations. For example, in their sample of award-winning illus-trated books published from 1967 to 1971, the pictures showed 261 malecharacters (92%) compared to 23 females (8%). The girls who weredepicted were generally inconspicuous and passive in their activities;their roles were usually watching, helping, and waiting. In contrast, boyswere often shown as involved in adventures, exciting activities, andcamaraderie. The characteristics of adult role models in the stories weresimilarly differentiated. Adult females were generally passive, stayedindoors, and performed service functions, while the men were busybuilding, ruling, fighting, and having adventures with their children.Despite the fact that 40% of U.S. women were in the labor force at thetime of the study (U.S. Department of Labor, 1969), not one femalecharacter in the entire sample of books was described as working outsideof the home.

The Weitzman et al. (1972) study received widespread attention, andsimilar findings were reported by other researchers (e.g., St. Peter, 1979;Stockard & Johnson, 1980). Consequently, efforts arose among someauthors and publishers of children's literature to present a more positiveimage of females. Concerned groups compiled lists of nonsexist children'sbooks (e.g.. Women's Action Alliance, 1973), and newly formed publish-ing companies such as Feminist Press began to specialize in printing less-stereotyped literature for children. A list of such egalitarian volumes

O.skamp et al. GENDER ROLE 29

contains titles such as Girls Can Be Anything, Jennifer Takes Over, andMommies at Work (see Pitcher, Feinberg, & Alexander, 1984).

Subsequently, Williams, Vernon, Williams, and Malecha (1987)replicated the Weitzman et al. study, focusing on the Caldecott Medalwinners of the 1970s and early 1980s. Compared with the earlier data,they found that girls and women had begun to achieve more visibility by1980-1985, with females accounting for 37% of the pictured humancharacters. The traits of the female characters were also more varied thanthose found in the earher study, but no dominant behavioral profile wasfound for girl characters, whereas boys were typically depicted as inde-pendent, persistent, and active. Only one of the adult characters wasportrayed in a non-gender-stereotyped role, and though women were nowdepicted in activities outside the home, they were not shown as employed.The authors concluded that "not only does Jane express no career goals,but there is no adult female model to provide any ambition" (p. 155).Other studies of preschool children's literature have similarly foundsubstantial gender-role stereotyping (Kolbe & LaVoie, 1981), but with agradual increase in egalitarian depictions (Dougherty & Engel, 1987;Kortenhaus & Demarest, 1993).

The present study analyzed the Caldecott Medal winners for 1986-1991—22 illustrated books which were primarily aimed at 3-5-year-olds.The content analysis methods described by Williams et al. (1987) wereused, and some dimensions of coding were amplified for greater preci-sion. We expected that the gender stereotypes would continue to decrease,and that females would be still more visible than in prior studies.

METHOD

BooksThe 22 Caldecott award and honor books for 1986 through 1991 can

be briefly described and classified as follows. Three were retellings offamiliar stories {Rumpelstiltskin. Goldilocks and the Three Bears, andPuss in Boots), while several others were adaptations of less-familiar folktales from other lands. Overlapping the latter group, there were eightvolumes that had a cross-cultural theme, touching on life in differentnations, racial groups, or religions {The Village of Round and SquareHouses, Mufaro 's Beautiful Daughters, The Boy of the Three Year Nap,Mirandy and Brother Wind, Lon Po Po, Hershel and the HanukkahGoblins, The Talking Eggs, and "More More More" Said The Baby).Several of these books had adventure themes. Three others might best bedescribed as original adventure stories {The Polar Express, Ow/ Moon,and Free Fall). Two other volumes seemed more fantasy than adventure{Hey Al, and King Bidgood's in the Bathtub), as did several of the folk

HANDBOOK OF GENDER RESEARCH

tales. For instance, these books featured talking eggs, people turning intobirds or snakes, and a girl tricking the wind. Several books focused onfairly mundane family activities {The Relatives Came, Song and DanceMan, Owl Moon, and "More More More " Said the Baby), while one wasan autobiography {Bill Peet). Finally, one book was a puzzle that inter-wove four separate stories in a complicated way {Black and White), andtwo had no characters or plots because they were designed to teachchildren letters or animal names {Alphabatics, and Color Zoo).

ProceduresA content analysis was performed on these books. The methods of

coding, tabulation, and analysis followed those described by Williams etal. (1987) as closely as could be determined from their article, except inthe instances noted below where procedures were amplified to obtaingreater precision and reliability.

First, the sex of the author and illustrator of each book was noted.Next, a tally was made of each illustration throughout the book, includingthe covers, counting each illustration separately whether it occupied oneor two pages or only part of a page. These illustrations were classified ascontaining only female characters, only male characters, or both sexes.Here, a minor methodological amplification was that characters were notconsidered if they were tiny figures in the background or if their sex wasnot determinable from either the picture or the text. The number ofcharacters in each illustration was then counted separately by sex, andcharacters were also coded as human or personified nonhuman. Thepersonified nonhuman category was included in past studies becausemany of the characters in children's books are animals engaged in human-like activities, which may also serve as role models for children (e.g., thethree little pigs). Human characters in each picture were also coded fortheir location (indoors, outdoors, or unclear), but the location of nonhu-man characters was not coded since most animals are generally foundoutdoors.

Adding a dimension that the Williams et al. (1987) study lacked,human adults were also distinguished from children, in order to investi-gate any differences between adult and child characters' behavior andattributes. The counts of adults versus children, the sex and number ofcharacters in illustrations, and the number of illustrations were objective,except for deciding which characters were so small as to be consideredbackground. Two raters made each count, and a third rater resolved anydifferences between them.

Again following past research procedures, the main character and themain opposite-sex character of each book were determined and rated ontheir salient attributes, using the same specific trait definitions as Will-

Oskamp el al. GENDER ROLE 31

iams et al. (1987), who adapted them slightly from ones proposed byDavis (1984). These traits are listed in the results.

One amplification in our study was a more precise definition of whatconstituted a salient attribute: We defined it as a trait that was shown ormentioned clearly in the book. In order to be considered salient, thecharacteristic had to be displayed more than once by the character (e.g.,cooperation) or to be shown in a key part of the plot (e.g., rescuingsomeone). As with Williams et al., the salient attributes were rateddichotomously as present or absent. Two opposite traits (e.g., dependentand independent) could both be rated as present for a given character. Incases where the above definition still left doubt about the salience of atrait, we instructed raters to code it as present.

The trait ratings were made by four graduate students in psychology,after extensive training, practice with, and discussion of the rating sys-tem. Initial practice was done with non-Caldecott books until the ratingcriteria were clear. Each of the 1986-1991 Caldecott books was thencoded on two separate occasions about two weeks apart, and results forthe two occasions were combined in order to increase the reliability of thefmdings. Similar to Williams et al.'s (1987) procedures, to gain greaterstability of scoring, traits were counted as salient only if three of the fourraters agreed on them at either of the two rating occasions.

ReliabilityComputation of alpha coefficients across all books and all traits for

the two rated characters in each book showed that all four raters contrib-uted to the internal consistency of the ratings (overall a = .78). Interrateragreement across all books and traits was similar to that of Williams et al.(1987), averaging 80% for female characters and 77% for male charac-ters.

Some traits were distinctly harder to agree on: especially displayinga traditional gender role (mean = 53% agreement), being dependent(54%), emotional (62%), independent (71%), passive (72%), cooperative(74%), persistent (76%), nurturant (77%), active (78%), and explorative(79%). By contrast, agreement was over 90% for displaying a nontradi-tional gender role, being employed, rescuing others, being aggressive,and being competitive. The most difficult traits to agree upon were those,like dependent and emotional, which have less clear behavioral indica-tors, and displaying a traditional gender role, which is in a sense acognitive summation of many other traits (and involves the rater's subjec-tive assessment of societal expectations). Like Williams et al. (1987),because of the small number of characters of each gender being rated, wereport any gender differences that exceeded the . 10 level of significance.

32 HANDBOOK OF GENDER RESEARCH

RESULTS

Of the 22 Caldecott winners published in 1986-1991, the authors'sex was approximately even, 10 females and 12 males, but the illustratorswere predominately males, 17 to 5. Since the illustrations closely fol-lowed the written story, this disproportion in artists should not havecaused a gender imbalance in the pictures. Of the book titles, only halfgave any indication of the gender of characters, but these were male-dominated; 7 included male names or terms such as brother or king, whileonly 3 were clearly female such as daughter (see the book titles in themethod section). Two books could not be rated further because they wereABC-type books which had no story and thus no human or animalcharacters. Of the remaining 20, females appeared in all but one, and thegender of the character judged to be most central was divided almostevenly, 9 females and 10 males, with one book baving no central charac-ter. Thus there were only slight indications of any gender bias in theseaspects. In contrast, in the 1960s and 1970s data, chi-square tests showedsignificant departures from gender equality in the percentage of femalemain characters and significantly greater numbers of books without afemale character.

VisibilityFemale invisibility in the Williams et al. (1987) study was most

pronounced in the books' illustrations. Table 1 summarizes data from twopast studies and adds data from the current analysis, showing trends in anumber of measures of gender visibility over four time periods. Incounting illustrations for the 1986-1991 period, one book. Bill Peet, theautobiography of a cartoonist, was eliminated as an outlier because it wasabout five times as long as the other books and contained about one-thirdof the total number of illustrations (many of them small drawings ofmythical animals).

In the remaining 19 volumes' illustrations containing people, 72%included females and 79% included males, only a slight disparity. Whenillustrations that contained only a single gender were counted, 43% ofthese pictures were all-female compared to 57% all-male (see Table 1).This proportion of females was nonsignificantly different from genderequality (50%) by a chi-square test, and it was higher than any of theprevious time periods. The differences among the four time periods werehighly significant (x^ = 46.17, df = 3, p < .001), displaying a strong trendfrom gender inequality to equality.

A similar pattern was found in counting the number of humancharacters depicted in the illustrations. Of these, 44% were female and56% male, a proportion significantly different from equality due to the

'Q/Oskamp et al. GENDER ROLE

TABLE 1 Visibility and Location of Females in PreschoolBooks, 1967-1991

Category

Human single-gender illustrationsTotal number% female

Human characters illustratedTotal number% female

Personified nonhuman single-genderillustrations

Total number% female

Personified nonhuman charactersillustrated

Total number% female

Location of humans (% indoors)GirlsBoysWomenMen

BooksTotal number% with female central character% with no female character

1967-1971"

18811.7

68519.1

961.0

1967.1

36.631.44031

1811.133.3

1972-jgygh

33931.6

131532.9

3930.8

15623.7

————

2927.627.6

1980-1985''

17837.1

108442.2

5915.3

16828.6

31.922.026.021.8

2433.312.5

Picture

1986-1991

14143.3

118943.7

372.7

10616.0

50.369.241.239.0

22(19)'=47.4

5.0

"From Weitzman. Eifler. Hokada, & Ro.is (1972) and Williams. Vernon, William.<!. &Malecha (1987).

* From Williams et al. (1987).

'^ Only 20 of the 22 books had characters, and in one book with multiple characters nosingle one was central.

large N (x^ = 18.67, df = 1, p < .001). However, like the human single-gender illustrations, the number of human characters showed a significanttrend toward greater gender equality over the four time periods {y^ =138.55, df = 3, p < .001), with the proportion of females in the last twotime periods being significantly higher than in the 1960s and 1970s.

The findings were markedly different for the pictures of personifiedanimals found in eight books {Puss In Boots, Goldilocks, Hershel and the

34 HANDBOOK OFGENDER RESEARCH

Hanukkah Goblins, Lon Po Po, Hey Al, Mufaro's Beautiful Daughters,Mirandy and Brother Wind, and The Talking Eggs). Only 51% oftheseillustrations contained females while 99% contained males, and of thesingle-gender animal illustrations, only 3% were female compared to97% male. A similar predominance of male personified animal characterswas also found in the illustrations ofall previous time periods (all periodswere significantly different from equality by chi-square). The imbalancein the latest period was more extreme than any found since 1967-1971,and there was no time trend toward equality. Similar patterns were foundin counting the nonhuman personified characters: Only 16% of those withidentifiable gender were female and 84% were male. This was a signifi-cantly lower female proportion than in the previous period. However,every time period showed a significant gender imbalance, and there wasno time trend toward greater gender equality.

Indoor-Outdoor LocationsThe locations where characters were depicted were 50% indoors for

girls, whereas surprisingly, boys were shown indoors 69% of the time(X̂ = 12.01, df = 1, p < .001). The locations for adult women versus menwere very similar to each other, with 41% and 39% respectively beingportrayed indoors (see Table 1). Thus, this index of traditional genderactivities for boys and girls has reversed in the most recent group ofbooks, and it has moved toward indoor locations for all four age andgender groups.

Behavioral CharacteristicsThe personal traits or characteristics that were depicted in the stories

are probably even more indicative of gender stereotypes than the charac-ters' visibility and location, though they involve more subjective judg-ments. In each story, the most important character of each sex was ratedon the same 20 characteristics used by Williams et al. (1987) plus theirstatus as employed or not. Table 2 shows the findings for the 1986-1991volumes, compared with Williams et al.'s data for the 1980-1985 vol-umes. In a typical story, only about 4 or 5 ofthese traits were judged to besalient for each character, based on agreement by 3 out of 4 raters. Onedifference between the studies was that Williams et al.'s raters judgedevery character as having a clearly traditional gender role (34 characters)or a clearly nontraditional gender role (1 character). Our raters onlyviewed 7 characters as displaying a clearly traditional gender role andnone as being clearly nontraditional, considering the others as intermedi-ate or too ambiguous to classify in either category.

In the 1986-1991 volumes, we found an almost equal total number ofsalient traits for female characters as for male characters. In contrast.

GENDER ROLE

TABLE 2 Salient Traits of Main Character and Main Opposite-SexCharacter, 1980-1985 and 1986-1991

Trait

Dependent

Independent

Cooperative

Competitive

Directive

Submissive

Persistent

Explorative

Creative

Imitative

Nurturant

Aggressive

Emotional

Active

Passive

Rescues others

Service to others

Camaraderie withsame- sex peers

No. ofFemales(N=I7)

5

4

5

0

2

5

5

2

1

0

6

1

3

8

6

3

7

0

Traditional gender role 17

Nontraditionalgender role

Employed

Total Traits

0

1

81

1980-1985"

No. ofMales

(N = 18)

1

12

3

5

4

0

12

6

6

1

2

4

3

16

1

3

1

0

17

1

3

101

Sig.P

<.O8

<.O2

<.O3

<.O2

<.O2

<.O5

<.1O

<.O1

<.O4

<.O2

No. ofFemales(N = 16)

10

4

5

1

2

6

3

5

3

2

5

2

3

9

4

1

4

2

5

0

1

77

1986-1991

No. ofMales

(N=18)

5

9

4

1

6

1

6

4

10

0

3

1

7

10

3

2

1

2

2

0

3

80

Sig.P

<.O3

<.O8

<.O3

<.O2

Note: p values are l-tailed.

"From Williams, Vernon, Williams, & Malecha (1987).

HANDBOOK OF GENDER RESEARCH

Williams et al. (1987) found more salient traits for males in 1980-1985and concluded that this indicated a clearer behavioral profile for malesthan for female characters. The latest volumes did display tendencies inthe gender-stereotypic direction, with 14 of the 19 traits heing rated assalient more often in the gender-typical direction. However, only fourtraits showed significant differences between males and females, com-pared with ten in Williams et al.'s study (p < .10, one-tailed, by Fisher'sexact test—this significance level was used because of the small numberof volumes involved, just as it was by Williams et al.). In our study,female characters were found to be dependent and submissive more oftenthan males, and male characters were independent and creative moreoften than females (all in the gender-typical direction). These four traitswere also found to be significant in the same direction by Williams et al.for the 1980-1985 books. Thus it appears that gender-stereotypic behav-ioral patterns have faded in the most recent set of Caldecott Award hooks,but have not disappeared completely.

DISCUSSION

The overall results of this content analysis show some persistinggender differences, but a continuing trend toward more equitable genderrepresentation in these award-winning preschool picture books. Com-pared with the earlier studies which analyzed Caldecott winners for1967-1971, 1972-1979, and 1980-1985, the present study revealed anincrease in the percentage of books having female central characters andin depiction of female humans in the illustrations. However, both ofthesefigures are still a bit shy of full equality with males. Since preschool girlsexposed to these hooks may view their women and girl characters asmodels of possible and desirable gender role behavior, the increase in therepresentation of females is a welcome finding and makes it seemunlikely that "the little girl reading these books might be deprived of herego and her sense of self," as feared hy Weitzman et al. (1972, p. 1130).

However, one area where a large disparity in gender representationcontinues to occur is in personified animal characters. There was a hugeimbalance in visibility, with male personified animals being over fivetimes as frequent as females. Exactly what this marked discrepancysignifies is unclear, but if, as is sometimes proposed, children enjoy andidentify with storybook personified animals even more than with humancharacters, the effect of this gender disparity on children's attitudestoward gender roles may be important.

The analysis of behavioral traits displayed by these books' majorcharacters suggests that depiction of stereotypic female-male traits hasdecreased in comparison to those in prior award-winning books. The

Oskamp etal. GENDER ROLE 37

present study found only four attributes that showed significant male-female differences—dependent and submissive, independent and cre-ative (all in the gender-typical direction). This was considerably less thanthe numberof significant gender differences in the Williams etal. (1987)study of 1980-1985 Caldecott winners, though there were smaller differ-ences in the gender-typical direction on 10 of 17 other traits in the presentstudy.

In comparison to Weitzman et al.'s conclusion that depictions ofmost female characters were colorless, with a limited and subdued behav-ioral profile, our findings show that female characters are now beingportrayed as fuller individuals with a greater number and variety ofattributes. However, it should be noted that some of the apparent fading ofgender-stereotypic portrayals in these award-winning books may be theresult of shifts over time in the evaluative criteria for gender-typicalbehavior that were used by raters in different decades. For instance, itseems to have become less clear over the past 25 years just what consti-tutes "traditional gender role behavior."

The present findings are encouraging in that they offer young girls awider range of acceptahle gender roles to model and a greater variety ofbehavioral traits and activities that they can view as appropriate for themto adopt. For instance, in this group of books, slightly more females thanmales were depicted as explorative, and large numbers of female charac-ters were shown as active. Similarly, young boys were offered a morevaried set of potential identification models, for male characters werefairly often depicted as dependent, cooperative, or emotional—all fe-male-typed traits that were relatively rare in Weitzman et al.'s (1972)analysis of earlier award-winning books.

However, one restriction of the present role models that is rathersimilar to previous findings is the small number of adults who wereshown as employed—only one woman, a seamstress, and three men, ajanitor, a merchant's assistant, and a cartoonist. Despite the broadening ofacceptable behavioral traits described above, none of the rated characterswere judged to be plainly nontraditional in their overall roles. Thisfinding prohably indicates a widening of the characteristics included in"traditional" gender roles and a concomitant decrease in the likelihood oflabeling many behaviors as indicating a clearly "nontraditional" genderrole (e.g., an employed woman would no longer be considered nontradi-tional).

In addition to their reflection of gender roles, one concept that manyof these books clearly aimed to transmit was greater understanding andacceptance of other cultural patterns. Eight of the books gave sympatheticportrayals of life and/or beliefs in other nations, racial groups, or reli-

38 HANDBOOK OF GENDER RESEARCH

gions. The only other frequent theme was a focus on family relationships,which were portrayed (generally in a fairly positive light) in half of thebooks.

One qualification of our findings is that the a priori categorizationscheme for characters' behavior did not consider underlying themes ormorals in the books. These themes often highlighted implicit norms andvalues that might constrict the possible roles of both genders, and more ofthese themes seemed consistent with traditional gender roles than withnontraditional ones. For instance, in both Mufaro's Beautiful Daughtersand The Talking Eggs, the good and dutiful sister rather than the peevishand disobedient one gets the handsome prince or the valuable jewels. InThe Village of Round and Square Houses, the separation of women andmen in their daily activities is explained and defended. In King Bidgood'sin the Bathtub, the king gets his way, no matter how silly his wishes. InPuss in Boots, Puss's Machiavellian schemes allow his idle master toappear rich and to marry the beautiful but passive princess. Similarmanipulative trickery by both The Boy of the Three Year Nap and hismother allow the lazy boy to get a job and to wed his boss's daughter.

In contrast, nontraditional gender themes were present in Mirandyand Brother Wind, where an adventurous girl tricks the wind and wins theCakewalk contest, and in Lon Po Po, where hrave and clever girls defeata predatory wolf. Several of the family-oriented stories also depicted lessgender-stereotyped relationships, notably Owl Moon, "More More More,"and The Relatives Came.

The clear trend over time toward more gender equality and a broaderrepertoire of possible roles for girls and women must have registered onmany children (and parents) exposed to these volumes, and it is prohablyindicative of a similar loosening of gender role constraints in societalexpectations generally. Awareness of such increasing role fiexibilityshould be an important influence in the socialization of today's children.However, there is still a distance to go before gender equality is reachedand stereotyped gender themes are completely displaced by broaderthemes of unrestricted human potential.

Oskamp el al. GENDER ROLE 39

REFERENCESDavis, A.J. (1984). Sex-differentiated behaviors in non-sexist picture books. Se.x

Roles, //, 1-15.Dougherty, W.H., & Engel, R.E. (1987). An 80s look tor sex equality in Caldecott

winners and honor books. Reading Teacher, 40, 394—398.Kolbe, R., & LaVoie, J.C. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping in preschool children's

picture books. Social Psychology Quarterly. 44, 369-374.Kortenhaus, CM., & Demarest, J. (1993). Gender role stereotyping in children's

literature: An update. SexRoles, 28, 219-232.Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.Pitcher, E.G., Feinberg, S.G., & Alexander, D. (1984). Helping young children

learn (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.RichaTdson,L.(^\9SS).The dynamics ofsexand gender: A sociological perspective

(3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.St. Peter, S. (1979). Jack went up the hill...But where was Jill? Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 4, 256-260.Stockard, J., & Johnson, M.M. (1980). Sex roles: Sex inequality and sex role

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.U.S. Department of Labor. (1969). 1969 handbook on women workers. Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Weitzman, L.J., Eifler, D., Hokada, E., & Ross, C. (1972). Sex-role socialization

in picture books for preschool children. American Journal of Sociology, 77,1125-1150.

Williams, J.A., Jr., Vemon, J.A., Williams, M.C., & Malecha, K. (1987). Sex rolesocialization in picture books: An update. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 148-156.

Women on Words and Images. (1975). Dick and Jane as victims: Sex stereotypingin children's readers. Princeton, NJ: Author.

y/omen's Action A\\\ance.(\973).Anannotatedbibliography of nonsexist picturebooks for children. New York: Author.