the influence of sex-role stereotypes on children's self- and peer-attributions

Sex Roles, Vol. 9, No. 12, 1983

The Influence of Sex-Role Stereotypes on

Children's Self- and Peer-Attr ibut ions 1

Gale E. l n o f f 2 National Institute ~f Mental Health

Charles F. Halverson, Jr. University of Georgia, Athens

Karabelle A. L. Pizzigali Youth Work, Incorporated

Children's self- and peer-attributions to sex-role-related personality traits were investigated. For each o f 10 traits depicted in videotaped skits, 147 children, aged 5-13 years, rated themselves, rated the social desirability o f the trait, and nominated peers who exhibited the trait. Self-ratings on the trait did not fall into sex-role clusters. Not only were the masculine traits independent o f the feminine traits but the within-sex-role traits also were relatively independent of each other. Few sex differences were found, although all found were in the direction o f the stereotype and were for the feminine traits. Examination for differences between 3 age groups (grades kindergarten, 1, 2; 3, 4, 5; and 6, 7, 8) revealed no significant differences evidenced in a generally consistent pattern across traits representing each sex role. Self-ratings were related to the ratings o f social desirability o f the traits, especially for the youngest children. When nominating peers, the children tended to nominate same-sex peers, regardless o f the trait. It seems that when cued by task or instructions, children can accurately report the content o f stereotypes and use them "appropriately."

I Alt three authors were affiliated with the Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, National Institute of Mentai Health, during the time of project planning and data collection. Appreciation is extended to Brian McLaughlin for his help in the planning and data collection phases of the study, to Craig Edelbrock and Thomas Achenbach for their advice regarding data analysis, and to Rita Dettmers for her secretarial assistance.

z Correspondence should be sent to Gale E. Inoff, Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health, Building 15K, Bethesda, Maryland 20205.

1205

0350 0025/83/1200-1205503.00/0 @1983 Plenum Publishing Corporation

1206 lnoff, Halverson, Pizzigati

When sex roles are not made salient, stereotypes do not necessarily organize information processing.

In recent years, numerous researchers have investigated sex-role development, and in many instances the focus has been on sex-role stereotypes. It is well documented, for example, that young children are aware of many sex-role- related prescriptions and stereotypes (Thompson, 1975; Williams, Bennett, & Best, 1975, Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978). It remains unclear how those prescriptions and stereotypes affect children as they develop abstract conceptions about themselves and their environment.

Research on children's sex-role identification has been limited primarily to the study of their knowledge of stereotypes and their preferences regarding stereotyped toys, activities, and occupations. The development of sex-role identification with regard to personality traits has received little attention, although beliefs about one's personality characteristics may be considered more integral to an individual's self-concept than are attitudes about situation-specific activities or objects. This study sought to examine children's beliefs about their own (as well as peers') personality traits, with the view that these beliefs bear a strong relationship to the behaviors children exhibit.

Recent theoretical discussion influenced the conceptualization and design of this study. Major theories and most early studies in this area have focused on the achievement of a masculine identity for boys and a feminine identify for girls (Parsons, 1955; Kagen, 1964; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Such a focus un- doubtedly was influenced by clinical and popular beliefs about normal and healthy development. Recent investigations (Bern, 1975; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975) have provided some evidence that the incorporation of both masculine and feminine characteristics (androgyny) might be more adaptive, given the increasing variety of situations in which people now may find themselves.

This latter approach to sex-role identity grows out of the position put forth by Constantinople (1973), Bem (1974), and others that masculinity and femininity may be conceptualized as two separate and independent dimensions, both of which can contribute to an individual's sex-role identification. To date, investigators have studied sex roles in this light mostly with adults and adolescents (e.g., Bem, 1975; Spence et al., 1975; Kinsell-Rainey, 1976). We sought to apply this approach to young children.

Thus, the purposes of this study were (1) to examine the relationship between traditional sex-role stereotypes about personality traits and children's judgments about themselves and their peers, and (2) to investigate the development of androgynous orientations in children. In this exploratory study, we planned to form two robust composite measures based on our selected personality traits-one composite representing "masculinity" and the other representing "femininity"-and then to characterize (e.g., by age and sex) the children who could be classified differentially on the masculine and feminine composites taken together.

Sex-Role Stereotypes and Attributions 1207

Children's judgments of themselves (and their peers) on stereotyped personality traD:s were assessed. Parallel to Bem's (1974)conceptualization of androgyny, the main focus of this investigation was self-ascriptions to sex-role- related personality traits. In order to examine developmental aspects of sex- role identification, cross-sectional samples of boys and girls at three age periods were studied.

M E T H O D

Subfeets

Seventy-one boys and 76 girls, aged 5 through 13 years, participated in the study. They were predominantly White, upper-middle class, and in atten- dance at a private school in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Procedures

Because an appropriate instrument that tapped self-ascriptions to sex- role-related personality traits in children was unavailable, a new instrument was constructed and piloted. The instrument was designed to be sufficiently concrete for children as young as 5 years of age. Ten videotaped skits were pro- duced-5 with children portraying traits stereotyped as masculine and 5 with children portraying traits stereotyped as feminine. The stereotyped masculine traits were assertiveness, stoicism, boastfulness, messiness, and independence. The stereotyped feminine traits were excitability, nurturance, gentleness, fickleness, and dependence.

These trai~s were selected because other studies of children and adults had shown them to be highly stereotyped (Thompson, 1975; Williams et at., 1975). Pilot data with 23 5-11-year-olds also supported the findings that these traits were used stereotypically)

To control for potentially confounding factors, eight versions of the videotape were constructed in which order of traits, sex of actor for a trait, and child enacting a trait were varied. For the testing session, there were a total of four experimenters, two males and two females. Each child was tested individually. Fm each child within each grade, testing sessions were counterbalanced for sex of experimenter. The sessions were tape-recorded.

The testing session began with the experimenter telling the child that s/he would see short stories on the television and that the stories were about things that most people do, although some people do them more often than

3 All of the traits, except independence, were judged stereotypically by the pilot sample at p ~ .20. Independence, a masculine trait, was judged to be a feminine trait.

1208 Inoff, Halverson, Pizzigati

others. Prior to showing each skit, the experimenter described the skit, repeti- tively emphasizing the particular trait:

1. Assertiveness. "This is a story about a child who usually goes after what s/he wants. When s/he and a friend are offered some candy, s/he takes the one s/he wants."

2. Stoicism. "This story is about a child who acts very brave. S/he has a sore arm, and, in the story, the arm gets knocked by an opening door. Even though this hurts very much, s/he acts very brave, says that s/he is all right, and acts like the arm doesn't hurt."

3. Boastfulness. "This story is about a child who often wants to be the one who makes all the decisions and gets things done. S/he also boasts about how good s/he is at doing things."

4. Messiness. "This story shows a child who is usualty pretty messy. In the story, s/he is looking for something in one of her/his messy drawers."

5. Independence. "This story is about a child who often does something because s/he has decided that is what s/he would like to do. Sometimes, of course, s/he joins her/his friends in what they are doing, but sometimes s/he picks her/his own things to do and then goes and does them. In the story, s/he's going to do a project-not because s/he has to, but because s/he wants to."

6. Excitability. "This story is about a child who often gets very excited about things. In the story, s/he gets a present, and s/he is so excited about getting it. You can really tell how excited s/he is just by looking and listen- ing to her/him."

7. Nurturance. "This is a story about a child who is trying to make a sad friend feel better. Whenever a friend is sad, s/he is very kind and shows her/ his friend that s/he really cares."

8. Gentleness. "This story shows a child who usually is very gentle. In the story, s/he is very gentle with a kitty cat. S/he is gently petting the kitty and acting very lovingly toward the kitty."

9. Fickleness. "This story shows a child who changes her/his mind a lot. When s/he is offered candy, first s/he decides on one kind, then s/he changes her/his mind, then s/he changes her/his mind again."

10. Dependence. "This story is about a child who often asks an adult (a grown-up) to tell her/him what to do. In the story, s/he has to make a decision but wants the adult (the grown-up) to make the decision for her/him."

As previously mentioned, pilot data supported the conclusion that these traits were stereotypically ascribed to the appropriate sex. Children in the pilot sample had been asked whether each of the traits was "for boys" or "for girls." In the main sample, children were not asked to determine whether a trait was "for boys" or "for girls" because we did not wish saliency of sex roles to be imposed upon the child by the experimenter. Furthermore, our goal was not


to assess knowledge of the stereotypes. (Other than omitting the question regarding sex-typing, the procedure for the main sample was identical to that for the pilot sample.)

After each skit, the following questions were asked:

1. "Tell me about the story you just saw." Responses to this item were not scored but provided evidence for the validity of the videotaped portrayals to depict the desired personality traits.

2a. "How much is that like you?" This item provided self-ascription data.

2b. "Tell me what you would do, or how you would be, in that situation. Why?" Responses to these questions were not scored but served as a check on the child's understanding of question 2a and ability to use a self- rating scale.

3. " I f you picked from all the children in your class, boys and girls, name two children who are like that child. You can name a child you've named before." This item provided peer nomination data.

4. "You just saw a child w h o . . . [the relevant behavior such as "gets very excited about things" was stated]. How much is that a good way for people to be?" This question provided data on social desirability of the traits. The item was included (a) to provide a check that the self-ascriptions were more than reflections of the social desirability of the traits and (b) because it was assumed that social desirability would be related to sex-role stereotypes.

For question 1, if the child did not mention the trait, the experimenter probed until it was clear that the child would focus upon the trait. The order of asking questions 2 and 3 was counterbalanced across traits. For questions 2a and 4, the child told "how much" using a concrete 5-point rating scale made of five yellow blocks, graduated in size and glued to a board in ascending order (Cole & Pennington, 1976). Point 1 on the scale meant "very little, hardly at all," point 2 meant % little," and so on.

R E S U L T S

Analyses were performed using the following three age groups: kindergarten, first, second; third, fourth, fifth; and sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. (No effects for sex of experimenter or sex of actor for a skit were found.)

Self-Ratings

Self-ratings on each of the personality traits are presented in Table I for boys and girls separately by age grouping. On all of the "masculine" traits,

1210 Inof f , Halverson , Pizzigat i

[-

O r ~

z ~

r ~-

~ S ~

t ~

.&

t ~ t tr~

¢'4

© e~

I t 'q

¢3

Sex-Role Stereotypes and Attributions 121!

all groups averaged low (2, °'a little like me") or moderate (3, "somewhat like me"). On the feminine traits, group averages were more variable across traits: low in general for fickleness and dependency, moderate for excitability, and high for gentleness and nurturance.

Intercorrelations. Since all the traits used in this study had been found in other studies to be used stereotypically and since our pilot data generally supported previous findings, the masculine and feminine traits were expected to form two internally consistent clusters. Self-ratings for each of the 10 traits were intercorrelated separately by sex for each of the three age groups. With 45 possible correlations per group, the number of correlations at p ~ .05 ranged from 0 to 10, with a mean of 5.2 per group (see Table II).

Six relations were statistically significant in more than one group (assertiveness with boastfulness, boastfulness with messiness, boastfulness with fickleness, excitability with nurturance, nurturance with gentleness, and fickleness with deper~Ldence), and these were all positive. Of these six relations, all but one (boastfulness with fickleness) fit the expectation that masculine traits would correlate with masculine traits and that feminine traits would correlate with feminine traits. However, there was little clustering in general, as well as little clustering in line with sex-role stereotypes.

Sex and Age Differences. The children's self-ratings were analyzed for sex and age differences using ANOVA procedures (see Table III). Sex differences would be expected if the traits were self-ascribed stereotypically. Analyses revealed that boys and girls differed significantly in self-ascription on only 3 of the 10 traits. These differences all occurred for feminine traits and were in the direction of the stereotypes. Girls rated themselves higher than did boys on nurturance, gentleness, and dependency.

Three of the 10 traits showed age effects. The youngest children rated themselves as less messy and more gentle than did the middle-aged or the oldest children (see Table III). Fickleness also showed a significant overall age effect, but none of the groups significantly differed in the Scheffg a posteriori comparisons.

There also was a significant age by sex interaction for the trait nurturance (see table III). Girls in grades 6, 7, 8 rated themselves higher than did boys in grades 6, 7, 8. Also, boys in grades K, 1, 2 and boys in grades 3, 4, 5 rated themselves higher than did boys in grades 6, 7, 8.

Findings were examined with the requirement that age differences be evident in a generally consistent pattern across traits representing each sex role. This requirement was considered necessary because this was not a study of self-ascription to personality traits per se, but a study of self-ascriptions in terms of stereotyped masculine and feminine personality dimensions. No consistent pattern (i.e., a pattern that replicated across traits) of statistically significant age differences was found for either sex.

1 2 1 2

, .o

.x r13

o

o

e-

~~ g

c ~ O ~

I

r-

0

I n o f f , H a l v e r s o n , Pizzigat i

H II

t4

II II

Sex-Role Stereotypes and Attribulions 1213

.~=

~a

P

aS

<

• . . ~

N N ~ ~ - ~ . ~

V I ~ o

I~ a.-~

t-oa~

< ~


Social Desirability. Self-ratings also were examined in relation to the children's ratings of the social desirability of the trait. (For each trait, each child had been asked "How much is that a good way for people to be?" It is not possible to determine whether the children made assessments relative to one sex or the other.) In most instances and especially for the younger children, self-ratings and social desirability were positively related. For all traits, the average correlation for the youngest children was r = .54, (p ~< .01); for the third to fifth graders, r = .38, (p ~< .01); and for the sixth to eighth graders, r = .38, (p ~ .05). (Results on boys and girls are combined for each of the three grade periods because data were parallel for the sexes.)

Because only 19% of the variance (on the average) in the self-ratings may be accounted for by social desirability, the self-ratings are more than reflections of each trait's social desirability. However, if social desirability is biasing the self-ratings, the importance of understanding sex-role development and stereotypes is underscored because of the connection between assumption of a role and engaging in "appropriate" behavior.

Androgynous Orientations. This study sought to assess the development of androgynous orientations in children. One of the strategies originally planned was to form two robust composite measures based on our selected personality traits-one representing masculinity and the other representing femininity-and then to characterize (e.g., by age and sex) the children who could be classified differentially on the masculine and feminine composites taken together. The self- ratings were expected to cluster in terms of masculine and feminine traits. Such clustering was necessary to form masculine and feminine composite variables. As described, there was little clustering in general, as well as little sex- role-stereotyped clustering. Variables for the composites also were to be selected on the basis of total sample sex differences.

The self-rating data did allow the formation of a two-variable feminine composite, but not a masculine composite. Therefore, no cross-classification of the children using masculine and feminine composites was possible, and no androgynous children could be identified. The feminine composite consisted of the variables gentleness and nuturance. (On the basis of the intercorrelations of the traits, assertiveness and boastfulness appeared to be potential traits for the masculine composite. However, neither of these traits differentiated the sexes.)

We used the feminine composite to assess further age and sex differences among the children. Comparisons across age yielded no significant findings for girls (see Table IV). Boys had some heterogeneity of variance, but the overall F test was significant; and, using Scheffg's test, the oldest boys were significantly less feminine in their self-attributions than were the youngest boys. Compari- sons for sex differences using this composite reflected the sex differences in the traits used singly.

Sex-Role Stereot~ pes and Attributions

Table IV. Differences Between Age Groups for Boys and Girls on the Feminine Composite ~

1215

Boys Girls ~" SD N ~" SD N

Grades K, 1, 2 49.18 11.32 26 54.66 6.86 28 Grades 3, 4, 5 46.35 6.31 26 52.08 7.40 28 Grades 6, 7, 8 41.57 7.65 18 54.15 5.08 19

~For boys, overall F = 3.97,/9 = .02 (ANOVA, two-way); using Scheff4's test, youngest and oldest differ, p _< .05. Findings for girls were not significant.

Peer Nominations

The peer nomination data also provided very meager evidence of stereo-

typing by the children. Rather, when the children were asked to name two children who exhibited each of the traits, there was a marked tendency to name

same-sex peers (see Table V). While. there was some concordance with the stereo-

types in the children's nominations, the most common finding was that the children named others of the same sex as themselves, regardless of the personality

trait.

DISCUSSION

This study examined children's self- and peer-attributions to sex-role- related personality traits. It was expected that the 10 selected personality traits would fall into identifiable sex-role clusters, boys and girls would view themselves differentially with regard to the traits, and there would be differences among age groups in the children's self-attributions. In general, the data showed little evidence of the influence of stereotypes, but did reflect significant in- fluences of social desirability as well as peer group factors.

When one looks for evidence of sex-role stereotypes in the self-ratings, one would expect a clustering of traits that represent each sex role. In the children's self-ratings, although the correlations that replicated across subsamples were almost always masculine traits correlating with masculine traits or feminine traits correlating with feminine traits, the traits did not fall into sex-role clusters. (We did not find negative correlations between masculine and feminine traits. Out of 45 possible correlations for each of the six groups, only 1 significant correlation was negative. Negative correlations would be expected if masculinity and femininity were anchors of a bipolar dimension, rather than independent dimensions.)

While clustering of traits is not necessary to infer that the self-ratings are in accordance with the stereotypes, one would expect sex differences. Sex dif-


6

.=_

©

Z

©

O z

¢ " 4 ~

E ©

VI

o

II


ferences were found for 3 of the 5 feminine traits, and these were in the direction of the stereotype. However, no sex differences were found for any of the masculine traits.

We would also like to note that based on traditional stereotypes, it would be hypothesized that with age, boys would become more masculine and less feminine and girls would become more feminine and less masculine. We examined our data in terms of this traditional hypothesis and found only meager support. Only one trait had a significant age by sex interaction-nurturance. For nurturance, the youngest and the middle-aged boys rated themselves as less nurturant ~han did the oldest boys, and the oldest boys rated themselves as less nurturartt than did the oldest girls. (Also, on our feminine composite, which included nurturance, the oldest boys scored lower than did the youngest boys.)

Although the children's self-attributions revealed few age differences, the correlations between the children's ratings of social desirability of the traits and their self-attributions showed interesting variation with age. The highest correlations were found at the youngest age period. Although the magnitudes of these correlations indicate that at all ages, the self-ratings reflected more than estimates of the. social desirability of the traits, it seems likely that many of the children were influenced by the social desirability of the traits. However, the direction of effects also could have been such that the ratings of social desirability were influenced by self-perceptions. This latter effect might be especially likely in our youngest children, who are apt to be the most egocentric. These findings between self-attributions and social desirability also have implications for the development of androgynous orientations-the less influence social desirability has on one's self-perceptions, the greater the op- portunity for flexibility in decision making and, thus, the assumption of androgynous orientations.

When the children named peers who exhibited each trait, there was some concordance with the stereotype; but the most likely response was to name same-sex peers. While naming same-sex peers is not traditionally thought of as stereotyping, it is not random responding; and similar patterns of responding have been found in other studies. For example, adults have been found to attribute a greater number of qualities to children of their own sex (Meyer & Sobieszek, 1972); and in studies of modeling, greater attentiveness to same- sex models sometimes has been found (Mischel, 1970; Slaby & Frey, 1975; Bryan & Luria~ 1978). Also, children often show preferences for same-sex peers (Hartup, t970; Jacklin & Maccoby, 1978). Children in the present study seemed to selectively consider same-sex peers. This might have been because same-sex peers were the ones they knew best, but this could not be determined from our data.

Two othe; explanations regarding the peer nominations seem relevant. It appears possible that the more the children saw a trait as like themselves, the more they would identify it with their own sex and, therefore, select same-


sex peers (cf. Kohlberg, 1971; also see Storms, 1979). 4 Here, the children would be creating an egocentric version of sex-role stereotypes using their own characteristics as representative of their sex. A second possibility is that the more the children thought a trait was a good way to be, the more they would name a same-sex peer. If the segregation by sex in peer groups included attitudes of ethnocentrism, such correlations might be expected. While both of these hypo- theses are interesting, neither was supported when tested using our data. (For these tests, we correlated both the self-ratings and the ratings of social desirability with degree of naming same-sex peers.)

It was not our impression that the major reason for nominating same- sex peers was failure to know the names of opposite-sex peers. However, it seems likely that names of same-sex peers would be more accessible in memory than those of opposite-sex peers if same-sex peers are the ones the children interact with most and, possibly, prefer as friends. One might hypothesize that close friends were salient for the children and the (probable) fact that their close friends were of the same sex as themselves was "coincidental" in the children's peer nominations.

If this hypothesis has merit, it is relevant methodologically as well as theoretically. Studies using peer nominations may need to address the issue that each child does not have an equal probability of being nominated. Theore- tically, the findings once again indicate the importance of peer groups in children's lives. Morevoer, it is not just peer groups per se that would be important; it is the nature of those peer groups that would be influential.

Returning to the issue o f stereotypes, there was some, although not much, concordance between the children's self-perceptions (as well as their perceptions of peers) and the traditional stereotypes, especially for the feminine traits. Three questions regarding our findings seem especially relevant:

1. Do the sex differences and age differences in self-perceptions reflect sex differences and developmental changes in actual behavior? Some of the sex differences we found have been investigated in observational studies (Whiting & Edwards, 1973; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Block, 1976). Where these same behaviors have been studied, sex differences sometimes have been found. Our finding regarding boys decreasing across age in self-ascription on the trait

Storms' perspective, which is based on Kohlberg's (1966) theory, asserts that sex-role identity, which is established early in life, mediates the influence of sex-role stereotypes on the development of sex-role attributes by affecting desire to be like various specific and abstract role models. Storms (1979), however, found that the influence of sex-role identity was limited to same-sex-typed attributes and stated that it was because of this limitation that the orthogonality of masculine and feminine attributes and the development of androgynous orientations in some individuals was possible.

Sex-Role Stereotyl~es and Attributions 1219

nurturance and on the feminine composite is compatible with other findings concerning avoidance and even memory of sex-inappropriate activities as well as differential socialization of such behavior (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Brad- bard & Endsley~ 1983; Hartup & Moore, 1963).

2. Why do most of the findings involve feminine (rather than masculine as well as feminine) traits? The literature on the degree of engaging in cross-sex activities is again relevant. Since theories and past studies often indicate that girls more readily than boys engage in cross-sex activities, it might be expected that sex differences in our data would be attenuated for the masculine traits.

3. When do sex roles affect perceptions? We found that in children's self-perceptions and peer nominations, sex-role stereotyping (as we have defined it) was not readily apparent. However, when children in our pilot study were asked whether a trait was "for boys" or "for girls," there was considerable sex-typing in line with the larger society's stereotype. In comparing the sex- typing procedure with the peer nomination procedure, it may be seen that in the former, knowledge of the stereotypes was tested; in the latter, use of the stereotypes was tested. Also, in the sex-typing procedure, sex roles were made salient for the child via the procedure; in the peer nomination procedure, we deliberately avoided making sex roles salient.

It is high?.y probable that the children who made the self-ratings and peer nominations could have stated, with accuracy comparable to that of our pilot sample, which traits generally were exhibited by boys and which by girls. Thus, the low degree of concordance with the stereotypes in both the self- ratings and the peer nominations probably was not due to lack of knowledge of the stereotypes, but to failure to use the stereotypes and/or lack of saliency of sex roles. Atthough lack of saliency of sex roles may result in failure to use stereotypes, for conceptual purposes the two should be distinguished. One might define the failure to use stereotypes as the purposeful disregard of the stereotypes (e.g., the person believes the stereotypes are highly inaccurate and tries to avoid being influenced by them). Degree of saliency of sex roles might be viewed as the degree to which sex roles organize one's perceptions. It could be speculated that both factors were operating in the present study, but lack of saliency of sex roles was the more commonly operating factor. Particularly when dealing with personality traits (as opposed to toy, activity, and occupa- tional choices), :~ex-role stereotypes generally are not spontaneously employed by children making judgments about themselves or others, unless the task makes sex roles salient.

In addition to assessing behaviors which may be exhibited in a variety of situations, our use of personality traits sampled the degree to which children use stereotypes in situations requiring elements of abstract thinking. It seems probable that sex-role distinctions are less likely to be made on an abstraction such as a personality trait than on a concrete entity such as a favorite toy. We also


should add, however, that results in line with the stereotypes might have been somewhat attenuated by the use of an upper-middle class sample (Hall & Keith, 1964; Rabban, 1950).

As an additional consideration, let us reflect on the fact that there was very little clustering of variables in the self-ratings. Not only were the masculine traits independent of the feminine traits but within-sex-role traits also were relatively independent of each other. Furthermore, although we used gentleness and nurturance for our femininity composite, we wish to acknowledge that labeling a few traits as femininity may be misleading. When speaking of masculinity, femininity, or androgyny, one perhaps need be highly specific about the behaviors and situations to which one is referring. Assuming that one finds variables to represent masculinity and femininity, it seems that the individuals chosen as androgynous based on one set of masculine and feminine traits would not necessarily be the same individuals based on a second set (see also Locksley & Colten, 1979; Spence & Helmreich, 1979; Bem, 1979).

It can be acknowledged that when told to do so, children can accurately report the content of stereotypes and use them "appropriately." When not cued in by task or instructional set, however, they may or may not use stereotypes to organize their information processing. The present tasks seem to be instances when most of the children did not spontaneously use or reflect sex- role stereotypes. Since we were unable to form a masculine composite, our goal of the characterization of androgynous children was impossible. However, lack of saliency of sex roles may be as "liberated" a phenomenon as is androgyny; and for some individuals, these outcome variables may reflect the same underlying processes.

There probably are various ways in which sex roles may be made salient. One way is to explicitly provide the sex-role distinction (as we did in our pilot study). Another way is to use environmental situations that trigger societally stereotyped associations (e.g., asking children to make judgments following a competitive sports event). Investigators need to know how children are cued into stereotypical thinking. For example, how powerful must the cues be, and what makes children susceptible or resistant to them?

Recent discussion of androgyny research has focused on these and related issues. Bem (1979) has also suggested that gender may serve as a cognitive schema and that sex-typed and androgynous individuals are expected to differ in this regard. Perceptual salience and cognitive availability thus become integral to understanding androgyny. A contrasting position is taken by Locksley and Colten (1979), who criticize the logic and conceptualization of psychological androgyny research. They suggest that in our society sex is a structural feature of situations and life experiences; and since situations involve different con- tingencies and behavioral norms for males and females, the use of the con- struct adaptability in androgyny research becomes contradictory. Locksley and


Colten (1979) also add that numerous nonsex-related at t r ibutes covary wi th

mascul ini ty and feminini ty (e.g., self-esteem), and researchers need to fur ther

examine the validity o f their approaches in the examina t ion o f sex ident i ty .

The instructiveness o f bo th o f these arguments suggests one final, a l though

of ten repeated, no te : Our understanding of sex roles would prof i t by a broad

perspective approach which takes into account the mul t ip l ic i ty o f factors that

cont r ibute to what we label as sex-role behavior.

R E F E R E N C E S

Bern, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,31, 634-643.

Bem, S. L. Theoiy and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 32, !047-1054.

Block, J. H. Issues, problems and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of The Psychology of Sex Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1976, 22, 283-308.

Bradbard, M. R., & Endsley, R. C. The effects of sex-typed labeling on preschool children's information-seeking and retention. Sex Roles, 1983, 9, 247-260.

Bryan, J. W., & Luria, Z. Sex role learning: A test of the selective attention hypothesis. Child Development, 1978, 49, 13-23.

Coie, J. D., & Pennington, B. F. Children's perceptions of deviance and disorder. ChiM Development, 1976,47, 407-413.

Constantinople, A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 389-407.

Edelbrock, C., & Sugawara, A. I. Acquisition of sex-typed preferences in preschool-aged children. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 614-623.

Hall, M., & Kei~h, R. A. Sex role preference among children of upper and lower social class. Journal of Social Psychology, t964, 62, 101-110.

Hartup, W. Peer interaction and social organization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmiehael's manual of child psychology ~'ol. 2). New York: Wiley, 1970.

Hartup, W. W., & Moore, S. G. Avoidance of inappropriate sex-typing by young children. Journal of Consulting Psychotogy, 1963, 27, 467-473.

Jacklin, C. N., &, Maccoby, E. E. Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 1978, 49, 557-569.

Kagan, J. Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage, 1964.

Kinsell-Rainey, L. W. Working with the BSRI: New populations and new views on androgyny. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 1976.

Kohlberg, L. A. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.

Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.

Locksley, A., & Colten, M. E. Psychological androgyny: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1017-1031.


Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974.

Meyer, J. W., & Sobieszek, B. L Effect of a child's sex on adult interpretations of its behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 42-48.

Mischel, W. Sex-typing and socialization. In H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley, 1970.

Parsons, T. Family structure and the socialization of the child. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family socialization and the interaction process. Glencoe, IlL: Free Press, t955.

Rabban, M. Sex role identification in young children in two diverse social groups. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1950, 42, 81-158.

Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. S. Development of gender constancy and selective attention to same-sex models. Child Developmen t, 1975,46, 849-856.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. The many faces of androgyny: A reply to Locksley and Colten. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1032-1046.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29-39.

Storms, M. D. Sex role identity and its relationships to sex role attributes and sex role stereotypes. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1779-1789.

Thompson, S. K. Gender labels and early sex role development. Child Development, 1975, 46, 339-347.

Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged three through eleven. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 91, 171- 188.

Williams, J. E., Bennett, S. M., & Best, D. L. Awareness and expression of sex stereotypes in young children. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11,635-642.

the influence of sex-role stereotypes on children's self- and peer-attributions

Documents