Content uploaded by Kristina M Zosuls
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristina M Zosuls on May 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accessibility of Gender Stereotype Domains: Developmental and
Gender Differences in Children
Cindy Faith Miller, Leah E. Lurye, Kristina M. Zosuls, and Diane N. Ruble
New York University, New York, NY, USA
Abstract
The present research examined developmental and gender differences in the relative accessibility of
different gender stereotype domains. A 1988 Northeastern US sample of 256 children ages 3 to 10
years old provided open-ended descriptions of girls and boys. Responses were coded by domain to
examine differences by grade, gender of participant, and gender of target. Analyses revealed that
girls and older children provided a higher proportion of stereotypes, and that appearance stereotypes
were particularly prevalent in descriptions of girls and activity/trait stereotypes were more prevalent
in descriptions of boys. Results are discussed in terms of implications for research on the stereotype
knowledge–behavior link and the need for more attention to the role of appearance stereotypes in
the gender stereotype literature.
Keywords
Stereotype domains; Gender stereotypes; Stereotype accessibility; Gender differences
Introduction
From birth, children are surrounded by information that communicates the beliefs and
behaviors that are considered appropriate for each gender group. It is, therefore, not surprising
that they amass a fair amount of gender stereotype knowledge early in life (see Martin et al.
2002 for a review). In fact, recent research suggests that even before 30 months of age, some
children understand concrete gender stereotypes, such as toys associated with girls and boys
(e.g., dolls and cars; Ruble et al. 2006). Further, studies have documented that stereotype
knowledge of activities and occupations increases rapidly between 3 and 5 years (see Ruble et
al. 2006 for a review). Taken together, the typical 5 year old child knows a range of gender
stereotypes and tends to endorse these stereotypes in a rigid and absolute manner until about
7 years of age (e.g., Ruble et al. 2006; Trautner et al. 2005).
Our understanding of the developmental course of gender stereotype knowledge is generally
drawn from studies that have asked children to verbally match or sort pictures of items into
gender categories (see Ruble and Martin 1998 and Signorella et al. 1993 for reviews). In these
studies, children who successfully match a stereotyped item (e.g., doll) with the associated
gender category (e.g., girl) are considered knowledgeable of the stereotype. This research
suggests that gender stereotypes are comprised of multiple domains and that children learn
stereotypes within certain domains (e.g., activities and toys) before mastering stereotypes
within other domains (e.g., traits).
© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USA, e-mail: E-mail: cfm208@nyu.edu.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
Published in final edited form as:
Sex Roles. 2009 June ; 60(11-12): 870–881. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9584-x.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Traditionally, early gender stereotype measures for children generally included only one
domain in their list of items. For instance, the Sex Stereotype Measure (Williams et al. 1975)
assesses children’s knowledge of trait gender stereotypes (e.g., gentle, aggressive), whereas
the Sex Role Learning Inventory (SERLI; Edelbrock and Sugawara 1978) includes only object
and activity items (e.g., baby bottles, hammers). Despite their initial popularity, the results
derived from these measures provide a very limited understanding of children’s knowledge of
stereotypes. For instance, a researcher might conclude that preschoolers have poor knowledge
based on the Sex Stereotype Measure, but well-developed knowledge based on the SERLI.
Therefore, measures that contain multiple stereotype domains are essential for achieving a
better understanding of which stereotypes are prominent in children’s conceptions of girls and
boys at different ages.
More recently, researchers have recognized the importance of assessing multiple domains (e.g.,
clothing, activities, occupations, traits) when studying the development of gender constructs
(e.g., Campbell et al. 2002; Etaugh and Liss 1992; Liben and Bigler 2002; Martin et al.
1990). This approach advances earlier measures by allowing researchers to examine domain-
specific trends and comparisons within the same study. For instance, multi-domain measures
make it possible for researchers to examine if knowledge in one domain is associated with
knowledge in another domain and if gender and cultural differences are domain-specific.
Moreover, researchers can now reliably explore if knowledge within certain domains (e.g.,
activity and toys) predicts children’s behaviors in those domains (e.g., toy preferences). These
types of domain-specific analyses are essential for a comprehensive and accurate picture of
gender development.
Yet, what is still missing from this domain-focused research is an understanding of how
children spontaneously represent gender and which stereotype domains figure most
prominently in their gender concepts. Namely, previous measures have relied on experimenter-
provided domains to assess children’s knowledge of gender stereotypes. While this approach
assesses children’s developing knowledge of particular domains, this research has not explored
whether certain domains are more important to children than other domains and if this depends
on age, gender, or context. For instance, results from some studies examining reactions to
gender deviance show that children consider violations of gender appearance to be especially
serious, particularly for boys (Blakemore 2003; Smetana 1986; Stoddart and Turiel 1985). This
implies that although children may know many different gender stereotypes, stereotypes within
certain domains may be more influential than others. Although this differential impact of
gender stereotype domains may occur for a variety of reasons, one possible explanation
concerns the extent to which certain stereotype domains are not only available, but easily
activated, in memory.
The purpose of the present research was to assess which stereotype domains come to mind
most readily when children are asked to think about gender. Unlike close-ended methods
previously used to measure children’s gender stereotype knowledge, the present study used
open-ended questions to ask children what they know about girls and boys. We measured
gender stereotype knowledge in this way for two reasons. First, this method allowed us to
examine gender stereotype knowledge as a multidimensional construct (Eckes and Trautner
2000; Huston 1983; Miller et al. 2006; Ruble et al. 2006). That is, by grouping open-ended
responses by domains (e.g., activities/toys, appearance, traits), we were able to explore whether
different stereotype domains contribute to children’s concepts of girls and boys and examine
the potential for gender and developmental differences in stereotype domains. Second, this
methodology allowed us to examine target differences in the stereotype domains most easily
brought to mind, or activated, when children think about gender.
Miller et al. Page 2
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
This idea of stereotype activation, as distinct from stereotype knowledge, is consistent with
theories in social psychology that distinguish between the availability and accessibility of
constructs in memory. Availability refers to whether or not a construct is stored or present in
memory, while accessibility is defined as the readiness with which it is retrieved (Higgins
1996; Higgins and King 1981; Higgins and Wells 1986). Thus, having knowledge of gender
stereotypes within a certain domain is distinct from the likelihood that it will be retrieved from
memory. This distinction is hardly trivial as construct accessibility has been found to influence
social judgments and behaviors (Fazio 1990; Higgins 1996).
In previous research, the distinction between availability and accessibility has been linked to
the difference between cued recall and free recall (Higgins 1996; Higgins and Bargh 1987;
Tulving and Pearlstone 1966). According to this view, available information can be retrieved
under cued recall conditions, but not necessarily free recall conditions unless the information
is also accessible. This distinction is analogous to the difference between the methodology
used in the present study and previous measures used to assess gender stereotype knowledge.
Earlier work has focused on whether children have knowledge available in memory through
cued recall measures (e.g., “Which child likes the doll?”) whereas the present study used a free
recall procedure to elicit the domains that are most accessible in children’s available knowledge
(e.g., “Tell me what you know about girls?”). In fact, we measured accessibility using two
different free recall methods based on procedures used with adults (Higgins and Brendl
1995; Higgins et al. 1982).
To the best of our knowledge, no study to date has examined accessibility differences of gender
stereotype domains in young children. While studies examining children’s emerging gender
stereotypes are abundant, they often overlook the possibility that different stereotype domains
may be differentially accessible and, instead, primarily rely on children’s responses to
experimenter provided options. This approach, although ubiquitous, provides only a limited
understanding of how children think about gender. Therefore, it remains unclear to what extent
children’s responses to standard gender stereotype knowledge measures reflect the structure
of their spontaneous representations of gender. Research with adults shows that gender
stereotypes consist of multiple domains (e.g., traits, appearance, occupations, and role
behaviors) that function relatively independently of each other and vary in the strength of their
influence on social judgments (Deaux and Lewis 1984; Six and Eckes 1991). Children’s gender
concepts may be similarly differentiated in structure, which could have important implications
for how we understand gender stereotype development in children.
For instance, it has been widely assumed among developmental researchers that boys have
more stereotypical preferences than girls. The evidence for this conclusion is based on research
using preference measures that rely heavily on stereotypes about toys, objects, and activities
(Ruble and Martin 1998). However, the conclusion that boys show stronger stereotypical
preferences than girls may be misleading because children’s conceptions of boys may be
structured such that activities and toys are particularly important. Therefore, boys may endorse
stronger gender stereotypical preferences than girls, but only in the domain of activities and
toys. Consistent with this idea, emerging evidence suggests that many girls gravitate toward
pink, frilly dresses at a very young age (Ruble et al. 2007). Thus, it remains plausible that girls
may show stronger gendered-typed preferences than boys in other domains (e.g., appearance).
Differences in the accessibility of gender stereotype domains may also have important
implications for a debate surrounding gender schema theory, which emphasizes the influential
role of gender stereotype knowledge on behavior (Martin et al. 2002). Questions have been
raised regarding the validity of gender schema theory (Bussey and Bandura 1999; Bandura and
Bussey 2004) because evidence supporting the stereotype knowledge–behavior link has been
mixed (Miller et al. 2006). However, very few studies have addressed this issue with a high
Miller et al. Page 3
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
degree of specificity. Such specificity is necessary when investigating the relationship between
children’s knowledge of stereotype domains and the likelihood that they will engage in the
particular behaviors within those domains (Martin et al. 2002).
Present Study
The goal of the present study was to examine which gender stereotype domains emerged from
children’s descriptions of girls and boys and to assess differences in the accessibility of various
domains. Children’s accessible stereotypes were elicited by asking 3 to 10 year olds to provide
open-ended descriptions of girls and boys. As described earlier, children begin to demonstrate
knowledge of gender stereotypes by about age 3 and show a dramatic increase in the number
and range of stereotypes that they learn throughout elementary school (Ruble et al. 2006). Thus,
the age groups targeted in the present study, which ranged from pre-schoolers to fifth graders,
were ideal for examining developmental differences in the accessibility of children’s gender
stereotype domains. Moreover, theoretical predictions have proposed that children think
differently about same-gender and opposite-gender targets. In particular, gender schema theory
posits that children are motivated to seek out, attend to, and remember more same-gender
compared to opposite-gender information (Bem 1981; Martin and Halverson 1981). Gender
was, therefore, included as a participant and target variable in the present design to examine
this prediction as well as to explore potential domain differences when children spoke about
girls compared to boys.
Research Questions
Gender stereotype domains—The present study was specifically designed to investigate
three research questions regarding the domains of children’s stereotypes: (1) Are there domain
differences in the stereotypes children use when describing girl versus boy targets (e.g., is
appearance used more frequently when describing girls than when describing boys)? (2) Are
there gender differences in the use of certain stereotype domains when children describe girls
and boys? (e.g., do girls use more appearance stereotypes than boys?) (3) Are there age
differences in the use of certain stereotype domains when children describe girls and boys (e.g.,
do older children use trait stereotypes more than younger children when describing girls and
boys)? Given the paucity of research in this area, we did not develop specific predictions for
the first two questions addressing differences in stereotype domain based on target gender and
participant gender. However, for the third question, we expected that older children would have
a higher frequency of trait stereotypes in their statements compared to younger children. This
hypothesis was based on research on the development of children’s categorization schemes,
which shows that children progress from using concrete attributes (e.g., appearance, activity)
to traits and internal motivations (e.g., sensitive, affectionate) to describe targets (Livesly and
Bromley 1973; Rholes et al. 1990; Ruble and Dweck 1995).
Quantity of gender stereotypes—While the primary goal of the present study was to
examine stereotype domain differences in children’s statements, our data also allowed us to
explore some secondary predictions about the number of stereotypes that were included in
children’s statements. In particular, we examined differences in the quantity of stereotypes,
regardless of domain, that children produced as a function of target gender, participant gender,
and age. Analyses were conducted to test three predictions: (1) Consistent with gender schema
theories (Bem 1981;Martin and Halverson 1981), we expected that children’s same-gender
descriptions would contain a higher proportion of gender stereotypes compared to other-gender
descriptions. (2) Based on research suggesting that girls possess more stereotype knowledge
than boys (Signorella et al. 1993;O’Brien et al. 2000;Serbin et al. 2001, experiment 2), we
expected that girls’ statements would contain a greater number of gender stereotypes compared
to boys. (3) Given that older children generally have knowledge of a greater number of
Miller et al. Page 4
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
stereotypes (Ruble et al. 2006), we predicted that the statements provided by older children
would contain more gender stereotypes compared to those of younger children.
Method
Participants
A total of 256 predominantly White, middle-class children from suburban public schools in
the Northeastern US participated in this study. The sample included 69 pre-schoolers (M=4.17
years), 31 kindergarteners (M= 5.33 years), 87 first graders (M=6.34 years), and 69 fourth and
fifth graders (M=9.82 years). There were approximately equal numbers of girls and boys in
each group.
Interviewing Procedure
The present research was part of a larger 3-year longitudinal study on children’s cognitive,
social, and gender development conducted from 1988 to 1991. The present analyses focus on
children’s responses to an open-ended gender knowledge measure we term the Gender
Accessibility Measure (GAM) administered in the first year of the study. Children were
interviewed outside of their classrooms by female interviewers and given a small prize at the
end of each session.
Measure
The GAM includes two open-ended questions that ask participants to name qualities girls and
boys possess. The first question states, “I bet you know a lot about girls. Tell me what you
know about girls. Describe them.” The second question states, “You probably know a lot about
boys. Tell me about boys. Describe them.” The order of the questions was held constant for
all children. The interviewers recorded children’s responses verbatim.
Coding Procedure and Reliability
Prior research on gender stereotype domains guided the development of the coding scheme
that was used to categorize children’s responses. For instance, the gender development matrix
based initially on Huston (1983) and subsequently expanded by Ruble et al. (2006) contains
the following content domains: biological/categorical sex, activities/toys, personal/social
attributes, social relationships, styles/symbols, and values. Further, the gender attitude measure
developed by Liben and Bigler (2002) includes three separate domains: occupations, activities,
and traits, and research conducted with adults (Deaux and Lewis 1984) has provided evidence
for four gender stereotype components: traits, role behaviors, occupations, and physical
appearance. While the domains documented in prior research served as a guide, we adjusted
our domain categories on the basis of frequency of use to ensure that our coding system reliably
captured the content of children’s statements. In particular, some domain categories were
excluded from our coding scheme because they were not represented in children’s statements
(e.g., values).
For the present study, children’s responses were coded into general categories based on their
stereotyped nature and into sub-categories based on their domains. The broad categories were:
feminine stereotypes, masculine stereotypes, neutral responses (e.g., “they wear clothes”), and
other category responses (i.e., “don’t know” and ambiguous/questionable responses). The
seven domain sub-categories used to code children’s statements were: activities and toys (e.g.,
“boys play with trucks”), appearance (e.g., “girls wear dresses”), interpersonal (e.g., “girls
whisper to each other”), occupation (e.g., “boys grow up to be firefighters”), biological
characteristics (e.g., “boys are tall”), social roles (e.g., “girls do the dishes”), and traits (e.g.,
“girls are sensitive”, “boys are mean”). Each response statement was coded into one of these
Miller et al. Page 5
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
categories. However, if consecutive statements reflected one idea, such responses were coded
as one statement (e.g., “girls wear dresses and skirts” was coded as one feminine, appearance
response).
Two independent raters, who were unaware of the gender and age of the participants, coded
20% of the total responses Due to the high inter-rater reliability (kappa=.86), one of the raters
coded the remainder of the responses individually and consulted with the second rater on
ambiguous responses.
Stereotype Variables
First Responses—We first explored differences in the domain categories that were most
accessible for children when they first spoke about girls and boys. These differences in domain
accessibility were examined by analyzing the first responses that children provided for each
question.
Proportional Analyses—In addition to examining first responses, we were also interested
in assessing domain differences in the complete content of children’s responses. To adjust for
differences in the number of statements participants provided for each question, proportions
were calculated based on the number of stereotyped responses to the total number of statements
provided (including “don’t know” and ambiguous responses). In all analyses, proportions were
based on the number of stereotyped responses that matched the cultural stereotypes for the
target’s gender (i.e., feminine stereotypes for girls; masculine stereotypes for boys). Within
the feminine and masculine stereotyped categories, variables were also created based on
proportions for each of the seven domain categories. These domain-specific proportions were
calculated by dividing the number of stereotyped responses for a given domain divided by the
total number of statements.
Results
Gender Stereotype Domains
The mean number of domain-specific stereotypes by participant gender and grade is outlined
in Table 1. Given the low frequency of interpersonal, occupational, social role, and biological
stereotypes in participants’ responses (combined, these domains constituted 2% of responses
on average), these domains were excluded from these analyses. Thus, the domain-specific
analyses were limited to the following three domains: activity/toy, appearance, and traits. As
described earlier, we used two different free recall methods to assess our three research
questions concerning the accessibility of children’s gender stereotype domains. The results
based on children’s first responses are presented in the next section, followed by the results
based on the complete content of children’s responses. Within both sections, the results relevant
to research question 1 are presented first, followed by the results relevant to research questions
2 and 3. All analyses were performed on arcsine transformations of the proportions and pairwise
comparisons were conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.
First Responses
Target gender (research question 1): The results revealed that the most frequent response
domain for the female target was appearance (31%), followed by traits (19%) and activities
(14%). In contrast, the most frequent responses for the male target concerned traits (27%),
followed by activities (19%) and appearance (13%). Overall, these percentages suggested
domain differences in the most accessible stereotypes that children provided for girls versus
boys, with a very notable difference for use of the appearance domain when describing females
versus males.
Miller et al. Page 6
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Participant characteristics (research questions 2 and 3): Two-way multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to determine if there were age and gender differences
in using appearance, activity, and trait stereotypes when first describing females and males.
The analyses for the female and male targets were conducted separately. The three dependent
variables for each analysis were the proportion of appearance, activity, and trait stereotypes
that were contained in the first responses. When describing females, there were no significant
gender differences. However, significant grade differences emerged, F(9, 598)=3.40, p<.001.
Follow-up analyses revealed that there were grade differences in the use of trait stereotypes,
as expected. In particular, the first responses of first graders (p<.05) and fourth and fifth graders
(p<.01) contained more trait stereotypes when compared to the first responses provided by
preschoolers. In addition, there was a marginally significant grade difference in the use of
appearance stereotypes. Namely, fourth and fifth graders provided more initial appearance
responses when compared to kindergarteners (p=.057).
When describing males, a significant main effect for grade was found, F(9, 598)=3.03, p<.01,
but not gender. However, the main effect for grade was qualified by a significant grade by
gender interaction, F(9, 598)=1.99, p<.05. Follow-up analyses revealed that the first responses
of fourth and fifth grade boys contained more trait stereotypes than the preschool (p<.001),
kindergarten (p<.01), and first grade (p<.001) boys, as expected. Interestingly, however, for
girls, the analyses showed that the first responses of preschool girls contained more appearance
stereotypes when compared to the first grade girls (p<.01).
Proportional Analyses—The proportional data were analyzed using mixed design analyses
of variance (ANOVAs). The first set of proportional analyses was conducted to explore our
three main research questions concerning gender and grade differences in the stereotype
domains contained in children’s responses. Thus, a 2 (gender) × 4 (grade) × 3 (domain: activity,
appearance, and trait) × 2 (gender of target: female or male) mixed design ANOVA was
performed with gender and grade as between-subjects factors and domain and gender of target
as within-subjects factors (see Table 2 for percentages of the three domain-specific
stereotypes). Similar to the presentation of the first response results, these analyses are divided
into two sections. The first section addresses our first question concerning domain-specific
interactions involving descriptions of girl versus boy targets. The second section focuses on
our second two questions concerning domain-specific interactions with participant gender and
grade.
Target gender (research question 1): A significant interaction between domain and gender
of target was found, supporting the idea that certain domain-specific stereotypes may be more
accessible for female versus male targets, F(2, 496)=33.92, p<.001. Consistent with the
findings supported above for first responses, tests of simple effects revealed that, relative to
appearance stereotypes, children’s statements included more activity (e.g., likes sports) and
trait (e.g., plays rough) stereotypes when describing boys (p <.001 for both comparisons). There
were no other interactions for boy targets, which suggest that this finding was consistent across
gender and grade. For girl targets, children’s statements contained more appearance stereotypes
compared to activity (p<.001) and trait (p<.01) stereotypes (see Table 2), which was also
consistent with the first response findings. However, the appearance effect for girl targets was
qualified by a significant three-way interaction between domain, gender of target and gender
of participant, F(2, 496)=3.04, p<.05. Tests of simple effects revealed that while both girls and
boys provided significantly more appearance stereotypes (e.g., pretty, having long hair,
wearing a dress, jewelry, and make-up) when asked about girls, this effect was stronger for
girl participants, F(1, 248)=9.08, p<.01. Results also indicated a significant three-way
interaction involving domain, gender of target, and grade of participant, F(6, 496)=2.33, p<.
05, with pairwise comparisons indicating that, when describing girls, fourth and fifth graders
used more appearance stereotypes than kindergarteners (p<.01). Indeed, it seems extraordinary
Miller et al. Page 7
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
that, on average, half of the statements of any kind made by fourth and fifth grade girls about
girls referred in some way to appearance (see Table 2). Despite this emphasis on appearance
stereotypes for girls, it is noteworthy that one trait and one activity were frequently used to
describe girls: “Girls are nice” and “Girls play with dolls”, suggesting that some particular
stereotypes, regardless of domain, may be especially accessible (see Table 3 for a description
of the most frequent responses by participant’s gender, grade, and target’s gender).
Participant characteristics (research questions 2 and 3): The results examining gender and
age differences in overall domain use revealed a marginally significant domain by gender
interaction effect, F(2, 496)=2.55, p=.079. However, tests of simple effects indicated that
gender differences in stereotype domains were limited to appearance, F(1, 248)=5.93, p<.05,
suggesting that these stereotypes were more cognitively accessible for girls than for boys (see
Table 2).
A significant interaction was also found between domain and grade, F(6, 496)=5.67, p<.001,
with simple effects analyses showing significant age differences in the proportion of trait, F
(3, 248)=13.80, p<.001, activity, F(3, 248)=2.86, p<.05, and appearance, F(3, 248)=3.05, p<.
05, stereotypes. As expected, these age trends were generally consistent with the developmental
literature on person perception, showing less use of internal characteristics (e.g., traits) among
younger children. However, our findings also suggest that older children still consider concrete
attributes (e.g., appearance) important (Rholes et al. 1990). More specifically, preschoolers
(p<.001), kindergarteners (p<.05), and first graders (p<.01) reported fewer trait stereotypes
compared to fourth and fifth graders. These results are consistent with the grade differences in
use of traits found in children’s first responses. In addition, kindergarteners named significantly
more Activity stereotypes than fourth and fifth graders (p<.01). Nevertheless, appearance
stereotypes comprised a significantly greater proportion of fourth and fifth graders’
descriptions relative to kindergarteners’ descriptions (p<.01).
Quantity of Gender Stereotypes—Analyses were also conducted to investigate our three
secondary questions involving gender and age differences in the quantity of stereotyped
statements provided regardless of domain, and whether this differed for same- versus other-
gender targets. These questions were explored with a 2 (gender) × 4 (grade) × 2 (gender-match:
same-gender or other-gender) mixed design ANOVA with gender and grade as between-
subjects factors and gender-match of the target as the within-subjects factor (see Table 4 for
the mean overall stereotype percentages by participant gender, grade, and target’s gender). In
contrast to prediction 1, within-subjects tests failed to reveal any significant main effects or
interactions, indicating that across grade and gender, participants did not differ in the number
of stereotypes they used when describing same- versus other-gender targets. However, our
hypotheses 2 and 3, concerning gender and age differences, were supported. Tests of between-
subjects effects revealed significant main effects for gender, F(1, 248)=7.14, p<.01, and grade,
F(3, 248)= 5.84, p<.01, such that the statements provided by girls (girls 71%, boys 61%) and
older children contained a significantly higher proportion of gender stereotypes. Post hoc tests
revealed that fourth and fifth graders (75%) generated a significantly higher proportion of
gender stereotypes compared to preschoolers (55%), p<.01. No other significant interactions
emerged, indicating that at every grade girls’ statements contained more gender stereotypes
than boys.
Discussion
This examination of children’s open-ended descriptions of girls and boys suggests that certain
gender stereotypes are differentially accessible when children think about boys and girls. These
findings have both theoretical and practical implications.
Miller et al. Page 8
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Approximately one-third of responses used to describe girls consisted of stereotypes from a
domain that is given surprisingly little attention in the literature—appearance. At all ages,
except for a slight deviation at kindergarten, Appearance stereotypes such as pretty, having
long hair, wearing dresses, jewelry, and make-up, came to mind most readily when children
described girls. In contrast, activity (e.g., liking sports) and trait (e.g., fighting, playing rough)
stereotypes were more prevalent in descriptions of boys. Although the accessibility of
appearance stereotypes for girls may seem to contradict research showing that children respond
more harshly to boys who violate gender appearance norms (e.g., Smetana 1986; Blakemore
2003), we believe that our results help explain this phenomenon. Specifically, if girls are
defined by appearance, then a boy who looks like a girl may be perceived as more like a girl
than a boy who engages in or possesses female stereotyped activities and traits. Thus, boys
might incur more severe social sanctions from peers if they possess feminine appearance
attributes because these are considered more central to the definition of a girl.
The present results are also consistent with research demonstrating relations between physical
appearance and status for girls (Graham et al. 1998) and attractiveness and femininity in
children with gender identity disorder (Fridell et al. 1996; McDermid et al. 1998; Zucker et al.
1993). For instance, college students rated boys with gender identity disorder as more attractive
(Zucker et al. 1993) and girls with gender identity disorder as less attractive (Fridell et al.
1996) compared to the ratings for the same-gender control groups. The results of these studies
suggest that attractiveness is positively associated with femininity regardless of the target’s
gender. Further, the domain distinctions made in the present study are also consistent with the
results from a recent study on parent–child narratives with Latino families. In particular,
conversations with sons more often revolved around “action-based” activities, while
conversations with daughters more often included mention of physical appearance (Cristofaro
and Tamis-LeMonda 2008).
Despite the proclivity for children to describe girls in terms of what they look like and boys in
terms of what they do, researchers investigating the influence of gender stereotypes on
children’s preferences and behaviors have not incorporated this distinction. Although research
has shown that appearance is an important gender cue (e.g., Thompson 1975) and that children
are able to make predictions about appearance from other stereotyped content domains (and
vice versa; Bauer et al. 1998; Martin et al. 1990), investigators have given little consideration
to appearance as an important stereotype domain. This idea has been echoed in the adult gender
stereotyping literature by Deaux and Lewis (1984), who found that information about
appearance was far more influential than gender labels on judgments of traits, social roles, and
occupations.
These results also suggest that researchers need to be cognizant of the possibility that children
may not consider all stereotype domains equally when making choices or evaluating female
and male targets. In fact, it is possible that previous failures to find a relation between children’s
stereotype knowledge and preferences may be partly due to the inability of experimenter-
provided stereotypes to account for individual differences in the accessibility of certain gender
stereotype domains. Namely, while children might have multiple stereotypes available to them
in memory, a correspondence between stereotype knowledge and behavior might be apparent
only for those stereotype domains that are most accessible. For example, if the stereotypes
“girls wear skirts” and “girls play with dolls” are both available, but the “girls wear skirts”
stereotype is more accessible, we may be more likely to see a relation between knowledge of
appearance stereotypes and a preference for wearing gender stereotyped clothing than between
knowledge of activity stereotypes and a preference for playing with gender stereotyped toys.
Studies failing to find a relation between gender stereotype knowledge and behavior should be
re-evaluated in light of this possibility.
Miller et al. Page 9
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In addition, our results showing the prevalence of female appearance-related stereotypes in the
descriptions of girls by even the youngest children raise questions about the potential
implications of this finding for girls’ behavioral and adjustment outcomes. Specifically, girls
who deviate from gender appearance stereotypes may incur peer rejection, leaving them
vulnerable to adjustment problems. Further, greater accessibility for appearance stereotypes
may also imply that girls and boys receive consistent messages about the most important
qualities girls should possess very early in development, which may leave girls vulnerable to
psychological distress should their self-esteem become contingent on self-perceived
attractiveness (Nolen-Hoeksema 2001; Ohring et al. 2002; Patrick et al. 2004).
A consideration of the content of stereotypes children viewed as most characteristic of boys
raises similar issues. Specifically, some of the most frequently mentioned trait stereotypes for
male targets included attributes that imply physically aggressive and anti-social behavior (e.g.,
mean, plays rough, fights; see Table 3). This emphasis on aggression may place boys at
significant emotional and physical risks. In addition, the preponderance of activity stereotypes
emphasizing athletics or sports among boys at all ages (with the exception of preschool) is
striking. Such a strong emphasis on athletic ability and roughness may set an unachievable
standard for boys who do not possess these qualities, potentially placing them at risk for poor
adjustment.
Limitations
While our findings raise a number of questions about prior conclusions in the gender
stereotyping literature, there are limitations in the present research that need to be considered
when interpreting the results. First, all of the interviewers who collected the data were female.
Although the gender of the interviewer was intentionally held constant to minimize unintended
effects, it is unclear whether the gender and feminine appearance of the interviewers affected
the stereotypes provided by the children. Second, our results are based on a predominantly
white, middle-class sample from the Northeastern US. Cross-cultural studies with children
reveal both similarities and differences in terms of gender stereotype knowledge (e.g., Albert
and Porter 1986; Ruble et al. 2006; Ward 1985; Williams and Best 1990). Therefore, it is also
possible that the relative emphasis on specific domains might depend on cultural context.
Nonetheless, the general conclusions on the differential accessibility of gender stereotype
domains are still relevant to understanding gender development in children from other cultural
and geographical groups.
Another important limitation is that our interviews were conducted 20 years ago, which raises
concerns about the historical context of the data. In particular, it is possible that the gender
stereotypes provided in our study were contingent on the expectations and portrayal of females
and males in the late 1980s, which potentially have limited relevance to contemporary gender
development. However, it is important to note that, despite some changes in the social structure
affecting gender roles, research continues to document the stability of gender stereotypes
(Lueptow et al. 2001; Ruble 1983). For instance, a review of the literature by Lueptow et al.
(2001) revealed that gender stereotypes have been stable from at least the 1950s to the 1990s.
Further, their own trend study conducted from 1974 to 1997 not only confirmed this finding,
but also revealed a steady increase in the perceived femininity of females. Overall, this finding
is consistent with the stereotypical manner in which males (e.g., aggressive) and females (e.g.,
appearance-focused/sex objects) continue to be portrayed in the media (APA 2007; Dill and
Thill 2007; Kilbourne 2003). For instance, a content analysis of video game magazines revealed
that male characters were more likely to be displayed as aggressive, whereas female characters
were more likely to be displayed as sexualized and scantily clad (Dill and Thill 2007), which
matches the way children described boys and girls in the present study. Taken together, we
Miller et al. Page 10
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
expect that contemporary analyses of children’s open-ended reports of girls and boys would
continue to show strong appearance effects for girls, and activity and trait effects for boys.
Even if there were some changes in the specific nature of stereotypes in the past 20 years, it is
important to emphasize that the present study did not intend to examine the extent to which
stereotypes are endorsed by children or the specific nature and rigidity of these stereotypes.
These features of gender stereotyping (e.g., rigidity, specific content items) may have changed
somewhat since 1988. In contrast, we expect that the domain categories of stereotypes, the
primary focus of the present study, are less likely to have changed over the past 20 years. For
instance, in 1988, a common response was “girls like My Little Pony” whereas today it might
be “girls like American Girl dolls”; in both instances, the statement would be coded as a
feminine, activity stereotype.
Directions for Future Research
Overall, the present study is only a first step toward better understanding the nature of children’s
gender concepts. In addition to children’s open-ended descriptions, researchers should employ
a variety of methods designed to illuminate how children think about boys and girls. Future
studies should investigate the cognitive developments, personal experiences, and situational
factors that may moderate the structure and accessibility of gender representations (e.g.,
Higgins 1996; Higgins and King 1981), making certain gender stereotype domains more
chronically accessible for some groups than others. For example, although the data in this study
did not allow us to make longitudinal comparisons, the significant differences by grade suggest
that the accessibility of certain gender stereotype domains may change as children mature.
Moreover, it is likely that personal experiences would promote individual differences in the
types of stereotype domains that are chronically accessible for children. Further, it is important
to assess the role that situational cues may play in the accessibility of gender stereotypes. For
instance, when children are asked to make explicit comparisons, as they often are in
experiments, stereotyping is more prevalent (Heyman and Legare 2004). Other situational
factors, such as the setting (e.g., school versus laboratory) and characteristics of the people
present (e.g., peers versus adults), are also variables that are likely to affect the accessibility
of children’s stereotype domains.
Future research should also include a more comprehensive analysis of stereotype domains. For
instance, our study was limited in that we only focused on three domains: activity/toy,
appearance, and traits. Although we also included interpersonal, occupation, biological
characteristics, and social roles in our coding scheme, we dropped these domains from our
analyses because they were minimally represented in children’s descriptions. It is possible,
however, that older children and adolescents may have been more likely to use the occupation
and social role domains because they are more relevant to adult behaviors. Similarly, the
younger children who provided occupational, social role, interpersonal, and biological
stereotypes may have been demonstrating a more sophisticated understanding of gender when
compared to children who primarily reported activity and appearance stereotypes. Taken
together, a study that includes a wider age range (e.g., children, adolescents, and adults) may
provide a more thorough understanding of developmental differences in the accessibility of
various stereotype domains.
The results of this study should also prompt future researchers to examine the moderating role
that accessibility may have in the relation between gender stereotypes and behavior. For
instance, do children show a preference for gender-typed activities that are highly accessible
compared to gender-typed activities that are available in memory, but less accessible? Answers
to questions such as this one are important for the advancement of cognitive theories of gender
development.
Miller et al. Page 11
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In conclusion, our results show that children may differ in the accessibility of gender stereotype
domains for males and females. Although considerable research examining children’s gender
stereotype knowledge exists, our results suggest that researchers should not only consider
potential differences in the quantity of gender stereotypes, but also the domains and
accessibility of those stereotypes.
References
Albert AA, Porter JR. Children’s gender stereotypes: A comparison of the United States and South Africa.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1986;17:45–65.
American Psychological Association. Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007. Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls.
Bandura A, Bussey K. On broadening the cognitive, motivational, and sociocultural scope of theorizing
about gender development and functioning: Comment on Martin, Ruble, and Szkrybalo (2002).
Psychological Bulletin 2004;130:691–701. [PubMed: 15367076]
Bauer PJ, Liebl M, Stennes L. Pretty is to dress as brave is to suit coat: Gender-based property-to-property
inferences by 4 1/2-year-old children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1998;44:355–377.
Bem SL. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 1981;88:354–
364.
Blakemore JEO. Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn’t look like girls and girls
shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles 2003;48:411–419.
Bussey K, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological
Review 1999;106:676–713. [PubMed: 10560326]
Campbell A, Shirley L, Caygill L. Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do two-year-olds need
cognitive variables? The British Journal of Psychology 2002;93:203–217.
Cristofaro, TN.; Tamis-Lemonda, CS. Lessons in mother–child and father–child personal narratives in
Latino Families. In: McCabe, A.; Bailey, AL.; Melzi, G., editors. Spanish-language narration and
literacy: Culture, cognition, and emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 55-89.
Deaux K, Lewis LL. Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender
label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984;46:991–1004.
Dill KE, Thill KP. Video game characters and the socialization of gender roles: Young people’s
perceptions mirror sexist media depictions. Sex Roles 2007;57:851–864.
Eckes, T.; Trautner, HM. Developmental social psychology of gender: An integrative framework. In:
Eckes, T.; Trautner, HM., editors. The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah:
Erlbaum; 2000. p. 3-32.
Edelbrock C, Sugawara AI. Acquisition of sex-typed preferences in preschool-aged children.
Developmental Psychology 1978;14:614–623.
Etaugh C, Liss MB. Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult gender roles. Sex Roles
1992;26:129–147.
Fazio RH. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative
framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1990;23:75–109.
Fridell SR, Zucker KJ, Bradley SJ, Maing DM. Physical attractiveness of girls with gender identity
disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1996;25:17–31. [PubMed: 8714426]
Graham S, Taylor AZ, Hudley C. Exploring achievement values among ethnic minority early adolescents.
Journal of Educational Psychology 1998;90:606–620.
Heyman GD, Legare CH. Children’s beliefs about gender differences in the academic and social domains.
Sex Roles 2004;50:227–239.
Higgins, ET. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: Higgins, ET.;
Kruglanski, AW., editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford;
1996. p. 133-168.
Higgins ET, Bargh JA. Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology
1987;38:369–425.
Miller et al. Page 12
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Higgins ET, Brendl M. Accessibility and applicability: Some “activation rules” influencing judgment.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1995;31:218–243.
Higgins, ET.; King, G. Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of
individual and contextual variability. In: Cantor, N.; Kihlstrom, JF., editors. Personality, cognition
and social interaction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1981. p. 69-121.
Higgins ET, Wells RS. Social construct availability and accessibility as a function of social life phase:
Emphasizing the ȁhow” versus the “can” of social cognition. Social Cognition 1986;4:201–226.
Higgins ET, King G, Mavin GH. Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982;43:35–47.
Huston, AC. Sex-typing. In: Mussen, PH., editor. Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4th ed. Vol. Vol.
4. New York: Wiley; 1983. p. 387-467.
Kilbourne, J. Beauty and the beast of advertising. In: Henslin, JM., editor. Down to earth sociology:
Introductory readings. Vol. 12th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
Liben LS, Bigler RS. The developmental course of gender differentiation. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development 2002;67:1–147.
Livesly, WJ.; Bromley, DB. Person perception in childhood and adolescence. London: Wiley; 1973.
Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow M. Social change and the persistence of sex typing 1974–
1997. Social Forces 2001;80:1–35.
Martin CL, Halverson C. A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child
Development 1981;52:1119–1134.
Martin CL, Wood CH, Little JK. The development of gender stereotype components. Child Development
1990;61:1891–1904. [PubMed: 2083503]
Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological
Bulletin 2002;128:903–933. [PubMed: 12405137]
McDermid SA, Zucker KJ, Bradley S, Maing DM. Effects of physical appearance of masculine trait
ratings of boys and girls with gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1998;27:253–
267. [PubMed: 9604115]
Miller, CF.; Trautner, HM.; Ruble, DN. The role of gender stereotypes in children’s preferences and
behavior. In: Tamis-LeMonda, C.; Balter, L., editors. Child psychology: A handbook of
contemporary issues. New York: Psychology Press; 2006.
Nolen-Hoeksema S. Gender differences in depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science
2001;10:173–176.
O’Brien MH, Peyton V, Mistry R, Hruda L, Jacobs A, Caldera Y, et al. Gender-role cognition in 3-year-
old boys and girls. Sex Roles 2000;42:1007–1025.
Ohring R, Graber JA, Brooks-Gunn J. Girls’ recurrent and concurrent body dissatisfaction: Correlates
and consequences over 8 years. International Journal of Eating Disorders 2002;31:404–415.
[PubMed: 11948645]
Patrick H, Neighbors C, Knee CR. Appearance-related social comparisons: The role of contingent self-
perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004;30:501–514.
[PubMed: 15070478]
Rholes, WS.; Newman, LS.; Ruble, DN. Understanding self and other: Developmental and motivational
aspects of perceiving others in terms of invariant dispositions. In: Higgins, ET.; Sorrentino, R.,
editors. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. Vol. Vol. 2. New
York: Guilford; 1990. p. 369-407.
Ruble TL. Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles 1983;9:397–402.
Ruble, DN.; Dweck, C. Self-conceptions, person conceptions, and their development. In: Eisenberg, N.,
editor. Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 15. Social development. Thousand Oaks:
Sage; 1995. p. 109-135.
Ruble, DN.; Martin, C. Gender development. In: Eisenberg, N., editor. Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 3, personality and social development. Vol. 5th ed. New York: Wiley; 1998. p. 933-1016.
Ruble, DN.; Martin, CL.; Berenbaum, S. Gender development. In: Kuhn, D.; Siegler, R., editors.
Handbook of child Sex Roles psychology: Cognition, perception and language. Vol. 6th ed. New
York: Wiley; 2006.
Miller et al. Page 13
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Ruble, DN.; Lurye, LE.; Zosuls, KM. Pink frilly dresses (PFD) and early gender identity. Princeton Report
on Knowledge,2. 2007. http://www.princeton.edu/prok/issues/2-2/pink_frilly.xml
Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Colburne KA, Sen MG, Eichstedt JA. Gender stereotyping in infancy:
Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International
Journal of Behavioral Development 2001;25:7–15.
Signorella ML, Bigler RS, Liben LS. Developmental differences in children’s gender schemata about
others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review 1993;13:147–183.
Six B, Eckes T. A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles 1991;24:57–71.
Smetana JG. Preschool children’s conceptions of sex-role transgressions. Child Development
1986;57:862–871.
Stoddart T, Turiel E. Children’s concepts of cross-gender activities. Child Development 1985;56:1241–
1252.
Thompson SK. Gender labels and early sex-role development. Child Development 1975;46:339–347.
[PubMed: 1183267]
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.
Tulving E, Pearlstone Z. Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1966;5:381–391.
Ward C. Sex trait stereotypes in Malaysian children. Sex Roles 1985;12:35–45.
Williams, JE.; Best, DL. Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1990.
Williams JE, Bennett SM, Best DL. Awareness and expression of sex stereotypes in young children.
Developmental Psychology 1975;11:635–642.
Zucker KJ, Wild J, Bradley S, Lowry CB. Physical attractiveness of boys with gender identity disorder.
Archives of Sexual Behavior 1993;22:23–31. [PubMed: 8435037]
Miller et al. Page 14
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Miller et al. Page 15
Table 1
Mean number of domain-specific stereotypes across both questions by participant gender and grade
Activity/toy Appearance Interpers. Occupation Biological Social roles Traits Combined
Girls
Pre. (n=38) .80 (1.14) 1.58 (1.85) .50 (.86) .08 (.36) .00 (.00) .11 (.31) .61 (1.00) 3.66 (2.86)
K (n=13) 1.70 (1.31) .62 (1.19) .08 (.28) .00 (.00) .08 (.28) .00 (.00) .92 (1.04) 3.38 (1.39)
First (n=39) 1.05 (1.70) 1.49 (1.85) .39 (.71) .03 (.16) .13 (.41) .03 (.16) 1.44 (1.50) 4.54 (2.22)
Fourth/fifth (n=35) .63 (.91) 2.14 (1.91) .26 (.78) .00 (.00) .11 (.40) .11 (.53) 1.66 (1.78) 4.91 (2.16)
Total (n=125) .92 (1.33) 1.60 (1.84) .35 (.75) .03 (.22) .08 (.30) .07 (.34) 1.19 (1.47) 4.26 (2.40)
Boys
Pre. (n=31) 1.45 (1.52) .84 (1.46) .10 (.30) .00 (.00) .06 (.25) .06 (.25) .26 (.51) 2.77 (2.47)
K (n=18) 1.6 (1.65) .72 (1.56) .28 (.83) .00 (.00) .11 (.32) .00 (.00) .50 (.62) 3.22 (2.46)
First (n=48) 1.29 (1.56) 1.04 (1.66) .23 (.63) .10 (.37) .13 (.40) .02 (.14) .90 (1.15) 3.71 (2.19)
Fourth/fifth (n=34) .74 (1.16) 1.00 (1.30) .09 (.29) .00 (.00) .03 (.17) .00 (.00) 1.94 (1.30) 3.80 (1.79)
Total (n=131) 1.23 (1.49) .94 (1.50) .17 (.53) .04 (.23) .08 (.30) .02 (.15) .96 (1.19) 3.44 (2.22)
Standard deviations are presented in parentheses
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Miller et al. Page 16
Table 2
Mean percentages of domain-specific stereotypes by target gender, participant gender, and grade
Percentages for girl targets Percentages for boy targets
Activity/toy Appear. Traits Activity/toy Appear. Traits
Girls
Pre. (n=38) 9 (20) 33 (39) 4 (14) 21 (35) 18 (31) 16 (29)
K (n=13) 20 (31) 17 (28) 29 (38) 43 (36) 3 (9) 23 (44)
First (n=39) 14 (20) 34 (38) 20 (32) 18 (28) 11 (23) 33 (37)
Fourth/fifth (n=35) 6 (18) 49 (35) 17 (26) 18 (32) 15 (28) 34 (35)
Total (n=125) 11 (21) 36 (37) 15 (28) 21 (33) 13 (26) 27 (35)
Boys
Pre. (n=31) 19 (25) 16 (30) 3 (8) 27 (39) 8 (19) 6 (19)
K (n=18) 20 (34) 13 (28) 14 (28) 34 (31) 8 (18) 13 (28)
First (n=48) 15 (26) 23 (32) 17 (28) 33 (36) 9 (21) 15 (23)
Fourth/fifth (n=34) 13 (27) 25 (32) 32 (36) 16 (29) 11 (26) 45 (32)
Total (n=131) 16 (27) 21 (31) 17 (29) 27 (34) 9 (21) 20 (30)
Combined
Pre. (n=69) 13 (23) 25 (36) 3 (11) 24 (36) 14 (26) 12 (25)
K (n=31) 20 (32) 15 (27) 20 (33) 37 (33) 5 (15) 17 (35)
First (n=87) 14 (23) 28 (35) 18 (30) 26 (33) 10 (22) 23 (31)
Fourth/fifth (n=69) 9 (23) 37 (36) 24 (32) 17 (30) 13 (27) 40 (34)
Total (n=256) 13 (24) 28 (35) 16 (28) 24 (34) 11 (24) 24 (33)
Standard deviations are presented in parentheses
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Miller et al. Page 17
Table 3
Most frequent domain-specific responses by participant gender, grade, and target’s gender
Total # of
responses Statements for girl targets Statements for boy targets
Activity/toy Appearance Traits Activity/toy Appearance Traits
Girls
Pre. 102 Dolls/barbies (5) Dresses (13) Nice/sweet (2) Video games (2) Wears pants (5) Fghts/hits (8)
87
K 34 Dolls/barbies (9) Dresses (9) Nice/sweet (15) Basketball (10) Short hair (1) Mean (7)
29
First 120 Dolls/barbies (5) Dresses (11) Nice/sweet (9) Baseball (3) Short hair (5) Fights/hits (10)
104
Fourth/fifth 120 Jump rope (1) Concern w/appearance (12) Nice/sweet (4) Plays/likes sports (9) Short hair (3) Fights/hits (10)
98
Boys
Pre. 71 Dolls/barbies (9) Jewelry (9) Nice/sweet (1) Action figures (4) Wear shorts (4) Play rough (2)
85
K 40 Dolls/barbies (18) Jewelry (13) Nice/sweet (8) Ride bikes (8) Wear boys’
clothes (4) Athletic (2)
48
First 124 Dolls/barbies (9) Long/pretty hair (6) Nice/sweet (12) Baseball; Video
games (4) Short hair (4) Play rough (4)
137
Fourth/fifth 87 Dolls/barbies (2) Long/pretty hair (8) Nice/sweet (10) Plays/likes sports (5) Short hair (5) Athletic (8)
84
The total number of responses when asked about girl targets is presented first, followed by the total number of responses provided when asked about boy targets. The percentage of total responses that
included the statement is presented in parentheses
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Miller et al. Page 18
Table 4
Mean percentages of overall stereotypes by participant gender, grade, and target’s gender.
Percentages
for girl
targets
Percentages
for boy
targets
Percentages
for targets
combined
MSD MSD MSD
Girls
Pre. (n=38) 55 42 71 41 63 37
K (n=13) 71 35 69 32 70 24
First (n=39) 73 32 76 28 74 20
Fourth/fifth (n=35) 77 27 74 32 76 22
Total (n=125) 69 35 73 34 71 27
Boys
Pre. (n=31) 44 43 48 43 46 31
K (n=18) 54 44 61 40 57 36
First (n=48) 62 40 64 33 63 31
Fourth/fifth (n=34) 72 36 76 27 74 25
Total (n=131) 59 41 63 36 61 32
Combined
Pre. (n=69) 50 42 60 43 55 35
K (n=31) 61 41 64 36 63 32
First (n=87) 67 37 70 32 68 27
Fourth/fifth (n=69) 75 32 75 29 75 23
Total (n=256) 64 38 68 35 66 30
Sex Roles. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 14.
