Content uploaded by Eda Yazgin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eda Yazgin on Jul 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
HONG KONG JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
香港社會科學學報
第一的第 59 期 (2022 春/夏) Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
Corresponding Author: Eda Yazgin, Associate Professor, Elementary Education Department, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Famagusta, Northern Cyprus; email: edа.yazgin@еmu.еdu.tr
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
Open Access Article
Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors
Sude Naz Gurkan1, Eda Yazgin2*
1 MA, Elementary Education Department, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Northern
Cyprus
2 Associate Professor, Elementary Education Department, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta,
Northern Cyprus
Received: March 2, 2022 ▪ Reviewed: May 5, 2022
▪Accepted: June 1, 2022 ▪ Published: July 29, 2022
Abstract:
Early childhood is the most crucial period of learning gender-related behaviors. Parents, educators, and
environmental conditions have a considerable impact on children during this period. This study aims to examine
parents' behaviors in the process of their children's gender socialization in terms of demographic variables. The
study was conducted within the quantitative method and employed a survey pattern with 302 parents (223 mothers,
79 fathers) with children ages 0-8. Every participant in the sample was assumed to have completed the measurement
tool appropriately. The study was limited to 3 months in the Famagusta and Nicosia districts. As a part of the study,
Blakemore and Hill’s Child Gender Socialization Scale was translated and adapted into Turkish and used as the data
collection tool. The adaptation was achieved through four stages with the permission of the scale's owners. With the
scale, a demographic information form prepared by researchers supplemented the data analysis. The Mann-Whitney
U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine the changes according to
independent variables in the main test scores. The findings of this study suggested that parents' behaviors toward
gender socialization changed regarding their education status, age, and gender of children. Parents with higher
education, 3-57 month-old children, and ones with a daughter tended to use gender socialization behaviors much
more than any other group. With a mixed-method approach, gender socialization behaviors should be investigated
in different educational contexts. Also, teachers' skills and their support for parents in gender socialization behaviors
may be subjected to future research.
Keywords: gender socialization, early childhood, parental attitudes, gender-related behaviours.
父母的性别社会化行为
Gurkan & Yazgin. Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors, Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
29
摘要：
幼儿期是学习性别相关行为的最关键时期。在此期间，父母、教育者和环境条件对儿童有相当大的影响。
本研究旨在从人口学变量的角度考察父母在子女性别社会化过程中的行为。该研究是在定量方法中进行的
，并采用了对302名父母（223名母亲，79名父亲）和0-
8岁儿童的调查模式。假设样本中的每个参与者都正确地完成了测量工具。该研究仅限于法马古斯塔和尼科
西亚地区的3个月。作为研究的一部分，布莱克莫尔和希尔的儿童性别社会化量表被翻译并改编为土耳其语
，并用作数据收集工具。在秤所有者的许可下，通过四个阶段进行了调整。使用该量表，研究人员准备的
人口统计信息表格补充了数据分析。曼-惠特尼大学检验、克鲁斯卡尔-
瓦利斯检验和威尔科克森符号秩检验用于根据主要测试分数中的自变量确定变化。这项研究的结果表明，
父母的性别社会化行为随着他们的教育状况、年龄和孩子的性别而改变。受过高等教育的父母、3-
57个月大的孩子和有女儿的父母比其他任何群体都倾向于使用性别社会化行为。采用混合方法，应在不同
的教育背景下调查性别社会化行为。此外，教师在性别社会化行为方面的技能及其对父母的支持可能需要
进一步研究。
关键词：性别社会化、幼儿期、父母态度、与性别有关的行为。
1. Introduction
Gender inequality is a phenomenon commonly
encountered and experienced in every aspect of life and
has a long history of research. Gender roles and guiding
behaviors related to gender are not only observed in
sports, education, politics, and similar fields but also
within the smallest institution of society, the family.
The family is the first and most influential institution
where children gain gender roles and create gender
schemes by observing the social gender roles of their
families. Depending on the diversity in family
structures, various parental behaviors appear. Parents’
traits and experiences have been identified as the
sources of sexism in their behavior toward their
children (Hill, 2002; Idle et al., 1993; Rittenour et al.,
2014).
2. Gender and Sex
"Gender," "gender roles," and "sex" are all
expressions with different meanings and functions. The
word "gender" refers to biological characteristics. The
Turkish Language Society defines it in General Turkish
Dictionary as "the feature of creation, thing, gender, sex
that gives the individual a separate role in the
reproduction and distinguishes between male and
female."
Combining social meanings attributed to femininity
and masculinity within a culture, gender expresses
biological and psychological characteristics and the
expectations based on people's gender (Dökmen, 2004).
In psychology, while gender is described as the
qualities of women and men and biological origin
shaped by social impacts, gender roles are defined as a
set of behaviors expected from women and men
(Myers, 2015).
2.1. Gender Socialization
Gender is influenced by culture and is an element
belonging to all societies. In this case, socialization will
take place wherever there is society. Therefore, while
examining the formation of gender, "socialization"
should also be handled. Socialization conveys the
behaviors that society expects from women and men in
line with its norms and expectations. While its effects
are more permanent in childhood, its outcomes spread
throughout a person's life and are passed down from
generation to generation (Hyde & Delamater, 1997).
According to Bem (1983), gender is a lens through
which life is observed. Accordingly, individuals
eliminate the situations they encounter in life,
respecting their gender schemes, and create their
identity by organizing their behavior in this direction.
For instance, examples of these schemes include seeing
women as weak and men as strong. This process is
called “gender typification." However, the scheme is a
way of grouping a body of organizing. The differences
that societies generally construct through anatomy are
the first achievements for children. The child then
places all sorts of groupings in the scheme of 'men' and
'women' because other binary distinctions are not as
clear and broad as gender (Bem, 1983).
Socialization shows its effects from the first moment
one begins to be socialized, which occurs during the
prenatal stage of the child. After that, a child continues
to be socialized within the family, the smallest unit of
society (Hyde & Delamater, 1997). Among the
behaviors observed in the process of gender
socialization are the following: Girls are bought pink
items even starting in prenatal ceremonies, and boys are
equated with blue; while expressions such as "son, boy,
pasha" are used for boys, girls are limited to "beautiful
princess." Boys are thought to be employed as
"engineers, architects, or doctors," but girls are deemed
more appropriate for teaching professions. The most
important duty for girls is to prepare for motherhood -
this is shown through the types of toys that their family
chooses for them as soon as they are born (Sereno &
O'Donnell, 2009; Rittenour et al., 2014). All the
resulting judgments and behaviors are positive or
negative outcomes of socialization.
30
Articles discussing socialization also highlight the
effects of culture, media, books and parental attitudes
(Rittenour et al., 2014; Klecka & Hiller, 1977; Leve &
Fagot, 1997; Townsend, 2008; Hill, 2002; Idle et al.,
1993; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004; McHale et al., 1999).
Based on the literature, the importance of what children
and parents were exposed to during socialization can
also be emphasized.
Most social groups are completely gender-
segregated and normative; these groups reflect their
behavior and expectations through differences in their
gender (Carter, 2014). Books, toys, and stimuli that a
child is directly or indirectly exposed to are other
contributing factors that the child encounters in the
process of gender role socialization (Raley & Bianchi,
2006; Çer, 2017; Güder & Yıldız, 2016; Güder &
Alabay, 2016; Güvenç & Demircili, 2018; Doğan,
2017; Dilek, 2014).
The subject of gender socialization, generally one of
the study areas of social psychology, is limited in
Turkish literature, and the expression of "gender
socialization" has not been directly addressed. For
example, Kağıtçıbaşı and Sunar (1992) discussed this
subject under the title of "gender, family, and
socialization" in their study, which was also prepared in
English.
3. Method
3.1. Research Design
The study utilized a survey research design, a kind
of quantitative method. This research aimed to capture
the current situation and allow the researchers to
describe the features that he/she researched. In survey
research, generally, the following steps are followed:
determining the problem, specifying the sample,
determining and preparing the data collection tool,
collecting the data, their analysis, and writing the
research report (Büyüköztürk et al., 2016).
3.2. Setting and Participants
The study was conducted with parents who have
children between the ages of 2-8 years old and live in
the districts of Famagusta and Nicosia in the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). As the sample
size was limited, data on the parents living in these
districts with 0-2-year-old children were also included.
The sampling was created using the maximum variation
sampling method, one of the purposive sampling
methods. The maximum variation sampling method
conducts a study on the specified sampling considering
the similarities among the population of the study and
the subject to be investigated (Büyüköztürk et al.,
2016). The sample of this study consisted of 302
parents, 223 mothers and 79 fathers, with 143 sons and
159 daughters in total.
3.3. Data Collection Tools
A demographic information form developed by the
researchers was used for the essential features of the
parents. In addition, their gender socialization behaviors
were evaluated using the Child Gender Socialization
Scale for Parents (CGSS-P), which was developed by
Blakemore and Hill (2008).
Since the CGSS's Turkish version did not exist, the
scale was adapted to Turkish in the current study. First,
permission from the scale developers was obtained to
use the CGSS and translate it into Turkish. The original
version of the scale was developed after four different
stages (Blakemore & Hill, 2008). In Blakemore and
Hill's scale development study, the participants were
students at the psychology department, aged 18-66.
Some of the participants were parents. However, the
majority (about 87%) were asked to pretend to be
parents of a child 2-8 years old. At the end of the
studies, the scale showed a structure with 28 items and
six factors. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the
factors were as follows: "Toys and Activities
Stereotyped for Girls" (.93, test-retest: .76), "Toys and
Activities Stereotyped for Boys" (.82, test-retest: .67),
"Helping at Home" (.86, test-retest: .65), "Education for
Marriage and Family" (.85, test-retest: .76),
"Disapproval of Other Gender (.60, test-retest: .64) and
Education for a job and career" (.19, test-retest: .15).
The overall reliability coefficient of the scale was
determined between .65 and .76. In order to determine
the validity, a test-retest process was applied.
Items 1-28 had a seven-point evaluation system in
different statements. Scores close to 7 on the scale
indicate more gender socialization behaviors for the
item and factor. Items with high scores include
activities and behaviors that parents expect their
children to display and which they support.
An introductory form was used to obtain data
regarding the parents' demographic characteristics and
was applied before the CGSS was completed. The
researchers developed the parent's demographic
information form. The roles of the family participant,
marital status, educational level, and birth date of the
children were determined as they were among the
study's variables and will affect its results. The
participants were asked to complete all the specified
information.
3.4. Process
In order to perform and use the Turkish adaptation
studies of the scale, permission from Blakemore and
Hill was obtained through e-mail. Approval from the
Eastern Mediterranean University Scientific Research
and Publication Ethics Committee for the ethical
approval of the research was received. Other necessary
approvals to conduct the study were obtained from the
TRNC Ministry of Education and Culture, the
Directorate of Technical Education and TRNC Ministry
of Education, and the Culture Directorate of the
Primary Education Department. The original version of
the scale was translated into Turkish by three English
teachers fluent in both Turkish and English. As a result,
three Turkish scale forms were created and then back-
translated by another linguist fluent in both languages.
Gurkan & Yazgin. Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors, Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
31
There were no significant differences between the scale
translations; therefore, the three forms were combined
into a single Turkish form. The Turkish version of the
scale was presented to three experts in gender studies to
obtain their opinions. In accordance with them, the
demographic characteristics form and the statements in
the Turkish version of the scale were revised.
3.5. Data Analysis
Independent variables were found to be
homogeneous. This resulted from the age variable in the
sample, which came from different layers of the study
population. However, to ensure heterogeneity in the
subcategories of the independent variable, a Two-Step
Clustering Analysis study was performed on the age
variable (Chiu et al., 2001).
The Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and
Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to determine the
changes according to independent variables in the main
test scores. In the analyses, all subscale scores and total
scores were divided into the number of items to convert
the scores between 1 and 7. Here, scores approaching 7
meant that the parents showed more gender
socialization behavior in the context of the item and the
factor examined. The scale adaptation process and
findings regarding the investigation of sub-problems
were included in the "Results and Interpretation"
section.
4. Results
4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
The scale's first 22 items and the last six items (23,
24, 25, 26, 27, and 28) were replied to from different
perspectives; therefore, an exploratory factor analysis
study was conducted for the first 22 items. The items'
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test value was 0.88, and
Bartlett's test value was α = 0.000. These values were
significant, which indicated that the sample size was
sufficient for performing factor analysis (Cerny &
Kaiser, 1977). The Promax rotation method developed
by Tabachnick and Fiddell (2007) was used to
determine the original rotation method. The correlation
coefficients in the factor relationship matrix were less
than 0.32, except for-0.326. Therefore, the varimax
vertical rotation method was used for the rest of the
study. Scree-plot (Figure 1) and varimax analyses
showed a 3-factor structure. This explains 62.9% of the
variance.
Figure 1. Scree-plot graph of each eigenvalue and related factor
Factor-variance ratios were as follows: the first
factor's eigenvalue was 5.21, which explained 23.7% of
the variance; the second factor's eigenvalue was 4.94,
which explained 22.5% of the variance; the third
factor's eigenvalue was 3.66, which explained 16.7% of
the variance.
After the rotation, the second and first factors in
item 13 were found to have a loading. Therefore, Item
13 was excluded from the analysis, and a confirmatory
factor analysis was performed for 21 items. Table 1
shows the factor loadings of the first 21 items of the
scale and those not less than 0.40 of the subscale items.
The first factor was composed of items related to toys
and activities stereotyped for girls, the second factor
was composed of items related to toys and activities
stereotyped for boys, and the third factor was related to
items related to helping at home.
Table 1. Item factor loadings of the first 21-item subscale
Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1
0.77
-
-
7
0.87
-
-
9
0.75
-
-
10
0.86
-
-
15
0.42
-
-
16
0.58
-
-
19
0.85
-
-
21
0.86
-
-
5
-
0.74
-
6
-
0.74
-
8
-
0.56
-
11
-
0.83
-
17
-
0.73
-
18
-
0.89
-
22
-
0.86
-
2
-
-
0.60
3
-
-
0.66
4
-
-
0.72
12
-
-
0.79
14
0.76
20
-
-
0.70
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Adapted
Scale
The factor analysis revealed a 3-factor structured
model. The confirmatory factor analysis was performed
by adding the items from 23 to 28 and considering the
entire sample. The analysis showed that a 4-factor
structure was not suitable (CFI = 0.774, 2/df = 2.302,
p = 0.000). In this context, compliance with the 21-item
and 3-factor models was maintained using two models.
The fit indices of the models are shown in Table 2. The
method of chi-square statistic tests the hypothesis that
the model is compatible with the covariance structure of
the observed variables (Özdamar, 2002). In this study,
the chi-square/degree of freedom value was below 5.
Based on this, the third model was suitable for the
observed structure (Byrne, 1998).
32
Table 2. Fit size measurement model after the correction
Fit Measurements
Original Measurement Values
Model 1
Model 2
S4 – out of the model
S2 – out of the model
S15 – model
S8 – out of the model
e5 – e7e
2
5164.75
455.49
364.74
p-value
0.000
0.000
0.000
2 /df
2.302
2.588
3.170
RMSEA
0.052
0.063
0.065
CFI
0.774
0.907
0.937
After exploratory factor analysis, a 3-factor structure
was determined. After the corrections seen in Model 2
(Table 2) were performed, the scale took its final form.
The final scale consisted of 17 items, and it
demonstrated good construct validity (Table 3). As seen
in Figure 2, the item loadings in each factor have a
value equal to or greater than 0.60. In this case, it can
be argued that the scale consisting of three factors has
convergent validity (Barclay et al., 1995). The
discriminant validity of the scale was obtained by
comparing the squares of the mean average variance
extracted (AVE) with the correlation coefficients
between the factors. As shown in Table 4, the AVE
value of each factor was squared; the fact that these
values had higher values than the correlation
coefficients showed that the differential validity of the
scale was also provided (Hair et al., 1998). Table 5
shows the subscale reliability coefficients of the scale.
The stratified Cronbach’s value of the scale was 0.91.
Figure 2. Third-level graphical and analytical display of the model
Table 3. Distribution of the items to factors after the correction of
the first 21-item subscale
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1
7
9
10
16
19
21
5
6
11
17
18
22
3
12
14
20
Table 4. Comparison of squares of AVE and factor correlation
coefficients
Factor - AVE
1.
2.
3.
1. Games and activities stereotyped
for girls – 0.76
-
0.18
0.26
2. Games and activities stereotyped
for boys – 0.78
-
-
0.00
3. Helping at home – 0.78
-
-
-
Table 5. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients of the subscales
Subscale
α value
Item number
Games and activities stereotyped
for girls
0.93
7
Games and activities stereotyped
for boys
0.90
6
Helping at home
0.84
4
The alpha reliability coefficient of the fourth factor
of the scale, "education and career" (Items 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, and 28), was 0.62. However, the corrected total
correlation value of items 26 (-0.169) and 27 (-0.273)
was lower than 0.2. Therefore, these items were
excluded from the scale (Everitt, 2002; Field, 2005). As
a result, the analysis was conducted using a 4-factor,
valid, and reliable 21-item scale, the first part of which
included "games and activities stereotyped for girls" (7
items), "games and activities stereotyped for boys" (6
items), "helping at home" (4 items), and the second part
included "education for a job or career" (4 items).
4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the
Measurement Invariance, Related to the 3-Factor
First Part of the Adapted Scale
Whether the model (Figure 1) varied depending on
the parents' having a daughter or a son was tested. The
findings of this process are shown in Table 6. Based on
Table 6, models were described as follows: Model A:
free factor correlations, factor loadings, and error
variances; Model B: free factor correlations and error
variances, fixed factor loadings; Model C: fixed factor
correlations and factor loadings, free error variants;
Model D: fixed factor correlations, factor loadings, and
error variances.
Table 6. The compliance statistics for measuring invariance stages
Stages
2
sd
CFI
RMSEA
CFI
Model A
Formal Invariance
507.086
230
0.900
0.063
-
Model B
Metric Invariance
538.141
244
0.894
0.063
-0.006
Model C
Scale Invariance
646.586
250
0.857
0.073
-0.037
Model D
Strict Invariance
842.061
268
0.792
0.084
-0.065
Gurkan & Yazgin. Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors, Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
33
Measurement invariance between the groups was
determined by comparing formal and more limited
models and examining the difference values of ∆CFI
compliance coefficients (Byrne, 1998; Hooper et al.,
2008). Since formal invariance was provided here, it
was found that the measured structures were the same
between the groups, and they answered the scale items
from the same perspective. Multi-group DFA and CFI
difference tests were applied to test metric invariance. It
was predicted that intergroup factors could be
established between the group with a daughter and the
group with a son. Based on this, it was concluded that
the mean scores and factor scores between the groups
could be compared. A result of scale invariance ∆CFI =
-0.037 indicates that groups may have shown bias based
on the items. Therefore, groups cannot be compared on
an item basis. Inter-group comparisons to be made
based on the model created on the basis of AFA results
will not be significant because the strict invariance
value was ∆CFI = -0.065.
4.4. Grouping of the Child’s Age Variable
Based on the idea that the variable regarding the age
of the children would be difficult to analyze, a two-step
clustering analysis technique (Chiu et al., 2001) was
applied, and subcategories for age variables were
created. As a result, a heterogeneous structure was
created between the groups. However, the groups were
homogeneous. Group ratio (all < 3) and separation and
compliance ratio (all > 0.7) analyses were found to be
appropriate at intra-group and inter-group levels
(Rousseeuw, 1987). Therefore, the age categories seen
in Table 7 were created.
Table 7. The results of the two-step cluster analysis by the age variable
f
%
Min.
Max.
sd
Cluster
3-57 months
117
39
3
57
39.58
11.89
58-103 months
185
61
58
103
74.54
12.14
Total
302
100
3
103
61.00
20.87
4.5. Parents’ Gender Socialization Scores, Being a
Mother or a Father, and Examination of All Variables
As the study included a comparison of being a
mother or father, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to
examine the differences. The findings indicated that the
mean total score did not differ depending on whether
someone was a mother (n = 223) or a father (n = 79) (U
= 9299, p = .462).
As the marital status consisted of three different
categories, the Kruskal-Wallis test analyzed the
differences in this context. The analyses indicated no
significant difference between any binary comparisons
(c2 (2, N = 302) = 3094, p = .213).
As seen in Table 8, Mann-Whitney U tests showed
that the mean total median score of the parents who
have a daughter was higher than that of the parents who
have a son. On the other hand, Mann-Whitney U tests
performed according to the age of the children indicated
that the mean total median score of the parents whose
children are 3-57 months old was higher than those
whose children are 58-103 months old (Table 8). In
addition, the Cohen r effect size values showed that the
child's sex (r = 0.25) in the mean total score change was
more effective than the child's age category (r = 0.23).
Table 8. The mean total average scores from the Mann-Whitney U
test based on having a son or a daughter and age of the child
Group
N
Med.
Average
U
p
r
Have a son
143
3.65
128.61
8095
0.000
0.25
Have a daughter
159
4.11
172.09
3-57 months
117
4.15
176.50
7897
0.000
0.23
58-133 months
185
3.84
135.69
Educational status was divided into three categories:
pre-higher education, undergraduate, and master's/Ph.D.
degree; the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the
differences in this context. As shown in Table 9, while
there was no difference between the mean total scores
of the parents who had a master's/Ph.D. and
undergraduate degrees, parents with a master's/Ph.D.
and an undergraduate degree had higher mean total
scores than those who only had a pre-higher education.
Differences based on educational status were medium
level with the η2 effect size value (0.11).
Table 9. The mean total average scores from the Kruskal-Wallis test and binary comparisons of the Dunn and Bonferroni adjusted p-values
according to the educational status
Educational Status 1 - Educational Status 2
Differences
between average
scores
Dunn and Bonferroni
adjusted p-values
2
df
p
Pre-higher education (3.77) a – Master’s / PhD degree (4.27)
-55.04
0.001 b
31.67
2
.000
Pre-higher education (3.77) – Undergraduate (4.23)
-57.93
0.000
Master’s/PhD degree (4.27) – Undergraduate (4.23)
02.89
1.000
a Values in parentheses indicate the median of the success score of the district.
b bold significance (p) values show that the regarding pair is different from one another.
As a result of the Mann-Whitney U test analysis, the
first test conducted, median values of education for a
job or career and toys and activities stereotyped for
boys did not differ according to the age variable (all U
≥ 7973, all p ≥ .092). However, as seen in Table 10, the
median score of toys and activities stereotyped for girls
of parents with children aged 3-57 months was
significantly higher than that for those with children
aged 58-103 months. Similarly, the median score of
helping at the home of parents with children aged 3-57
34
months was significantly higher than that for those with children aged 58-103 months.
Table 10. The mean subscale’s average scores from the Mann-Whitney U test according to helping at home and having a daughter
Subscale
Group
N
Med.
Average
U
p
r
Toys and activities stereotyped for girls
3-57 months
117
5.57
168.62
8820
0.007
0.16
58-103 months
185
4.57
140.68
Helping at home
3-57 months
117
5.75
175.85
7973
0.000
0.22
58-103 months
185
4.75
136.10
5. Conclusion and Discussion
The original Child Gender Socialization Scale
(CGSS) version includes a six-factor structure. When
exploratory factor analysis was applied to the Turkish
version of the CGSS, the scale demonstrated a four-
factor structure: toys and activities stereotyped for girls,
toys and activities stereotyped for boys, helping at
home, and education for a career. While the original
scale consisted of 28 items, its Turkish version
consisted of only 21. The eliminated items and the scale
being factored differently from the original version can
be interpreted as the scale not entirely complying with
Northern Cyprus culture. Therefore, activities and
situations in the culture, that children did not participate
in, were excluded from the scale because they were not
determining in the measures.
When gender socialization behaviors were analyzed
according to the study's variables, regardless of the
participants' being parents or their marital status,
parents exhibited different behaviors according to their
children's educational status, age, and gender. In short,
parents who had a master's/Ph.D. degree, daughter, and
3-57-month-old children displayed more gender
socialization behavior than any other group.
The gender of the child was found to be related to
the parents’ gender socialization behavior. Socialization
is a process, and there is a mutual influence in it.
According to Carter (2014), one of the four elements of
the gender socialization process is the perspective of
this mutual influence. The perspective proposes that just
as parenting behavior affects the child, all the
circumstances related to the child also affect the
parents' behaviors. A child's gender and age can also be
included as a variable in their situations. Yağmurlu et
al. (2009), Kağıtçıbaşı and Sunar (1992) reported that
the child's gender did not affect the parents'
expectations for him/her, which are to some extent
consistent with the results of this study. However,
Kağıtçıbaşı and Sunar (1992) stated that all parents
wanted their child(ren), regardless of the gender of the
child, to have common qualities (such as friendliness
and honesty). However, apart from these common
qualities, the gender of the child was effective in their
parental behavior and expectations. Research has
generally focused on the gender of the child, and it has
been found that girls are exposed to more sexist
behavior than boys. Vatandaş (2007) stated that girls
were raised more passively, so females were less
common in social and political fields. In addition,
families directed the financial resources to the boy's
education. In brief, the current study results are in line
with those in the literature.
Another finding was that parents’ gender
socialization behaviors were related to their educational
status. The study found that parents who had an
undergraduate or post-graduate education had a higher
gender socialization score than those who only had a
pre-higher education degree. The relevant literature
supports that parents' educational status and child-
rearing behaviors and beliefs are related. Kağıtçıbaşı
and Sunar (1992), Yağmurlu et al. (2009) found that
mothers' gender-based expectations differed according
to their educational status. Mothers having a low level
of education expected their children to exhibit
obedience, respect, and fulfill their responsibilities more
than those with a higher level of education. This finding
contrasts with that of the current research. However, as
Yağmurlu et al. (2009) stated, the analyses' reliability
levels were low due to the study's sample size.
When the present study's findings were evaluated
within the setting wherein it was conducted, they could
not be compared with those in the literature since a
similar study has not been conducted in the TRNC
before. Parents' education status and their gender
socialization behaviors showed parallelism. In other
words, as the education level increased, levels of gender
socialization behaviors also increased.
The final indication of the research was that parents'
gender socialization behaviors were related to the
child's age. Parents with a 3-57-month-old child were
found to have exhibited more gender socialization
behavior than those with a 58-103-month-old child. No
information that directly supports these findings is
available in the relevant literature. However, it can be
argued that, at 3-57 months, the child needs the most
care. This is also the period when the child gains
autonomy. According to Freud (2004), 3-57 months
covering the first two stages of psychosexual
development are when the child has not yet acquired the
concept of gender, and they regard the concepts of 'boy'
and 'girl' as the same. Children begin to realize
differences between genders when they are 18-24
months old. Accordingly, it can be predicted that
parents may see their children as dependent on
themselves, as the child's autonomy has not yet
developed in this period. As the child gains autonomy,
there may be a decrease in parents' gender socialization
behavior as the time the child spends at home decreases
and their experiences increase.
The fact that the child’s developing gender schemes
are continually being shaped can be shown as the
reason for the intensity of the parents’ behavior.
According to Bem (1983), the child learns about gender
characteristics at an early age and can distinguish these
Gurkan & Yazgin. Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors, Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
35
two by having information about their gender and the
opposite sex before the distinguishing phase of their
gender identity. Therefore, the parents encouraging a
child to behave according to their gender will have the
most effect at 3-57 months.
This process can be most effective in gender
socialization behaviors as it covers the longest time
spent with the child. In terms of the social learning
theory of Bandura (1977), the more time the parents
spend with the child, the more intensively they will use
reinforcers. Meanwhile, a child, who spends time with
their family all day long, will learn about their
environment by using the family as models, observing
and imitating them. Children also learn about gender
equality and inequality in these ways.
In another respect, the socialization of gender in the
verbal context may be implicitly done at 3-57 months
when vocabulary is newly formed. As an entity who
thinks by using language, humans will think in their
later lives by using words learned and as they have
learned.
On examining all the study variables in terms of
effect sizes, the primary factor in determining the
gender socialization behaviors of the parents was the
sex of the child. This was followed by the child's age
and the educational status of the parents. The results
also showed that the characteristics of the child
primarily determined the gender socialization behaviors
of the parents. This was consistent with Carter's (2014)
perspective of mutual influence. In other words, the
characteristics and situations of the child affect the
behaviors of the parents. As for parents' educational
status variable, Şahin and Özyürek (2008), Şanlı and
Öztürk (2012) reported its effect and effect direction
change as the subject and study area change. Therefore,
the fact that the educational status of the parents is the
last in terms of the effect size among the other three
variables (child’s gender, child’s age, and the
educational status of parents) is a finding of this study
that is consistent with the literature. In the context of
the situation and the subject examined, the variable
educational status of the parents varied. Mixed-method
studies on gender socialization with different samples
and variables should be conducted, and the causes of
these behaviors should be investigated. In-service
training programs should be organized so that teachers
can be better counselors for parents to consult regarding
gender socialization behaviors and to repair teachers'
sexist behavior tendencies. In addition, resources that
parents can easily access should be produced and made
visibly available.
References
[1] BANDURA, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory.
New York: General Learning Press.
[2] BARCLAY, D.W., HIGGINS, C.A., &
THOMPSON, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares
Approach to Causal Modelling: Personal Computer
Adoption and Use as Illustration. Technology
Studies, 2(2), 285-309.
[3] BEM, S.L. (1983). Gender Schema Theory and Its
Implications for Child Development: Raising
Gender-Aschematic Children in A Gender-
Schematic Society. Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 8(4), 598-616.
https://doi.org/10.1086/493998
[4] BLAKEMORE, J.E., & HILL, C.A. (2008). The
Child Gender Socialization Scale: A Measure to
Compare Traditional and Feminist Parents. Sex
Roles, 58, 192-207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9333-y
[5] BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş., ÇAKMAK, E.K., AKGÜN,
Ö.E., KARADENIZ, Ş., & DEMIREL, F. (2016).
Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem
Akademi.
[6] BYRNE, B.M. (1998). Structural Equation
Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis and Simlis: Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[7] CARTER, M.J. (2014). Gender Socialization and
Identity Theory. Social Sciences, 3(2), 242-263.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3020242
[8] CERNY, C.A., & KAISER, H.F. (1977). A Study of
a Measure of Sampling Adequacy for Factor-
Analytic Correlation Matrices. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43-47.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
[9] ÇER, E. (2017). Çocuk Edebiyatında Toplumsal
Cinsiyetsiz Karakterler: Bir Araştırma Örneği.
HAYEF Journal of Education, 14(1), 389-408.
Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iuhayefd/issue/30378/
328338
[10] CHIU, T., FANG, D., CHEN, J., WANG, Y., &
JERIS, C. (2001). A Robust and Scalable Clustering
Algorithm for Mixed Type Attributes in Large
Database Environment. Proceedings of the 7th ACM
SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco,
California, August 2001, pp. 263–268.
https://doi.org/10.1145/502512.502549
[11] DILEK, A. (2014). 4-6 Yaş Çocuk
Öykülerindeki Kadın Kahramanların Mesleksel
Analizi. Journal of Qafqaz University - Philology
and Pedagogy, 2(1), 94-102.
[12] DOĞAN, S.S. (2017). Cinsiyetçilik
Tartışmaları Çerçevesinde Mekanın Kullanımı:
Uğurböceği Sevecen ve Salyangoz Tomurcuk
Anaokulunda. Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi, 2(1), 1-
12. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.277949
[13] DÖKMEN, Z.Y. (2004). Gender Social
Psychological Explanations. İstanbul: Sistem
Yayıncılık.
[14] EVERITT, B.S. (2002). The Cambridge
Dictionary of Statistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
[15] FIELD, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using
SPSS. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
[16] FREUD, S. (2004). Psikanaliz Üzerine. 13th
ed. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
36
[17] GÜDER, S.Y., & ALABAY, E. (2016). 3-6
Yaş Arasındaki Çocukların Oyuncak Tercihlerinin
Toplumsal Cinsiyet Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Ahi
Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 17(2), 91-111. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/59426/85
3563
[18] GÜDER, S.Y., & YILDIZ, T.G. (2016). Okul
Öncesi Dönemdeki Çocukların Toplumsal Cinsiyet
Algılarında Ailenin Rolü. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 424-446.
https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016016429
[19] GÜVENÇ, D., & DEMIRCILI, E. (2018).
Oyuncakların Pazarlanmasında Toplumsal Cinsiyet.
Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 1-17.
Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sobiadsbd/issue/35990
/403765
[20] HAIR, J.F.JR., ANDERSON, R.E., TATHAM,
R.L., & BLACK, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
[21] HILL, S.A. (2002). Teaching and Doing
Gender in African American Families. Sex Roles,
47(11/12), 493-506.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1022026303937
[22] HOOPER, D., COUGHLA, J., & MULLEN,
M.R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling:
Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6,
53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
[23] HYDE, S.J., & DELAMATER, J. (1997).
Understanding Human Sexuality. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
[24] IDLE, T., WOOD, E., & DESMARAIS, S.
(1993). Gender Role Socialization in Toy Play
Situations: Mothers and Fathers with Their Sons and
Daughters. Sex Roles, 28(11/12), 679-691.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289987
[25] KAĞITÇIBAŞI, Ç., & SUNAR, D.G. (1992).
Family and Socialization in Turkey. In:
ROOPNARINE, J.P., & CARTER, D.B. (eds.)
Parent-Child Relations in Diverse Cultural Settings:
Socialization for Instrumental Competency. Annual
Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology,
Vol. 5. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 75-88.
[26] KLECKA, C.O., & HILLER, D.V. (1977).
Impact of Mothers’ Lifestyle on Adolescent Gender-
Role Socialization. Sex Roles, 3(3), 241-255.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287613
[27] LEVE, L.D., & FAGOT, B.I. (1997). Gender-
Role Socialization and Discipline Processes in One-
and Two-Parent Families. Sex Roles, 36, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766236
[28] MCHALE, S.M., CROUTER, A.C., &
TUCKER, C.J. (1999). Family Context and Gender
Role Socialization in Middle Childhood: Comparing
Girls to Boys and Sisters to Brothers. Child
Development, 70(4), 990-1004.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00072
[29] MYERS, D.G. (2015). Sosyal Psikoloji. 10th
ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
[30] ÖZDAMAR, K. (2002). Paket Programlar ile
İstatistiksel Veri Analizi. 4th ed. Kaan Yayınları:
Eskişehir.
[31] RAFFAELLI, M., & ONTAI, L. (2004).
Gender Socialization in Latino/a Families: Results
from Two Retrospective Studies. Sex Roles, 50(5/6),
287-299.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B%3ASERS.0000018886.58
945.06
[32] RALEY, S., & BIANCHI, S. (2006). Sons,
Daughters, and Family Processes: Does Gender of
Children Matter? Annual Review of Sociology, 32,
401-421.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.1231
06
[33] RITTENOUR, C.E., COLANER, C.W., &
ODENWELLER, K.G. (2014). Mothers’ Identities
and Gender Socialization of Daughters. Southern
Communication Journal, 79(3), 215-234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2014.895408
[34] ROUSSEEUW, P.J. (1987). Silhouettes: A
Graphical Aid to the Interpretation and Validation of
Cluster Analysis. Journal of Computational and
Applied Mathematics, 20(1987), 53-65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-
0427%2887%2990125-7
[35] SERENO, S.C., & O’DONNELL, P.J. (2009).
Participant and Word Gender in Age of Acquisition
Effects: The Role of Gender Socialization. Sex
Roles, 61, 510-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-
009-9649-X
[36] ŞAHIN, F.T., & ÖZYÜREK, A. (2008). 5-6
Yaş Grubu Çocuğa Sahip Ebeveynlerin Demografik
Özelliklerinin Çocuk Yetiştirme Tutumlarına
Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Türk Eğitim Dergisi, 6(3),
395-414.
[37] ŞANLI, D., & ÖZTÜRK, C. (2012). Annelerin
Çocuk Yetiştirme Tutumlarını Etkileyen Etmenlerin
İncelenmesi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 31-
48. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deubefd/issue/25119/
265238
[38] TABACHNICK, B.G., & FIDELL, L.S. (2007).
Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
[39] TOWNSEND, T.G. (2008). Protecting Our
Daughters: Intersection of Race, Class and Gender
in African American Mothers’ Socialization of Their
Daughters’ Heterosexuality. Sex Roles, 59, 429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9409-3
[40] VATANDAŞ, C. (2007). Toplumsal Cinsiyet
Ve Cinsiyet Rollerinin Algılanışı. İstanbul Journal
of Sociological Studies, 35, 29-56.
https://doi.org/10.18368/SK.88736
[41] YAĞMURLU, B., ÇITLAK, B., DOST, A., &
LEYENDECKER, B. (2009). Türk Annelerin Çocuk
Soyalleştirme Hedeflerinde Eğitime Bağlı Olarak
Gözlemlenen Farklılıklar. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi,
Gurkan & Yazgin. Parents’ Gender Socialization Behaviors, Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022
37 24(63), 1-15.
参考文:
[1] 班杜拉，A.
(1977)。社会学习理论。纽约：综合学习出版社
。
[2] BARCLAY, D.W., HIGGINS, C.A., &
THOMPSON, R.
(1995)。因果建模的偏最小二乘法：个人计算机
的采用和用作说明。技术研究，2（2），285-
309。
[3] BEM,
S.L.（1983年）。性别图式理论及其对儿童发展
的影响：在性别图式社会中培养性别图式儿童。
迹象：女性文化与社会杂志，8（4），598-
616。https://doi.org/10.1086/493998
[4] 布莱克莫尔, J.E. 和 希尔,
C.A.（2008年）。儿童性别社会化量表：一种比
较传统和女权主义父母的措施。性别角色，58，
192-207。http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-
9333-y
[5] BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Ş., ÇAKMAK, E.K., AKGÜN,
Ö.E., KARADENIZ, Ş., & DEMIREL, F.
(2016)。科学研究方法。安卡拉：佩吉姆学院。
[6]伯恩，B.M.（1998年）。使用利斯雷尔、Prelis和
西姆利斯进行结构方程建模：基本概念、应用和
编程。新泽西州莫瓦：劳伦斯厄尔鲍姆协会。
[7] 卡特，M.J.
(2014)。性别社会化和身份理论。社会科学，3（
2），242-
263。https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3020242
[8] CERNY, C.A. 和 KAISER, H.F.
(1977)。因子分析相关矩阵抽样充分性度量的研
究。多元行为研究，12（1），43-
47。https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
[9] ÇER, E.
(2017)。儿童文学中的无性别人物：一个研究实
例。海耶夫教育杂志，14（1），389-408。取自
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iuhayefd/issue/30378/
328338
[10] CHIU, T., FANG, D., CHEN, J., WANG, Y., &
JERIS, C.
(2001)。一种用于大型数据库环境中混合类型属
性的鲁棒且可扩展的聚类算法。第7届ACM
SIGKDD知识发现和数据挖掘国际会议论文集，
加利福尼亚州旧金山，2001年8月，第263-
268页。https://doi.org/10.1145/502512.502549
[11] 迪莱克，A.（2014年）。4-
6岁儿童故事英雄职业分析。卡夫卡兹大学学报 -
语言学和教育学，2（1），94-102。
[12] DOĞAN, S.S.
(2017)。性别歧视讨论框架中的空间利用：幼儿
园里的瓢虫深情和蜗牛芽。建筑与生活杂志,
2(1), 1-12。https://doi.org/10.26835/my.277949
[13]多克门，Z.Y.（2004年）。性别社会心理学解释
。伊斯坦布尔：亚因奇利克系统。
[14]埃弗里特，理学士（2002年）。剑桥统计词典
。第 2 版。纽约剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
[15]菲尔德，A.（2005年）。使用SPSS发现统计数
据。第 2 版。伦敦：圣人。
[16] 弗洛伊德，S.
(2004)。论精神分析。第13版。伊斯坦布尔：说
亚因拉勒。
[17] GÜDER, S.Y. 和 ALABAY, E.
(2016)。性别背景下3-
6岁儿童玩具偏好调查。阿希·埃弗兰大学基尔谢
希尔教育学院学报, 17(2), 91-111。取自
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/59426/85
3563
[18] GÜDER, S.Y. 和 YILDIZ,
T.G.（2016年）。家庭在学龄前儿童性别认知中
的作用。哈塞特佩大学教育学院学报, 31(2), 424-
446。https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016016429
[19] GÜVENÇ, D. 和 DEMIRCILI, E.
(2018)。玩具营销中的性别。社会与人文科学杂
志, 10(1), 1-17。取自
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sobiadsbd/issue/35990
/403765
[20] HAIR, J.F.JR., ANDERSON, R.E., TATHAM,
R.L., & BLACK,
W.C.（1998年）。多元数据分析。第5版。新泽
西州上马鞍河：普伦蒂斯大厅。
[21] 希尔, S.A.
(2002)。在非裔美国人家庭中教授和做性别。性
别角色，47（11/12），493-
506。https://doi.org/10.1023/A%3A1022026303937
[22] HOOPER, D., COUGHLA, J., & MULLEN, M.R.
(2008)。结构方程建模：确定模型拟合的指南。
商业研究方法电子杂志，6, 53–
60。https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
[23] HYDE, S.J. 和 DELAMATER, J.
(1997)。了解人类的性行为。纽约：麦格劳-
希尔。
[24] IDLE, T., WOOD, E., & DESMARAIS, S.
(1993)。玩具游戏情境中的性别角色社会化：母
亲和父亲与他们的儿子和女儿。性别角色，28（
11/12），679-
691。https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289987
[25] KAĞITÇIBAŞI, Ç., & SUNAR, D.G.
(1992)。土耳其的家庭和社会化。在：ROOPNA
RINE, J.P., & CARTER,
D.B.（编辑）不同文化背景下的亲子关系：工具
能力的社会化。应用发展心理学年度进展，卷。
5. 新泽西州诺伍德：亚历克斯，第 75-88 页。
[26] KLECKA, C.O. 和 HILLER,
D.V.（1977年）。母亲的生活方式对青少年性别
38
角色社会化的影响。性别角色，3（3），241-
255。https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287613
[27] LEVE, L.D. 和 FAGOT, B.I.
(1997)。单亲和双亲家庭的性别角色社会化和纪
律过程。性别角色，36，1-
21。https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766236
[28] MCHALE, S.M., CROUTER, A.C. 和 TUCKER,
C.J.
(1999)。童年中期的家庭背景和性别角色社会化
：将女孩与男孩和姐妹与兄弟进行比较。儿童发
展，70（4），990-
1004。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00072
[29]迈尔斯，D.G.（2015年）。索赛尔·普西科洛吉
。第 10 版。安卡拉：诺贝尔亚因奇利克。
[30] ÖZDAMAR, K.
(2002)。使用包程序进行统计数据分析。第4版。
卡安·亚因拉勒：埃斯基谢希尔。
[31] RAFFAELLI, M. 和 ONTAI, L.
(2004)。拉丁裔/一个家庭的性别社会化：两项回
顾性研究的结果。性别角色，50（5/6），287-
299。https://doi.org/10.1023/B%3ASERS.0000018
886.58945.06
[32] RALEY, S. 和 BIANCHI, S.
(2006)。儿子、女儿和家庭过程：孩子的性别重
要吗？社会学年度回顾，32，401-
421。https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604
.123106
[33] RITTENOUR, C.E., COLANER, C.W. 和
ODENWELLER,
K.G.（2014）。母亲的身份和女儿的性别社会化
。南方通讯杂志，79（3），215-
234。https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2014.89540
8
[34] ROUSSEEUW, P.J.
(1987)。剪影：解释和验证聚类分析的图形辅助
。计算与应用数学杂志，20（1987），53-
65。https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-
0427%2887%2990125-7
[35] SERENO, S.C. 和 O'DONNELL, P.J.
(2009)。习得效应年龄中的参与者和词性别：性
别社会化的作用。性别角色，61, 510-
518。https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-009-9649-X
[36] ŞAHIN, F.T., & ÖZYÜREK, A. (2008)。5-
6岁儿童父母人口学特征对儿童态度影响的调查
。土耳其教育杂志，6（3），395-414。
[37] ŞANLI, D., & ÖZTÜRK, C.
(2012)。影响母亲育儿态度的因素调查。布卡教
育学院学报, 32, 31-48. 取自
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deubefd/issue/25119/
265238
[38] TABACHNICK, B.G. 和 FIDELL,
L.S.（2007年）。使用多元统计。第5版。新泽西
州上马鞍河：皮尔逊艾琳和培根。
[39]汤森德，T.G.（2008年）。保护我们的女儿：非
洲裔美国母亲对女儿异性恋的社会化中种族、阶
级和性别的交叉。性别角色，59, 429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9409-3
[40]瓦坦达，C.（2007年）。对性别和性别角色的
认知。伊斯坦布尔社会学研究杂志，35，29-
56。https://doi.org/10.18368/SK.88736
[41] YAĞMURLU, B., ÇITLAK, B., DOST, A., &
LEYENDECKER, B.
(2009)。基于教育的土耳其母亲的儿童社会化目
标差异。土耳其人心理学杂志，24（63），1-
15。
