Content uploaded by Patrick Cooper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick Cooper on Feb 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychological Androgyny and Children’s Mental Health: A New
Look with New Measures
Rachel E. Pauletti
1
&Meenakshi Menon
2
&PatrickJ.Cooper
1
&Christopher D. Aults
3
&
David G. Perry
3
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract We evaluated Bem’s(1981,1993) thesis that psy-
chological androgyny—perceiving the self to possess charac-
teristics of both genders—is associated with healthy adjust-
ment and minimal gender-polarizing cognition. Prior studies
testing Bem’s ideas have yielded ambiguous results, mainly
because self-perceptions of gender-typed attributes have been
inferred narrowly from self-perceptions of expressive and in-
strumental personality traits. We administered measures of
gender identity (self-perceived similarity to a gender) that
more clearly capture self-perceptions of attributes typical of
a gender, and we examined conjoint influences of same-
gender typicality and other-gender typicality on children’s
self-esteem, internalizing problems, felt pressure for gender
differentiation, and sexist ideology. Two studies were con-
ducted with ethnically/racially diverse samples of preadoles-
cent children in the southeastern United States. In Study 1
(N=305, M
age
= 10.8 years), androgynous children (i.e., chil-
dren who saw themselves as similar to both genders) reported
high self-esteem, evidenced few internalizing problems, and
reported feeling little pressure for gender differentiation. In
Study 2 (N=236, M
age
= 11.3 years), androgynous boys re-
ported few sexist beliefs. Children with other patterns of gen-
der identity (e.g., high same-gender typicality coupled with
low other-gender typicality) sometimes showed similar corre-
lates, but each other pattern of gender identity was associated
with poor adjustment or strong gender-differentiating cogni-
tion on at least one dependent variable whereas androgyny
never was. Results support Bem’s thesis that persons who
perceive themselves as possessing characteristics of both gen-
ders enjoy mental health advantages over those who perceive
themselves as possessing characteristics of only one.
Keywords Androgyny .Gender identity .Gender typing .
Gender typicality .Sex Typing .Sexism .Self esteem .
Children
According to Bem (1981), psychological androgyny—perceiv-
ing the self to possess characteristics of both genders—develops
in people who experience little social pressure to conform to the
gender stereotypes prevalent in their culture. Because androgy-
nous persons feel free to engage in both same-gender and other-
gender behaviors, they base their actions on personal interests,
goals, temperaments, and competencies rather than on gender
appropriateness. The wide range of behavioral options psycho-
logically available to them increases their chances for a happy,
fulfilling life. Even though androgynous persons acknowledge
having qualities of both genders, their androgyny is not neces-
sarily motivated by a desire to be similar to both genders; indeed,
gender is presumed to be irrelevant to their behavior and self-
definition. In contrast, people who experience strong pressure for
gender conformity are expected to develop a pervasive and per-
nicious gender schema—a predisposition to perceive the world
through a gendered lens, to classify behavioral options in terms
of gender appropriateness, to adopt same-gender-stereotyped
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0627-9) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
*Rachel E. Pauletti
rpauletti@lynn.edu
1
College of Arts and Sciences, Lynn University, Boca Raton,
FL, USA
2
California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International
University, San Francisco, CA, USA
3
Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL, USA
Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-016-0627-9
attributes and eschew other-gender ones, to view themselves as
either masculine or feminine, and to behave in ways that rein-
force their single-gender identity. Because their gender schema
predisposes them to forgo potentially satisfying cross-gender op-
tions, it may cause frustration and unhappiness.
Research on Bem’s(1981,1993) theory has yielded am-
biguous support for her ideas, owing mainly to limitations of
the measures of gender identity (self-perceptions of female-
typical and male-typical attributes, or of femininity and mas-
culinity, respectively) that she and others have used. The pres-
ent article reports two studies with preadolescent and early
adolescent children (collectively referred to as Bchildren^
hereafter) that examine Bem’s theorizing using new measures
of gender identity, as described later. Study 1 examines wheth-
er androgyny is associated with greater self-esteem, fewer
peer-reported internalizing symptoms, and less felt pressure
for gender differentiation than other patterns of gender identi-
ty. Study 2 examines whether androgyny is associated with
fewer sexist beliefs. Together, the studies provide information
about the relation of androgyny not only to adjustment (self-
esteem, internalizing symptoms) but also to forms of gender-
polarizing cognition that reflect the gender schema about
which Bem spoke (felt pressure for gender differentiation,
sexist beliefs).
In most research testing Bem’s(1974,1981,1985)ideas,
self-perception of expressive traits is used to assess self-
perceived femininity, and self-perception of instrumental traits
is used to infer self-perceived masculinity. Individuals who
rate themselves high on both sets of traits are defined as an-
drogynous; persons who view themselves as having more
same-gender traits than other-gender traits (e.g., females
who see themselves as more expressive than instrumental)
are defined as gender-typed; those who view themselves as
having more other-gender than same-gender traits are defined
as cross-gender-typed; and those who view themselves as
having few traits of either sort are said to be undifferentiated.
Androgynous persons are presumed to lack a gender schema
and thus to be relatively well adjusted and free of gender-
polarizing beliefs. Gender-typed and cross-gender-typed per-
sons are believed to be gender schematic and at risk for ad-
justment problems and gender-polarizing cognition.
Undifferentiated persons are believed to lack a gender schema
but to be at risk for adjustment difficulties for other reasons
(e.g., having impoverished behavioral repertoires).
Numerous studies of both adults and children have ex-
plored adjustment differences among the four categories of
persons. Some studies have found androgynous persons to
be better adjusted (e.g., to have higher self-esteem) than per-
sons of the other groups (Bem 1981; Block 1973; Boldizar
1991; Hall and Halberstadt 1980), but another common result
has been to find instrumental traits but not expressive traits to
predict healthy adjustment for people of both genders (Aube
et al. 1995; Spence and Hall 1996; Whitley 1983). These
results suggest that there are benefits to possessing both ex-
pressive and instrumental traits, but they also suggest that
instrumental traits outweigh expressive traits in importance,
perhaps owing to the greater utilitarian value of instrumental
competencies in our individualistic culture. (In this article, all
studies cited were conducted with U.S. samples unless other-
wise noted.)
Although important, these findings cannot be taken as un-
ambiguous support for Bem’s(1993) theory. A central problem
is that many adults, and probably many children, do not view
expressive and instrumental traits as indicators of their gender
typicality (i.e., their femininity or masculinity; Spence and
Helmreich 1980). In fact, self-ratings on expressive and instru-
mental traits correlate minimally with self-ratings on the adjec-
tives Bfeminine^and Bmasculine^(Pedhazur and Tetenbaum
1979). This is especially likely today because the genders no
longer differ reliably in their self-perception or possession of
these personality traits (Carver et al. 2003; Sneed et al. 2006).
This makes it problematic to use self-ratings of personality
traits to infer people’s self-perceived gender typicality or to
infer a gender schema. It is difficult to argue, for example, that
persons classified as gender-typed are gender schematic if they
make no cognitive connection between gender and the attri-
butes from which their gender-typed status is being inferred.
This consideration has led some to conclude that measures of
self-perceived expressive and instrumental traits simply assess
people’s dispositions to engage in these two specific classes of
behaviors but say little, if anything, about people’s gender
motivation or identity (Egan and Perry 2001; Schmader and
Block 2015;Spence1985; Tobin et al. 2010). Indeed, patterns
of self-ratings on expressive and instrumental traits often fail to
predict gender phenomena that might be expected to result
from a gender schema (e.g., other-gender prejudice; Spence
and Helmreich 1980; Wood and Eagly 2015).
An alternative strategy for assessing gender identity might
be to infer it from self-perception of attributes in some other
domain of gender-stereotyped attributes (e.g., toy and activity
choices, friendship patterns, academics, occupational inter-
ests, clothing, nonverbal stylistic attributes, or sexual orienta-
tion). However, this too has problems. Even children who are
aware of the cultural gender stereotypes in a domain differ
markedly in the degree to which they endorse the stereotypes,
or perceive them to be important prescriptions for a gender.
Furthermore, a child’s endorsement of stereotypes in one do-
main is not highly correlated with the child’sendorsementof
stereotypes in other domains (Edelbrock and Sugawara 1978;
Liben and Bigler 2002; Martin 2000;Tobinetal.2010).
Additionally, children’s possession of male-stereotyped or
female-stereotyped attributes in one domain is only weakly
correlated with their possession of similarly gender-typed at-
tributes in other domains (Ruble et al. 2006; Spence and Hall
1996; Spence and Helmreich 1980). Clearly, it is hazardous to
infer a person’s self-perceived male- or female-typicality from
Sex Roles
self-perceptions of gender-typed attributes in any particular
domain.
These complicating realities—people differ in the particu-
lar constellations of gender-stereotyped attributes they devel-
op as well as in the particular gender stereotypes they assign
prescriptive value—led Spence (1985) to propose that felt
gender typicality is cognitively constructed by each individual
according to a unique personal calculus. She suggested that
when people reflect on their gender typicality (either sponta-
neously or when prompted to do so by someone else), they
review their gender-typed attributes in multiple domains,
weight and integrate the information according to its salience
and perceived importance (drawing on the particular cultural
gender stereotypes they have internalized), and reach a sum-
mary overall judgment of the degree to which they are repre-
sentative of their gender.
Egan and Perry (2001) developed a measure of children’s
felt same-gender typicality designed to capture the end prod-
uct of the cognitive process Spence (1985) described. They
proposed that assessment of gender identity should require
children to draw inferences about themselves in relation to
gender category labels (e.g., BDo you feel similar to other
girls/boys?^), allowing them to apply their personal calculus
to reach their answers. Research using Egan and Perry’smea-
sure supports the construct validity of the measure: The more
that children feel gender typical, the more they display gender-
typical toy and activity preferences, academic interests, per-
sonality traits, playmate preferences, and relationship styles
(Carver et al. 2003; Corby et al. 2007;EganandPerry2001;
Menon 2011, in a study with English children). However,
each of these associations is relatively modest, consistent with
the marked inter- and intra-individual specificity in people’s
gender typing and endorsement of cultural gender stereotypes.
Studies using Egan and Perry’s(2001) measure have also
consistently found that the more that children feel same-
gender typical, the greater their self-esteem and the fewer in-
ternalizing problems they have (Carver et al. 2003;Cooper
et al. 2013; Corby et al. 2007; Egan and Perry 2001;Pauletti
et al. 2014; Smith and Leaper 2006; Yunger et al. 2004).
Although Egan and Perry (2001) broke ground by
assessing children’s gender identity as overall felt gender typ-
icality rather than as self-perceived possession of specific
gender-stereotyped attributes, their work was limited because
they did not also develop a measure of children’sfeltsimilar-
ity to the other gender. Indeed, to date no known study has
examined whether children with different combinations of felt
same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality,
assessed using Egan and Perry’s approach, differ in adjust-
ment or gender-polarizing cognition in ways consistent with
Bem’s(1993) suggestions.
The purpose of the present research was to evaluate four
hypotheses stemming from Bem’s(1981,1993) theorizing
using measures of felt same-gender typicality and felt other-
gender typicality based on Egan and Perry’s(2001)assess-
ment approach. Two hypotheses address the expected benefits
of androgyny for children’s adjustment, and two hypotheses
address the implications of androgyny for children’sgender-
differentiating cognition.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 are that androgyny is associated with
relatively high self-esteem and few peer-reported internalizing
symptoms, respectively. Self-esteem and peer-reported inter-
nalizing symptoms are only modestly negatively correlated
and capture qualitatively different kinds of distress. Low
self-esteem reflects low-arousal, privately experienced dejec-
tion, whereas peer reports of internalizing behaviors capture
overt affective distress. Hypothesis 3 is that androgyny is as-
sociated with feeling relatively little pressure for gender dif-
ferentiation. We administered a measure capturing the pres-
sure children feel from parents, peers, and themselves to enact
same-gender behavior and to avoid cross-gender behavior. We
expected androgynous children to be relatively free of such
pressure. Hypothesis 4 is that androgynous children are rela-
tively free of sexist ideology—beliefs that cast the two gen-
ders into different roles vis-à-vis each other. We administered
a measure of traditional sexist beliefs (e.g., that men should
make decisions for women).
We expected our hypotheses to be confirmed for children
of both genders and of all ages under study. Bem (1993)did
not suggest that androgyny offers more benefits to one gender
than to the other or that one gender is more susceptible to a
gender schema than the other, and she argued that the process-
es she described (e.g., the development of a gender schema)
begin during childhood. Nonetheless, we systematically ex-
amine whether gender or age moderates associations of gender
identity with the dependent variables.
Each hypothesis (of each study) is tested with the use of a
multiple regression analysis evaluating the interactive effect of
felt same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality on
the focal dependent variable (e.g., self-esteem). Bem (1993)
believed that felt same-gender identity and felt other-gender
identity influence adjustment interactively rather than simply
additively. Indeed, she argued that identifying with a given
gender is advantageous to adjustment only when persons also
identify with the other gender.
Study 1
In this first study, we created a measure of felt other-gender
typicality to parallel the Egan and Perry (2001) measure of felt
same-gender typicality. We examined the interactive influ-
ences of the two gender identity variables on self-esteem, in-
ternalizing problems, and felt pressure for gender conformity.
Thus, this study tested Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 by focusing on
androgyny in relation to self-esteem, internalizing problems,
and felt pressure for gender conformity.
Sex Roles
Method
Participants
The sample included 305 children (142 boys and 163 girls) in
the third through eighth grades of a state university school in
southeast Florida (USA). Children averaged 10 years 8 months
of age. (Girls averaged 10.8 years, and ranged from 8.1 to
15.0 years; boys averaged 10.9 years, and ranged from 8.2
to 14.2 years.) All children in the third through eighth grades
were given a short description of the project in their home-
room, invited to participate, and given a consent form to take
home to their parents. The consent form indicated that the
project was concerned with children’s self-concept and peer
relations, and parents were invited to stop by the school office
to review the questionnaires before deciding whether to grant
permission for their child’s participation. About 80 % of the
children received written parental consent; the children also
signed an assent form before testing began. Table 1provides
demographic information about the participants.
Procedure
Children were individually tested during school hours in a
spare classroom at their school. Measures were administered
by one of several graduate students in a session lasting about
an hour. The researcher read the items to children in the third
grade; children in the other grades read the items silently.
Children were assured of the confidentiality of their answers.
They generally seemed interested in participating and answer-
ing the questionnaires.
Measures
Self-report scales measuring felt same-gender typicality, felt
other-gender typicality, felt pressure for gender conformity,
and self-esteem were administered. A peer nomination
inventory assessing diverse social behaviors was also admin-
istered. New or revised self-report measures are included in an
online supplement.
Felt Gender Typicality Measures
The felt same-gender typicality scale was adapted from Egan
and Perry (2001) by adding two new items (to enhance reli-
ability), and the felt other-gender typicality scale was newly
created for the present study. Both scales used Harter’s(1985)
response format. Here, participants are presented with two
opposing statements, asked to choose the one that better fits
them, and then asked to select whether that statement is Bvery
true^for them or Bsort of true^for them. The Felt Same-
gender Typicality Scale (e.g., BSome girls [boys] don’tlike
to talk or act like other girls [boys] BUT other girls [boys]
do like to talk or act like other girls [boys]^;8items;
α= .79) assessed a child’s feelings of similarity to same-
gender peers. The Felt Other-gender Typicality Scale (e.g.,
BSome girls [boys] never talk or act like a boy [girl] BUT
other girls [boys] do sometimes talk or act like a boy
[girl]^;6items;α= .76) assessed felt similarity to other-
gender peers. Items of both scales were scored from 1 to 4,
with higher scores indicating higher felt same-gender typ-
icality or higher felt other-gender typicality. Scale scores
were item averages. The full scales are included in a sup-
plement available online.
Self-Esteem
Harter’s(1985) 6-item global self-worth scale was used to
assess self-esteem (e.g., BSome kids are often unhappy with
themselves BUT Other kids are often pretty pleased with
themselves^;α=.80). Scale scores were averages of items
scored from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater
self-esteem.
Tabl e 1 Demographic information for Study 1 participants by race/ethnicity, grade, and gender
Race/ethnicity 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade Total
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
White 50 % 15 17 11 17 16 18 10 13 9 14 8 5 153
Black 22%5 9 6556 57 753366
Hispanic 23 % 8 8 6 6 5 6 6 10 6 4 1 3 69
Asian 2%1 1 101 1 11 0 0007
Other 3%1 2 2 120 1 0 010010
Total 100%303726292931233122241211305
GenderbyGrades 10% 12% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 10% 7% 8% 4% 4% 100%
Note. Entries are counts unless otherwise indicated
Sex Roles
Internalizing Problems
Children’s internalizing problems were assessed with a two-item
scale (r= .53) deriving from a factor analysis performed on a 22-
item peer nomination inventory assessing diverse social behav-
iors with peers. Items were “She [He] says bad things about
herself [himself]”and “She [He] seems unhappy and looks sad
often.”The inventory was a short form of a 53-item inventory
used by Carver et al. (2003). The factor analysis (varimax rota-
tion) produced a four-factor structure, but the other factors were
not relevant to the current study. Each child’s score on internal-
izing problems was determined by calculating the percentage of
classmates (of both genders) who nominated the child for an
item, standardizing these item scores within classroom, and av-
eraging the child’s standardized scores across the two items.
Felt Pressure for Gender Conformity
A self-report measure assessing felt pressure for gender confor-
mity (adapted from Egan and Perry 2001, lengthened to improve
reliability) was administered (24 items; α= .86). The measure
assessed a child’s feelings of pressure from parents, peers, and
the self to enact same-gender behavior and to avoid other-gender
behavior (e.g., BMy parents would be upset if they saw me acting
like a boy [girl]^). Scale scores were averages of items scored
from 1 (BNotatalltrueforme^)to4(BVe r y tr u e f o r m e^), with
higher scores indicating higher felt pressure for gender confor-
mity. The scale is included in the online supplement.
Results
Gender and Age Differences in Measures
Means and standard deviations of the measures are given sep-
arately by gender in Table 2. To discern gender and age ef-
fects, each measure served as a dependent variable in a mul-
tiple regression analysis with age and gender entered as simul-
taneous predictors. With age controlled, boys scored higher
than girls on felt same-gender typicality (B=.28,p< .001) and
on felt pressure for gender conformity (B=.52, p< .001), but
girls scored higher than boys on felt other-gender typicality
(B=−.52, p< .001). With gender controlled, age was related to
same-gender typicality (B=.18,p=.001).
Correlations of Measures
Tab le 3displays relations among the measures for each gen-
der, with age controlled. Consistent with prior research, felt
same-gender typicality was generally associated with positive
adjustment, including higher self-esteem and lower internal-
izing problems. Felt other-gender typicality was less consis-
tently related to adjustment.
Tabl e 2 Means and standard
deviations of measures for Study
1 separately by gender
Boys Girls
Measure M(SD)M(SD)Gender difference
a
Felt same-gender typicality 3.00 .63 2.64 .62 .28***
Felt other-gender typicality 1.65 .48 2.31 .61 −.52***
Self-esteem 3.37 .63 3.35 .65 .01
Internalizing problems .02 .92 −.01 .72 .02
Felt pressure for gender conformity 2.83 .50 2.24 .46 .52***
Note. Internalizing problems scores were factor scores (varimax rotation). All other measures on the table were on
a1–4scale
a
Values in this column are standardized betas from multiple regression analyses predicting the variable from child
gender (coded 0 for girls, 1 for boys) with child age controlled. df =2,302
***p<.001
Tabl e 3 Correlations of
measures for Study 1 separately
by gender
Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Felt same-gender typicality –−.17* .24** −.18* .40***
2. Felt other-gender typicality −.50*** –−.14 −.04 −.37***
3. Self-esteem .28*** −.17* –−.36*** .02
4. Internalizing problems −.18* .13 −.13 –−.01
5. Felt pressure for gender conformity .30*** −.32*** −.11 .02 –
Note. Correlations for boys are above the diagonal; correlations for girls are below the diagonal
Entries are partial correlations with age controlled
*p<.05.**p<.01.***p< .001
Sex Roles
Relations of Felt Same- and Other-Gender Typicality
to the Dependent Variables
To examine the hypothesized interactive influences of felt
same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality, a mul-
tiple regression analysis was run on each dependent variable
(i.e., self-esteem, internalizing problems, and felt pressure for
gender conformity). Multicollinearity was not a concern; all
VIF and Tolerance values were acceptable (all VIFs < 3.20,
most < 1.50). The regression model was the same for each
dependent variable. On the first step, age and gender were
entered. On the second step, same-gender typicality and
other-gender typicality were entered. On the third step, the
focal two-way interaction of same-gender typicality × other-
gender typicality was tested. When this interaction was signif-
icant and not moderated by either gender or age on later steps
of the model, we examined (i.e., plotted) the interaction for the
total sample.
The next two steps of the model evaluated whether gender
moderated effects of the gender identity variables. On the
fourth step, the two-way interactions of gender × same-
gender typicality and gender × other-gender typicality were
entered. On the fifth step, the three-way interaction of gender
× same-gender typicality × other-gender typicality was evalu-
ated. When this interaction was significant and not moderated
by child age on later steps, we ran a separate regression anal-
ysis for each gender and examined the interaction for the gen-
der(s) for which the interaction was significant. Results of the
regression analyses through the first five steps of the analyses
are presented in Table 4. As indicated in the table, each anal-
ysis showed that same-gender typicality and other-gender typ-
icality interactively were associated with the outcome variable
(i.e., the interaction term entered on either the third or fifth step
of the regression analysis was significant). (To save space,
results of subsequent steps evaluating interactions of child
age with other variables are not given in the table; only one
effect of age was significant, described next.)
To examine whether child age moderated the interaction of
same-gender typicality and other-gender typicality, the three-
way interaction of age × same-gender typicality × other-
gender typicality was entered on the sixth step of the regres-
sion model (along with the two-way interactions of age with
each other variable, as controls). Finally, to examine the four-
way interaction of age × gender × same-gender typicality ×
other-gender typicality, this interaction was evaluated on the
seventh step of the regression model (with all three-way inter-
actions controlled). Of all the potential effects of child age,
only one was significant. This was the three-way interaction of
age × same-gender typicality × other-gender typicality in the
analysis on children’s internalizing problems; we therefore
examined the focal two-way interaction of same-gender typi-
cality and other-gender typicality separately for younger and
older children, as described later (in results for Hypothesis 2).
To examine the nature of a significant two–way interaction
(of same-gender typicality × other-gender typicality), we plot-
ted it following the procedures recommended by Aiken and
Tabl e 4 Hierarchical regression
analyses predicting felt pressure
for gender conformity and
adjustment from same- and other-
gender typicality (Study 1)
Dependent variable
Felt pressure for
gender conformity
Self-esteem Internalizing
problems
a
Predictor ΔR
2
BΔR
2
BΔR
2
B
Step 1 .27*** .01 .00
Age .04 .09 .04
Gender .52*** .01 .02
Step 2 .13*** .07*** .03**
Felt same-gender typicality .24*** .25*** −.19**
Felt other-gender typicality −.24*** −.08 −.02
Step 3 .03*** .00 .02*
Felt same- × felt other-gender typicality −.18*** −.06 −.14*
Step 4 .00 .00 .00
Felt same-gender typicality × gender .04 −.05 −.13
Felt other-gender typicality × gender −.03 −.02 −.01
Step 5 .00 .03** .00
Felt same- × felt other-gender typicality ×
gender
−.08 .26** −.04
a
As indicated in the text, the analysis oninternalizing problems also yielded a three-way interaction of child age ×
felt same-gender typicality × felt other-gender typicality, B=−.20, p<.01
*p<.05.**p<.01.***p< .001
Sex Roles
West ( 1991). For consistency, interactions are always depicted
to show the relation of same-gender typicality to the depen-
dent variable at high (+1 SD)andlow(−1SD) levels of other-
gender typicality.
Testing Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that androgyny would be associated
with relatively high self-esteem. The analysis on self-esteem
yielded a three-way interaction of gender × same-gender typ-
icality × other-gender typicality on the fifth step (B= .26,
p= .004; see Table 4). Follow-up regressions were conducted
separately for boys and girls, with age entered on the first step,
main effects of same-gender typicality and other-gender typi-
cality on the second step, and the interaction of same-gender
typicality × other-gender typicality on the third step. The in-
teraction was significant for girls (B=−.16, p= .030; see
Fig. 1a) and marginally significant for boys (B=.16,
p= .055; see Fig. 1b). Although the pattern differed by gender,
it is clear that for both genders androgynous children reported
fairly high self-esteem. (For convenience, the letter A—for
androgyny—is placed in each figure at the data point
representing the combination of high same-gender typicality
and high other-gender typicality.)
Notice that for neither gender were androgynous children
theonlyoneswithfairlyhighself-esteem.Infact,girlswho
identified only with their own gender reported somewhat
higher self-esteem than androgynous girls. For boys, three of
the four patterns of gender identity were associated with fairly
high self-esteem; only cross-gender-identified boys reported
low self-esteem. We later comment on this gender difference.
Testing Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 proposed that androgyny would be associated
with relatively few internalizing problems. The analysis on
internalizing problems yielded not only a significant two-
way interaction of same-gender typicality and other-gender
typicality (B=−.14, p=.02; see Table4) but also a significant
three-way interaction of age × same-gender typicality × other-
gender typicality (B=−.20, p= .002). Thus, follow-up regres-
sion analyses were run separately for younger children (grades
3–5) and older children (grades 6–8), with gender entered on
the first step, main effects of same-gender typicality and other-
gender typicality on the second step, and the interaction of
same-gender typicality × other-gender typicality on the third
step. The interaction was significant for older children
(B=−.58, p<.001) but not for younger children (for whom
there was only a marginally significant main effect of same-
gender typicality, B=−.16, p<.10). The interaction for older
children (see Fig. 2) shows that, consistent with hypothesis,
androgynous children clearly had fewer internalizing symp-
toms than other children; in contrast, children with strong
other-gender typicality and low same-gender typicality
showed the most internalizing problems.
Testing Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 expected androgyny to be associated with re-
duced felt pressure for gender conformity. The analysis on felt
pressure for gender conformity yielded a significant interac-
tion on Step 3 (B=−.18, p< .001). This interacti on, which was
not moderated by gender or age, is depicted in Fig. 3.Itisclear
that androgyny is associated with fairly low felt pressure for
gender conformity. However, so are two other combinations
of the gender identity variables; in fact, it is only the combi-
nation of high same-gender typicality and low other-gender
typicality that is associated with high felt pressure.
Summary
Consistent with Bem’s(1981,1993) theorizing, androgynous
children—those high on both dimensions of felt gender typi-
cality—showed fairly good adjustment across the three depen-
dent measures (though androgyny was associated with re-
duced internalizing symptoms only for older children).
Although androgynous children sometimes shared their ad-
justment advantage with children of another gender identity
pattern, the androgynous pattern was the only one not associ-
ated with disadvantage on at least one outcome measure.
Study 2
Here we evaluated the hypothesis that androgynous children
are relatively unlikely to develop traditional sexist beliefs,
such as the belief that women should be subservient to men
or should occupy only traditionally female professions
(Hypothesis 4). Thus we focus here on androgyny in relation
to sexist ideology.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 236 children (129 girls, 107 boys) in the
fourth through eighth grades of a public school in southeast
Florida (USA). Children averaged 11.3 years of age. (Girls
averaged 11.4 years, and ranged from 9.1 to 14.4 years; boys
averaged 11.2 years, and ranged from 9.2 to 14.0 years.)
Procedures of child recruitment and testing were the same as
those of Study 1. Table 5provides demographic information
about the participants.
Sex Roles
Measures
The self-report scales of felt same-gender typicality (α=.73)
and felt other-gender typicality (α= .84) were the same as
those for Study 1. A 24-item scale measuring self-reported
sexist ideology was administered (Menon et al. 2007). Items
were modeled after those of the Attitudes Toward Women
Scale (Spence and Helmreich 1972). Responses to items could
A
Self-Esteem
A
Self-Esteem
a. Girls
b. Boys
Fig. 1 Interactive influences of same-gender typicality and other-gender typicality on agirls’and bboys self-esteem. (Androgynous children are
marked with an BA.^)
Internalizing Problems
A
Fig. 2 Interactive influences of
same-gender typicality and other-
gender typicality on older
children’s internalizing problems.
(Androgynous children are
marked with an BA.^)
Sex Roles
range from 1 (Disagree Strongly!) to 5 (Agree Strongly!), with
higher scores indicating greater endorsement of sexist beliefs.
Scale scores were item averages. Items assessed traditional
gender beliefs about dating relationships (e.g., BAgirlshould
treat her boyfriend like he’s the boss^), the workplace (e.g.,
BMen should be chosen over women when being hired or
promoted for a job^), and family roles (e.g., BAwife should
do what her husband says^). The scale is reliable (α=.90)and
predicts overt aggression by boys towards girls (Cooper
2014). The scale is included in the online supplement.
Results
Gender and Age Differences in Measures
Means and standard deviations of the measures are presented
in Table 6. As in Study 1, gender and age differences were
examined by treating each measure as a dependent variable in
a regression analysis with age and gender as simultaneous
predictors. Boys scored higher than girls on sexist ideology
(B= .54, p< .001). Girls scored higher than boys on other-
gender typicality (B=−.65, p< .001). Age was positively cor-
related with same-gender typicality (B=.28,p< .001) but neg-
atively correlated with other-gender typicality (B=−.13,
p= .01) and with sexist ideology (B=−.22, p<.001).
Correlations of Measures
Tab le 7displays the correlations among the measures for each
gender, controlling for age. Same-gender typicality was posi-
tively associated with sexist ideology for boys but not girls;
felt other-gender typicality was not associated with sexist ide-
ology for either gender.
Testing Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 predicted that androgyny would be associated
with relatively low sexist ideology. A multiple regression
analysis similar to that used in Study 1 was run on children’s
sexist beliefs. Results through the fifth step of the model are
summarized in Table 8; no effect involving child age was
significant. Multicollinearity was not a concern (all
VIFs < 3.20, most < 1.50). The three-way interaction of gender
× same-gender typicality × other-gender typicality was signif-
icant on Step 5 (B=−.27, p= .01), and thus a follow-up re-
gression was run for each gender. The interaction of same-
gender typicality × other-gender typicality was significant
for boys (B=−.22,p= .03) but not for girls (B= .00). The
interaction for boys is depicted in Fig. 4.Aspredicted,androg-
ynous boys (as well as boys with two other patterns of gender
identify) exhibited few sexist beliefs. In contrast, boys who
ytimrofnoCredneGroferusserPtleF
A
Fig. 3 Interactive influences of
same-gender typicality and other-
gender typicality on children’s felt
pressure for gender conformity.
(Androgynous children are
marked with an BA.^)
Tabl e 5 Demographic information for Study 2 participants by race/ethnicity, grade, and gender
4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade Total
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
White 53 % 15 15 17 15 12 16 9 16 3 7 125
Black 20%563754471648
Hispanic 18 % 6 5 8 6 5 4 2 5 0 2 43
Asian 4 % 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 9
Other 5 % 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 11
Total 100%29292928262517306 17236
Gender by grades 12 % 12 % 12 % 12 % 11 % 11 % 7 % 13 % 3 % 7 % 100 %
Note. Entries are counts unless otherwise indicated
Sex Roles
identified only with the male gender were exceptionally high
in sexist ideology.
The pattern of this interaction is strikingly similar to that of
Fig. 3, which depicts the interactive influence of the gender
typicality variables on felt pressure for gender conformity.
Both interaction patterns indicate little gender-polarizing cog-
nition among androgynous children and a high level of such
cognition among children who identify only with their own
gender.
Discussion
Over 30 years ago, Sandra Bem (1981,1993) advanced her
provocative notion that androgynous persons—those who
perceive themselves to possess qualities characteristic of both
genders—are better adjusted and possess fewer gender-
polarizing beliefs than persons who view themselves as sim-
ilar to only a single gender. Measurement problems character-
ized Bem’s(andothers’) attempts to test her hypotheses, how-
ever, leading to ambiguous results and stymying progress to-
ward evaluating the merits of her ideas. Using new measures
of gender identity, we found thatchildren who saw themselves
as similar to both genders—androgynous children—indeed
showed relatively good adjustment (high self-esteem and,
for older children, few internalizing problems) and little
gender-differentiating cognition (little felt pressure for gender
conformity and, for boys, few sexist beliefs). Children with
other patterns of gender identity sometimes resembled an-
drogynous children on one or more dependent variables, but
each other pattern of gender identity was associated with poor
adjustment or with gender-polarizing cognition on at least one
dependent measure whereas androgyny never was.
It is instructive to compare each other pattern of gender
identity with the androgynous one. Children who identified
exclusively with their own gender—whoappraisedthem-
selves as more similar to same-gender peers than to other-
gender ones—were fairly similar to androgynous children in
their high self-esteem and few internalizing problems, but they
also scored high on felt pressure for gender conformity and
(for boys) sexist ideology. This suggests that the principal
harmful effect of perceiving the self to be different from the
other gender may be gender-polarizing cognition rather than
internalized distress. Cross-gender identified children—who
perceived themselves as more similar to other-gender peers
than to same-gender ones—evidenced few gender-polarizing
cognitions and thus were similar to androgynous children in
this respect, but they lacked self-esteem and displayed inter-
nalizing difficulties. This suggests that the principal harmful
effect of perceiving the self to be different from others of one’s
own gender may be internalized distress rather than gender-
polarizing beliefs. Undifferentiated children—who failed to
see themselves as similar to peers of either gender—were
similar to androgynous children in that they lacked gender-
polarizing cognition, but they had internalizing difficulties
and, if female, low self-esteem. Thus, the ill effects of undif-
ferentiated gender identity appear rather similar to those of
cross-gender identity.
Although our results did not reveal androgynous children
always to have better adjustment and less gender-polarizing
cognition than children with other gender identity patterns, the
benefits of androgyny should not be underestimated.
Androgynous children never showed any of the disadvantages
associated with identifying with only one (or neither) gender.
When children view themselves as different from children of
one gender or the other, and thereby place themselves in an
either-or gender space, they clearly are at risk for either poorer
adjustment or gender-polarizing beliefs. Children who are
Tabl e 6 Means and standard
deviations of measures for Study
2 separately by gender
Boys Girls
Measure M (SD) M (SD) Gender difference
a
Felt same-gender typicality 2.89 .62 2.78 .71 .10
Felt other-gender typicality 1.48 .41 2.37 .63 −.65**
Sexist ideology 2.24 .62 1.56 .38 .54***
Note. Felt same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality scores were on a 1–4 scale. Sexist ideology
scores were on a 1–5scale
a
Values in this column are standardized betas from multiple regression analyses predicting the variable from child
gender (coded 0 for girls, 1 for boys) with child age controlled. df =2,233
*** p<.001
Tabl e 7 Correlations of measures for Study 2 separately by gender
Measure 1 2 3
1. Felt same-gender typicality –−.32** .19*
2. Felt other-gender typicality −.52*** –−.14
3. Sexist ideology −.05 .01 –
Note. Correlations for boys are above the diagonal; correlations for girls
are below the diagonal. Entries are partial correlations with age controlled
*p< .05. **p<.01.***p<.001
Sex Roles
comfortable acknowledging that they are similar to persons of
both genders are less vulnerable to these risks. Androgyny
thus serves a protective function.
An important issue about the construct of psychological
androgyny warrants comment. Although Bem (1993)defined
androgyny as perceiving the self to possess both female-
typical and male-typical traits, she did not believe that androg-
yny results from conscious or unconscious efforts to achieve a
dual gender identity—to perceive the self as similar to both
genders (i.e., to feel both feminine and masculine). Indeed, she
saw androgyny as facilitated by the absence of gender scripts
and pressures and resulting from other factors (e.g., personal
temperament, interests, and abilities). We share Bem’sview,
and we believe it applies to androgyny when defined by our
assessment approach as well. That is, we believe it is unlikely
that children who acknowledge that they are similar to persons
of both genders strive for a dualgender identity. It seems more
likely that they are fairly free of gender standards and pres-
sures yet when asked to estimate their gender typicality are
able to conclude (and comfortably report) that they do possess
both female-typical and male-typical attributes. This analysis
suggests that androgynous children, although free of
prescriptive gender stereotypes (e.g., BIt is more important
for boys than for girls to play sports^), are cognizant of com-
mon descriptive gender stereotypes (e.g., BBoys play sports
more than girls^), and are able to compare themselves to the
latter when prompted to do so. These ideas might be tested in
future research.
Although we share Bem’s(1993) belief that androgynous
individuals are unlikely to strive for a dual gender identity, it
seems likely that some androgynous adults, and perhaps even
a few androgynous children, do self-regulate with a desire to
achieve androgyny. Domestic partners who share egalitarian
values, for example, might each strive to adopt behaviors tra-
ditionally prescribed for both genders. It would be interesting
to assess this motivation and to see whether it moderates
androgyny’s impact on mental health and gender-polarizing
thought and action. Might androgynous persons who self-
regulate to perceive themselves as similar to both genders
have higher self-esteem, or be less inclined toward gender
prejudice and discrimination, than androgynous persons who
do not?
Bem’s(1981,1993) gender schema construct also
merits comment. Bem viewed a gender schema as a
Tabl e 8 Hierarchical regression
analysis predicting sexist
ideology from same- and other-
gender typicality (Study 2)
Predictor ΔR
2
B
Step 1 .36***
Age −.22***
Gender .54***
Step 2 .01
Felt same-gender typicality .07
Felt other-gender typicality −.03
Step 3 .01*
Felt same- × felt other-gender typicality −.12*
Step 4 .00
Felt same-gender typicality × gender .05
Felt other-gender typicality × gender −.06
Step 5 .02*
Felt same- × felt other-gender typicality × gender −.27*
*p<.05.**p<.01.***p< .001
ygoloedItsixeS
A
Fig. 4 Interactive influences of
same-gender typicality and other-
gender typicality on boys’sexist
ideology. (Androgynous boys are
marked with an BA.^)
Sex Roles
pervasive and pernicious tendency to self-socialize in ac-
cordance with gender stereotypes. She believed the schema
typically originates from external social pressures for gen-
der conformity and causes individuals to develop a strong
same-gender identity and a weak other-gender one. Some
persons develop the opposite pattern—a strong other-
gender identity and a weak same-gender one; they too are
thought to be gender schematic, although their schema is
more likely to be intrinsically motivated. Androgynous and
undifferentiated persons lack a gender schema. Our data
provide especially convincing support for Bem’s(1993)
belief that strong felt pressure for gender conformity is
associated with strong same-gender identity paired with
weak other-gender identity (see Fig. 3).
This result, along with findings from other studies using a
similar measure of felt pressure for gender conformity, has led
us to conclude that it probably is appropriate to consider our
measure of felt pressure for gender conformity to be a direct
measure of the harmful gender schema Bem described. Felt
pressure for gender conformity motivates children not only to
avoid cross-gender behavior (Egan and Perry 2001) but also to
emulate the prescriptive same-gender stereotypes they have
internalized (Tobin et al. 2010). Felt pressure for gender con-
formity also predicts internalizing problems and reduced self-
esteem, especially for girls (Carver et al. 2003; Corby et al.
2007; Egan and Perry 2001; Yunger et al. 2004). These same
studies also show that children who feel gender atypical ex-
perience internalized distress mainly if they also feel strong
pressure for gender conformity; children who feel gender-
atypical but lack such pressure are relatively unperturbed by
their gender nonconformity. Further, children who feel gender
atypical yet also feel strong pressure for gender conformity
single out gender-nonconforming peers for maltreatment
(Pauletti et al. 2014). These are the kinds of negative outcomes
that Bem believed derive from a pernicious gender schema
fueled by felt pressure for gender conformity. We believe
theory and research on gender would profit from greater at-
tention to this centrally important variable.
It is worth noting that Bem (1993) frequently asserted
that the essence of androgyny is freedom from felt pressure
for gender conformity. She stated, for example, B…androg-
yny provides both a vision of utopia and a model of mental
health that does not require the individual to banish from
the self whatever attributes and behaviors the culture may
have stereotypically defined as appropriate for his or her
sex.^(p. 124). Clearly, despite her operational definition of
androgyny as self-perception of both male-typical and
female-typical attributes, Bem’s conceptual definition fo-
cused on the absence of a gender schema. A task for future
researchers of androgyny is to consider more thoughtfully
the implications of conceptualizing (and assessing) an-
drogyny as perceived similarity to both genders versus lack
of felt pressure for gender conformity.
Although children with strong same-gender identity and
weak other-gender identity on average reported high felt pres-
sure for gender conformity, some children with this pattern of
gender identity may not have experienced much social pres-
sure for gender conformity. Children with the other-gender
identity pattern (i.e., cross-gender-identified children) almost
certainly lack such pressure. Gender-typed behavior results
from interactions among a host of environmental, biological,
and cognitive variables (Ruble et al. 2006), and it is important
not to overemphasize the role of a self-limiting gender schema
in its development.
In future, it would be interesting to collect separate assess-
ments of children’s felt external pressure and felt internal pres-
sure for exhibiting (and suppressing) behaviors associated
with each gender. For example, perhaps children with cross-
gender identity are especially at risk for distress if they report
strong intrinsic pressure for conformity to the other gender and
strong extrinsic pressure against it.
An additional important moderator of the relations of the
gender identity patterns (and of felt pressure for gender con-
formity) to adjustment and other outcomes is the content of
the particular prescriptive gender stereotypes a child adopts
(Tobin et al. 2010). Bem (1985) believed that a gender schema
causes fairly indiscriminant emulation of same-gender cultural
stereotypes. This is doubtful, however, given that there exists
considerable intra- and inter-individual variability in the par-
ticular prescriptive stereotypes children endorse (e.g., in de-
fining masculinity, one boy may assign great importance to
aggressive domination and no importance to athletic prowess;
another boy may have the reverse priorities). The conse-
quences of gender identity for adjustment likely hinge critical-
ly on the cultural gender stereotypes a child adopts for self-
regulation. This may be especially true for persons who per-
ceive themselves as similar to their own gender but as dissim-
ilar to the other.
As expected, few relations were moderated by child gender
or age. Relations of the gender identity patterns to self-esteem
did vary with gender (see Fig. 1). Androgynous children of
both genders had fairly high self-esteem, but more gender
identity patterns were associated with high self-esteem for
boys than for girls. By these ages boys may have an easier
time than girls finding sources of self-worth, contributing to
their overall higher self-esteem (Ruble et al. 2006). Girls may
have narrowed their criteria for judging themselves gender
typical to a smaller number of heavily weighted factors (e.g.,
relationship success, attractiveness), making it more difficult
for them to view themselves positively (Perry and Pauletti
2011). For boys, the only gender identity pattern associated
with low self-esteem was the cross-gender-identified pattern,
and this is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that only boys
with high same-gender identity and low other-gender identity
endorsed sexist beliefs. Androgyny was associated with fewer
internalizing problems only for older children. Perhaps older
Sex Roles
children are better able to appreciate the self-limiting implica-
tions of identifying with only a single gender.
Results of this research challenge the argument of Spence
(1985) and of Egan and Perry (2001)thatfeltgendertypicality
is best conceptualized as a single bipolar dimension, with
perception of similarity to same-gender persons at one end
and perception of similarity to other-gender persons at the
other. In prior research on gender identity, Perry and his col-
leagues (e.g., Carver et al. 2003;Egan and Perry 2001;
Yunger et al. 2004) have not administered a measure
of felt other-gender typicality to children along with
their measure of felt same-gender typicality because
they assumed that the two scales would be too strongly
inversely correlated to make it necessary to administer
both. However, in the present studies, the correlation
between these two dimensions of gender identity was
modest, and the dimensions interactively predicted the
dependent variable(s). Clearly, it is fruitful to construe
and assess same-gender typicality and other-gender typ-
icality separately, as Bem (1981) proposed.
Our measures of gender identity offer important advan-
tages over the use of self-perceived expressive and instrumen-
tal traits (or attributes drawn from any other domain of cultural
gender stereotypes) to infer a person’s overall self-perceived
female-typicality or male-typicality. Our measures respect the
fact that children (and adults) differ in the cultural gender
messages they internalize and hence their criteria for judging
their femininity or masculinity. Moreover, because our assess-
ment strategy is not tethered to specific, concrete gender-typed
referents, it can be applied across different cultures, ages, and
times in history.
A limitation of our studies is that the data were collected
concurrently rather than longitudinally. It is conceivable, as
Bem (1993) and we believe, that gender identity patterns are
causal influences on adjustment and gender-differentiating cog-
nition, but the causal arrow may run in the reverse direction as
well (or even instead). Longitudinal work designed to identify
determinants of the various patterns of gender identity is need-
ed. Identifying the origins of felt pressure for gender conformi-
ty—the essence of Bem’s gender schema—is particularly im-
portant given its putative role in shaping patterns of gender
identity and its other negative implications for adjustment, cog-
nition, and social behavior. Although felt pressure for gender
conformity may often originate in families and peer groups that
socialize gender differentiation, it also appears to be stimulated
by insecurity deriving from poor relationships with peers
(Yunger et al. 2004) or with parents (Cooper et al. 2013).
Our assumptions, findings, and interpretations of data
should not be generalized to other cultures. We have demon-
strated advantages of psychological androgyny in samples of
North American children, but in cultures where persons who
violate gender norms are imprisoned (or worse), there may lie
danger in androgyny and advantage in internalizing and
abiding by gender norms (and in holding sexist views). It seems
likely that the advantages of androgyny (as well as the dangers
of identifying with only a single gender) are greatest for persons
who live in cultures where gender equality is encouraged (and
perhaps legislated), because in such cultures pursuing one’s
personal, gender-free agendas stands to benefit the individual
andtheremaybeheavycostsassociatedwithsacrificingone’s
personal desires to gender norms. Nonetheless, there may be an
important role for androgynous persons in cultures with more
traditional gender roles and boundaries. In these cultures, it may
fall to androgynous persons—those with inclusive social iden-
tities—to perceive the inequality in gender divisions and to take
on the responsibility of promoting social change.
Compliance with Ethical Standards The data presented here were
collected in compliance with all APA ethical guidelines. We obtained
IRB approval prior to data collection. We obtained written parental con-
sent and child assent from all participants. Participants were treated ac-
cording to APA ethical standards.
Conflict of interest There were no conflicts of interest involved in data
collection or in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions.NewburyPark:Sage.
Aube, J., Norcliffe, H., Craig, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender charac-
teristics and adjustment-related outcomes: Questioning the mascu-
linity model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,284–
295. doi:10.1177/0146167295213009.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,155–162. doi:
10.1080/00224545.1974.9923068.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88,354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.88.4.354.
Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual
and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation 1984: Psychology and gender (pp.
179–226). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on
sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and
longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 28,512–526. doi:
10.1037/h0035094.
Boldizar, J. P. (1991). Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children:
The Children’s Sex Role Inventory. Developmental Psychology, 27,
505–515. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.3.505.
Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and
adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49,95–109. doi:10.
1023/A:1024423012063.
Cooper, P. J. (2014). Gender self-discrepancies in middle childhood:
Influences on children’s personal and social adjustment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University.
Cooper, P. J., Pauletti, R. E., Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M.,
Spatta, B., …Perry, D. G. (2013). Mother-child attachment and
Sex Roles
gender identity in preadolescence. Sex Roles, 69,618–631. doi:10.
1007/s11199-013-0310-3.
Corby, B. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Gender identity
and adjustment in Black, Hispanic, and White preadolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 43,261–266. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.
43.1.261.
Edelbrock, C. S., & Sugawara, A. I. (1978). Acquisition of sex-typed
preferences in preschool-aged children. Developmental
Psychology, 14,614–623. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.6.614.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 37,451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.
37.4.451.
Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1980). Masculinity and femininity in
children: Development of the Children’s Personal Attributes
Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 16, 270–280. doi:10.
1037/0012-1649.16.4.270.
Harter, S. (1985). The self-perception profile for children: Revision of the
perceived competencescale for children (Manual). Denver:
University of Denver.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender
differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs
and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 67,vii–147. doi:10.1111/ 1540-5834.t01-1-00187.
Martin, C. L. (2000). Cognitive theories of gender development. In T.
Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychol-
ogy of gender (pp. 91–122). Mahwah: London.
Menon, M. (2011). Does felt gender compatibility mediate influences of
self-perceived gender nonconformity on early adolescents’psycho-
social adjustment? Child Development, 82,1152–1162. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01601.x.
Menon, M., Menon, M., Tobin, D. D., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Children’s
sexism questionnaire. Unpublished measure. Florida Atlantic
University, FL.
Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Perry, D. G. (2014). Influences of gender
identity on children’s maltreatment of gender-nonconforming peers:
A person × target analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 106,843–866. doi:10.1037/a0036037.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A
theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37,996–1016. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.
996.
Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent develop-
ment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21,61–74. doi:10.1111/
j.1532-7795.2010.00715.x.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender devel-
opment. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg,
W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychol-
ogy: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,
pp. 858–932). New York: Wiley.
Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). Engendering identity: Toward a clear-
er conceptualization of gender as a social identity. Sex Roles, 73,
474–480. doi:10.1111/josi.12096.
Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and
the peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 16,91–103. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00123.x.
Sneed, J. R., Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Gilligan, C., Chen, H., Crawford,
T. N. , …Kasen, S. (2006). Gender differences in the age-changing
relationship between instrumentality and family contact in emerging
adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42, 787–797. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.42.5.787
Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and implications for concepts of
masculinity and femininity. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 32. Psychology and gender (pp. 59–
96). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Spence, J. T., & Hall, S. K. (1996). Children’s gender-related self-percep-
tions, activity preferences, and occupational stereotypes: A test of
three models of gender constructs. Sex Roles, 35,659–692. doi:10.
1007/BF01544086.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women
Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudestoward the rights
and roles of women in contemporary society. Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 2,66–67.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). On assessing androgyny. Sex
Roles, 5,721–738. doi:10.1007/BF00287935.
Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., &
Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-
socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. doi:10.1037/
a0018936.
Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A
critical meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 765–778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.
4.765.
Wood,W.,&Eagly,A.H.(2015).Twotraditionsofresearchon
gender identity. Sex Roles, 73,461–473. doi:10.1007/s11199-
015-0480-2.
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity
influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental
Psychology, 40,572–582. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.572.
Sex Roles
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sex Roles
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
