Gender Essentialism in Children and Parents: Implications for the Development of Gender Stereotyping and Gender-Typed Preferences
Psychological essentialism is a set of lay beliefs about categories, according to which certain categories are seen as natural and arising from an inborn, causal force or “essence.” Social categories, including gender, are often essentialized by both adults and children. The current study examines how gender essentialism relates to other gender-relevant beliefs and preferences, in both a child sample (5- to 7-year-olds) and an adult sample (the children’s parents). Children’s and parents’ essentialism predicted children’s gender-typed preferences, but not children’s prescriptive stereotyping. In contrast, parents’ essentialism predicted their own prescriptive stereotyping, but not their gender-typed preferences. Implications of these findings are discussed in the contexts of (a) past findings linking essentialism with stereotyping and (b) the practical implications of developmental shifts in the correlates of essentialism, including ways in which stereotyping and rigid beliefs about gender may be reduced.
KeywordsPsychological essentialism Stereotyped behavior Stereotyped attitudes Development
All research reported in this manuscript was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan (the home institution of both authors at the time the research was conducted). This includes the use of informed consent (from parents) and assent (from children). This research was supported by Grant R01 HD36043 from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development to Gelman. We thank Elizabeth Anastasia and Alexandra M. Was for research assistance.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with our involvement in this research, or its publication.
- Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 34, pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K., Hartman, E., & Pappas, T. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of parental input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 253. Vol., 63, 1–157.Google Scholar
- Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.Google Scholar
- Haslam, N. (2000). Psychiatric categories as natural kinds: Essentialist thinking about mental disorders. Social Research, 67, 1031–1058.Google Scholar
- Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 388–441). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lynott, D., Kansal, H., Connell, L., & O’Brien, K. S. (2012). Modelling the IAT: Implicit association test reflects shallow linguistic environment and not deep personal attitudes. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34 annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1948–1953). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Martin, C. L. (2000). Cognitive theories of gender development. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 91–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593–10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction, and social cognition (pp. 11–36). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, J., & Russell, G. (1984). Development of gender constancy and selective attention to same-sex models. Child Development, 46, 849–856.Google Scholar
- Weinraub, M., Clemens, L. P., Sockloff, A., Ethridge, T., Gracely, E., & Myers, B. (1984). The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: Relationships to gender labeling, gender identity, sex-typed toy preference, and family characteristics. Child Development, 55, 1493–1503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar