Skip to main content

Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact


One of Sandra Bem’s important contributions was the development of gender schema theory (GST; Bem 1981a). Through an analysis of journal articles referencing GST, we explored the breadth of the theory’s reach and the ways in which its use has changed over time. More specifically, we analyzed how often GST reached journals outside psychology as well as journals and research populations outside the United States, even though Bem was a U.S. psychologist whose empirical work was primarily with U.S. populations. We also assessed the range of research topics that have used a GST framework. We found that 34 years later, GST continues to be cited frequently, with a broad reach beyond U.S. psychology, particularly into international as well as communication and business journals. We found five primary novel uses of the theory: development, discrimination/stereotyping, occupations, historically marginalized populations, and mental health and trauma. We conclude that GST has been a generative theory. For the future, we recommend that GST be used to frame the study of intersectionality, for research-based activism, and as part of a project of theory-bridging.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


*one of the 62 articles in the primary citations sample

  1. *Andsager, J. L., Weintraub Austin, E., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2002). Gender as a variable in interpretation of alcohol-related messages. Communication Research, 29, 246–269. doi:10.1177/0093650202029003002.

  2. *Archer, J. (1991). A methodological commentary on gender schema research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 185–188. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00936.x.

  3. *Archer, J., Smith, J., & Kilpatrick, G. (1995). The association between gender scale measures and gender clustering in recall. Sex Roles, 33, 299–308. doi:10.1007/BF01544617.

  4. Bakhshi, H., Schneider, P., & Walker, C. (2008). Arts and humanities research and innovation. Bristol, United Kingdom: Arts and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from

  5. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bem, S. L. (1981a). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bem, S. L. (1981b). The BSRI and gender schema theory: a reply to Spence and Helmreich. Psychological Review, 88, 369–371. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bem, S. L. (1982). Gender schema theory and self-schema theory compared: a comment on Markus, Crane, Bernstein, and Siladi’s “self-schemas and gender.”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1192–1194. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8, 598–616.

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bem, S. L. (1998). An unconventional family. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. *Bernstein, B. L., Hofmann, B., & Wade, P. (1987). Preferences for counselor gender: students’ sex role, other characteristics, and type of problem. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 20–26. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.20.

  14. Bobrow, D. G., & Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 131–149). New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. *Bornstein, R. F. (2010). Gender schemas, gender roles, and expressive writing: Toward a process-focused model. Sex Roles, 63, 173–177. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9752-z.

  16. *Campbell, A., Shirley, L., Heywood, C., & Crook, C. (2000). Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 479–498. doi:10.1348/026151000165814.

  17. *Campbell, A., Shirley, L., & Caygill, L. (2002). Sex-typed preferences in three domains: do two-year-olds need cognitive variables? British Journal of Psychology, 93, 203–217. doi:10.1348/000712602162544.

  18. *Casas, J. M., Wagenheim, B. R., Banchero, R., & Mendoza-Romero, J. (1994). Hispanic masculinity: Myth or psychological schema meriting clinical consideration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 315–331.

  19. *Chang, C., & Hitchon, J. C. B. (2004). When does gender count? Further insights into gender schematic processing of female candidates’ political advertisements. Sex Roles, 51, 197–208. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037683.47986.c2.

  20. *Chen, Y., Lee, C., Yu, T., & Shen, J. (2014). Effects of gender role and family support on work adjustment among male flight attendants in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 453–464. doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.453.

  21. *Ciliberto, J., & Ferrari, F. (2009). Interiorized homophobia, identity dynamics and gender typization: Hypothesizing a third gender role in Italian LGB individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 610–622. doi:10.1080/00918360903005279.

  22. *Day, S. X. (1994). Gender schema and reading. Reading Psychology, 15, 91–107. doi:10.1080/0270271940150202.

  23. Deaux, K., Kite, M. E., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Clustering and gender schemata: An uncertain link. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 387–397. doi:10.1177/0146167285114005.

  24. *DeHeer, N. D., Wampold, B. E., & Freund, R. D. (1992). Do sex-typed and androgynous subjects prefer counselors on the basis of gender or effectiveness? They prefer the best. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 175–184. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.2.175.

  25. *Dohi, I. (1994a). A comparison of two models of gender-related schematic processing. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 65, 61–66. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.65.61.

  26. *Dohi, I. (1994b). A consideration on the formation of psychological androgyny. Japanese Psychological Review, 37, 192–203.

  27. *Edwards, V. J., & Spence, J. T. (1987). Gender-related traits, stereotypes, and schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 146–154. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.146.

  28. *Fagot, B. I. (1995). Psychosocial and cognitive determinants of early gender-role development. Annual Review of Sex Research, 6, 1–31.

  29. *Fitzpatrick, M. J., & McPherson, B. J. (2010). Coloring within the lines: gender stereotypes in contemporary coloring books. Sex Roles, 62, 127–137. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9703-8.

  30. *Forbach, G. B., Evans, R. G., & Bodine, S. M. (1986). Gender-based schematic processing of self-descriptive information. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 372–384. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(86)90120-0.

  31. *Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L., Rade, B., & Jaberg, P. (2001). Body dissatisfaction in women and men: the role of gender-typing and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 44, 461–484. doi:10.1023/A:1011982112899.

  32. *Frable, D. E. S., & Bem, S. L. (1985). If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 459–468. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.459.

  33. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

  34. *Furnham, A., & Duignan, S. (1989). The selective recall of attitude consistent information: a study concerning sex differences. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 32, 112–119.

  35. *Grabill, K. M., Lasane, T. P., Povitsky, W. T., Saxe, P., Munro, G. D., Phelps, L. M., … Straub, J. (2005). Gender and study behavior: how social perception, social norm adherence, and structured academic behavior are predicted by gender. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 7–24.

  36. *Haaga, D. A. (1990). Gender schematic parapraxes in the articulated thoughts of ex-smokers. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 261–266. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1990.18.2.261.

  37. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39–55.

  39. *Hollinger, C. L. (1985). Understanding the female adolescent’s self-perceptions of ability. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 59–80.

  40. *Hort, B. E., Leinbach, M. D., & Fagot, B. I. (1991). Is there coherence among the cognitive components of gender acquisition? Sex Roles, 24, 195–207.

  41. *Hudak, M. A. (1993). Gender schema theory revisited: men’s stereotypes of American women. Sex Roles, 28, 279–293. doi:10.1007/BF00289886.

  42. *Jackson, L. A. (1983). The perception of androgyny and physical attractiveness: two is better than one. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 405–413. doi:10.1177/0146167283093011.

  43. *Jones, A., & Greer, J. (2011). You don’t look like an athlete: the effects of feminine appearance on audience perceptions of female athletes and women’s sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 358–377.

  44. *Katsurada, E., & Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes toward marriage, and gender-segregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47, 249–258. doi:10.1023/A:1021334710431.

  45. *Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Gender versus category clustering in free recall: A test of gender schema theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 16, 38–43.

  46. *Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hoplamazian, G. J. (2012). Gendering the self: Selective magazine reading and reinforcement of gender conformity. Communication Research, 39, 358–384. doi:10.1177/0093650211425040.

  47. Kohlberg, L. A. (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: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Koivula, N. (1995). Ratings of gender appropriateness of sports participation: effects of gender-based schematic processing. Sex Roles, 33, 543–557. doi:10.1007/BF01544679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. *Krahé, B. (1989). Sex-role orientation and memory for gender-related terms: Another uncertain link. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(4), 327–340.

  50. *Kuczyńska, A. (1992). Płeć psychologiczna. podstawy teoretyczne, dane empiryczne oraz narzędzie pomiaru. [Gender psychology: Theoretical foundations, empirical data and measurement tool]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 35, 237–247.

  51. *Kulik, L. (2006). Gender, gender identity, ethnicity, and stereotyping of children’s chores: The Israeli case. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 408–420. doi:10.1177/0022022106288477.

  52. *Langer, S. L. (2010). Gender differences in experimental disclosure: Evidence, theoretical explanations, and avenues for future research. Sex Roles, 63, 178–183. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9795-1.

  53. *Larsen, R. J., & Seidman, E. (1986). Gender schema theory and sex role inventories: Some conceptual and psychometric considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 205–211. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.205.

  54. *Lavallée, M., & Pelletier, R. (1992). Ecological value of Bem’s gender schema theory explored through females’ traditional and nontraditional occupational contexts. Psychological Reports, 70, 79–82.

  55. Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social development? A plea for theory bridging. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 337–378). San Diego: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386491-8.00009-8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. *Lemons, M. A., & Parzinger, M. (2007). Gender schemas: a cognitive explanation of discrimination of women in technology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 91–98. doi:10.1007/s10869-007-9050-0.

  57. *Levy, G. D. (1999). Gender-typed and non-gender-typed category awareness in toddlers. Sex Roles, 41, 851–873.

  58. *Levy, G. D., Barth, J. M., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Associations among cognitive and behavioral aspects of preschoolers’ gender role development. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 159, 121–126.

  59. Liben, L. S., & Signorella, M. L. (1980). Gender-related schemata and constructive memory in children. Child Development, 51, 11–18. doi:10.2307/1129584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. *Livingstone, S. M. (1987). The implicit representation of characters in Dallas: a multidimensional scaling approach. Human Communication Research, 13, 399–420. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00112.x.

  61. *Lobel, T. E. (1994). Sex typing and the social perception of gender stereotypic and nonstereotypic behavior: The uniqueness of feminine males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 379–385. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.379.

  62. *Lobel, T. E., Gur, S., & Yerushalmi, H. (1989). Cheating behavior of sex-type and androgynous children in sex-stereotyped and non-sex-stereotyped tasks. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 302–312.

  63. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38–50. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1134. doi:10.2307/1129498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. *Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903.

  68. *Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L., Leonard, S., & Dinella, L. M. (2011). Experienced and expected similarity to same-gender peers: Moving toward a comprehensive model of gender segregation. Sex Roles, 65, 421–434. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0029-y.

  69. Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 141–144. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. *Mills, C. J., & Tyrrell, D. J. (1983). Sex-stereotypic encoding and release from proactive interference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 772–781. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.772.

  71. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  72. *Morgan, K. P., & Ayim, M. (1984). Comment on Bem’s “Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society.” Signs, 10, 188–196. doi:10.1086/494131.

  73. Nathanson, A. I., Wilson, B. J., McGee, J., & Sebastian, M. (2002). Counteracting the effects of female stereotypes on television via active mediation. Journal of Communication, 52, 922–937. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02581.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  75. *Nihlen, A. S., & Bailey, B. A. (1988). Children’s display of gender schemas through interaction with nontraditional workers. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 155–162.

  76. *O’Neill, K. S., Hansen, C. D., & May, G. L. (2002). The effect of gender on the transfer of interpersonal communication skills training to the workplace: three theoretical frames. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 167–185. doi:10.1177/15384302001002003.

  77. *Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Effects of group selection on correlations and factor patterns in sex role research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 314–317. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.314.

  78. *Payne, T. J., Connor, J. M., & Colletti, G. (1987). Gender-based schematic processing: an empirical investigation and reevaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 937–945. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.937.

  79. *Pellegrini, A. D. (2011). “In the eye of the beholder”: sex bias in observations and ratings of children’s aggression. Educational Researcher, 40, 281–286. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421983.

  80. *Ramkissoon, H., & Nunkoo, R. (2012). More than just biological sex differences: examining the structural relationship between gender identity and information search behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36, 191–215. doi:10.1177/1096348010388662.

  81. *Range, L. M., & Jenkins, S. R. (2010). Who benefits from Pennebaker’s expressive writing paradigm? Research recommendations from three gender theories. Sex Roles, 63, 149–164. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9749-7.

  82. Rosen, R. (2000). The world split open: How the modern women’s movement changed America. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rubinstein, T., Makov, S., & Sarel, A. (2013). Don’t bi-negative: reduction of negative attitudes toward bisexuals by blurring the gender dichotomy. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 356–373. doi:10.1080/15299716.2013.813419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. *Schmitt, B. H., & Millard, R. T. (1988). Construct validity of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI): does the BSRI distinguish between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic individuals? Sex Roles, 19, 581–588.

  85. *Schmitt, B. H., LeClerc, F., & Dubé-Rioux, L. (1988). Sex typing and consumer behavior: A test of gender schema theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 122–128. doi:10.1086/209151.

  86. Schnabel, L. (2014). The question of subjectivity in three emerging feminist science studies frameworks: feminist postcolonial science studies, new feminist materialisms, and queer ecologies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 44, 10–16. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. *Signorella, M. L., Jamison, W., & Krupa, M. H. (1989). Predicting spatial performance from gender stereotyping in activity preferences and in self-concept. Developmental Psychology, 25, 89–95. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.1.89.

  88. *Sokal, L., Katz, H., Adkins, M., Gladu, A., Jackson-Davis, K., & Kussin, B. (2005). Boys will be “boys”: variability in boys’ experiences of literacy. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 51, 216–230.

  89. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624–635. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. *Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1981). Androgyny versus gender schema: a comment on Bem’s gender schema theory. Psychological Review, 88, 365–368. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.365.

  91. Starr, C. R., & Ferguson, G. M. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy grade-schoolers? Media and maternal influences on young girls’ self-sexualization. Sex Roles, 67, 463–468. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. *Szpitalak, M., & Prochwicz, K. (2013). Płeć psychologiczna osób z depresją kliniczną. doniesienia wstępne. [Gender psychology in people with clinical depression: Preliminary reports]. Psychiatria Polska, 47, 53–64.

  93. *Warfel, K. A. (1984). Gender schemas and perceptions of speech style. Communication Monographs, 51, 253–267. doi:10.1080/03637758409390199.

  94. Watjen, J., & Mitchell, R. W. (2013). College men’s concerns about sharing dormitory space with a male-to-female transsexual. Sexuality and Culture, 17, 132–166. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9143-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Yale University Press. (2015). The lenses of gender [webpage]. Retrieved from

  96. Zurbriggen, E. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (2013). The sexualization of girls and girlhood: Causes, consequences, and resistance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Download references


The authors are grateful to Ella Ben Hagai, Brandon Balzer Carr, Sona Kaur, Christine Rosales, and Sarah Harsey for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen L. Zurbriggen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Starr, C.R., Zurbriggen, E.L. Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34 Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact. Sex Roles 76, 566–578 (2017).

Download citation


  • Feminism
  • Psychological science
  • History of psychology
  • Social-cognitive development
  • Gender-typing