The Gender-Development

of a Child
Consequences of Influencing the Process

Emily Langer
10-13-2017
 Langer |1

It is often said that children are like sponges, they absorb any and all information

presented to them in an attempt to piece together their understanding of how the world

works. While this can lead to some amusing stories of a child picking up adult language

and repeating it out of context, this concept does not apply only to inconsequential

events, and it needs be taken more seriously, especially when considered in the context of

the gender development of children. Kids are always on the look-out for cues from the

world and the individuals around them, in addition to—in our present-day modern

society—various messages from the media, about behavior and gender, then boiling

down their observations into assumptions, which are then filed away in the knowledge

structures of their brains. They use this cultivated information to construct stereotypes,

form expectations, and develop a cognitive schema for gender, all information the child

observes moving forward in their lives will then be labeled as appropriate for girls or for

boys and filed away into the gender box that aligns with the corresponding traditional

gender stereotype (Brinkman et al., 2011). Studies have found that this process plays a

crucially influential role in a child’s gender development and the construction of their

gender identity. This finding has inspired many research endeavors aimed to analyze both

the source and the effects of this influence, and understand the various consequences it

may cause with the hopes of using this knowledge to transform the way we raise our kids

to minimize these negative effects and maximize their potential for success in the world

as adults.
 Langer |2

Starting in infancy, one begins forming gender-based perceptions of the world

around them. At 6 months, a baby can distinguish the difference between the sounds of

men and women’s voices; just three months later, a 9-month-old can visually

discriminate between men and women in pictures. Most amazing of all, between the ages

of 11 and 14 months a child gains recognition of the associations between the previous

two perceptions, for example, that male voices are generally lower than that of females

(Martin & Ruble, 2004). This evidence suggests that before an individual even utters

their first words, they have already constructed ideological categories that differentiate

between the societal expectations set for males and females based on their perceptions.

This has many implications. The majority of sex differences in kids are not outwardly

apparent until around the age of 2, yet even before reaching this age, girls show

preference for dolls and boys for toy cars when given the choice. By the time children

start kindergarten at 5 years of age, they have already watched, absorbed, and interpreted

information from the world around them to create countless stereotypes about gender.

Kids use these stereotypes to form impressions of—and expectations for—others, to

direct their attention, to guide their daily actions and behavior, and to organize their

thoughts and memories (Martin & Ruble, 2004). This concept is supported further by

research studies that have found that once a child becomes aware of gender stereotypes

and can recognize their gender type demonstrate different behavior than children who are

not cognizant of gender, more specifically, the child’s personal preferences become more

gender-typed (Leaper, 1991). Consequentially, when children have learned our society’s

specific gender stereotypes and developed perceptual categories of gender that align with
 Langer |3

them, they take and apply this new knowledge to their interactions with peers, which are

prime situations for kids to model and reinforce the gender norms for social interaction

on one another. Cognitive theories of gender development agree that children play an

active role in constructing their own concept of gender based on how they perceive and

think about the sexes, and the nature of the social environment they are exposed to

(Martin & Ruble, 2004). This raises several questions, which are outlined by Martin &

Ruble in their 2004 article Children’s Search for Gender Cues Cognitive Perspectives on

Gender Development. When do children start to think of themselves and others in terms

of gender? Is there a critically sensitive period of time for gender identity development in

a child? What influence do these gender cognitions have on a child’s behavior and

thought process? And, what are the consequences (potential or real) of this influence? To

answer these questions, it is important to understand that many studies have found a few

commonalities in their results.

The first of the concepts researchers have generally agreed upon is that a child’s

gender-related beliefs and behaviors seem to wax and wane in their rigidity in three

phases (Martin & Ruble, 2004). Phase 1 takes place during a child’s toddler and

preschool years, this is when kids are sponges, they start to absorb and learn gender-

associated qualities. Phase 2, between the ages of 5 and 7, a child reaches the peak

rigidity in their concept of gender when their new observations about gender is boiled

down to their stereotypical assumptions and they develop a black and white, either-or

mentality. Following the peak of rigidity, kids enter what is referred to as middle
 Langer |4

childhood after age 7, in Phase 3, their perception of gender becomes relatively flexible

and they begin to accept and adapt to any new information they receive; however, the

behavior of children in middle childhood becomes more and more gender-specific

(Leaper, 1991). In addition to this three-phase model, research has also found

commonalities in the immediate consequences following the moment a child becomes

cognizant of gender. This refers to a developmental milestone characterized by a child’s

recognition that there are two gender groups that are acceptable in society, and that they

themselves belong to one of those groups and begin to identify as such; these

consequences are evaluative as well as motivational. The developmental phenomena of

children’s tendency to self-segregate by sex when given a choice of a same-gender or

opposite-gender playmate is an example of an evaluative consequence (Martin & Ruble,

2004). These consequences suggest that a child will evaluate a certain group positively

once they can identify to some extent (even minimally) with that group through any

discovered commonalities or connections. In contrast, there are

motivational/informational consequences set in motion by reaching this milestone in

childhood, meaning that discovering and accepting one’s gender identity has an effect on

that child’s inclination to learn and retain information they are given about gender and

their gender group, as well as that child’s motivation to subsequently model the behaviors

of their fellow group members. For example, once kids identify with a gender group, they

will pay more attention to playing with and learning about the toys they believe to be

appropriate for their gender rather than toys associated with opposite or indiscernible

gender (Martin & Ruble, 2004). This seems like a small, inconsequential part of
 Langer |5

development, but in doing this, children are led to make broad assumptions and

generalities about acceptable behaviors and characteristics for each gender binary and the

differences between girls and boys defined by society and the media. Each step of the

way, as children are working through the process of gender development, they are setting

up a concrete foundation which they will continue build on, affecting the way they think

and behave in the world for the rest of their adult lives. The third and final reoccurring

concept found in studying gender development is a child’s active, self-initiated role in the

process, through which they are capable of taking deliberate action to learn about a social

category that they are actively constructing as a tool which will be used to interpret and

derive meaning in the social world around them (Brinkman et al., 2011). This is

supported by evidence that points out times when kids have a distorted perception of, and

memory for, gender-role-inconsistent information. Again, these concepts are best

comprehended through examples, “When 3-year-olds were told that a particular boy likes

a sofa and a particular girl likes a table, they generalized this information to draw the

conclusion that another girl would also like the table,” (Martin & Ruble, 2004). The

assumptions children make will in turn influence how an individual behaves around and

toward others as they enter adolescence and eventually adulthood.

Taking this one step further, we can examine the types of concepts and behaviors

that we, as a society and as individual role models, are instilling in our children. Studies

have meticulously analyzed children’s peer interactions and have found strong trends in

the manner with which boys and girls interact and communicate in same-gender and
 Langer |6

mixed-gender groups during early and middle childhood (Leaper, 1991). Researchers

found that boys often focused interactions mainly on independence, competition, and

dominance while girls’ interactions generally fostered closeness, cooperation, and

interpersonal harmony. Girls were more likely to display communication styles that

demonstrate attentiveness, responsiveness, and support whereas boys’ communication

styles were more likely to demand attention, give orders, and establish dominance. These

and other gender differences in a child’s interpersonal communication have been

observed as early as just 3 years old and it is hypothesized that they may begin even

earlier – the boys’ actions are more direct and demanding and the girls tend towards

attitudes of cooperation and are more polite (Leaper, 1991). The media has expanded

upon the qualities these gender stereotypes encourage as specifically masculine or

feminine which has given rise to the concepts of hyper-masculinity—the belief that

danger is exciting and violence is somehow “manly”, which often results in men adopting

a sexually calloused attitude towards women. Hyper-femininity, on the other hand, is

found in women that “accept” their own objectification as a sex object for men as well as

the belief that men are supposed to be dominant over women (Boyd et al., 2015). Studies

have suggested that increasing the amount of encouragement we give children for cross-

gender interactions and friendships would lead to a reduction of gender-typed

communication patterns while simultaneously increasing cross-gender-typed interactions.

In other words, the more mixed-gender friendships and interactions children have, the

more the hard line that divides and differentiates between gender-typed behavior in boys

and girls will begin to fade into a grey area. Research of children’s peer interactions
 Langer |7

shows that girls are more likely to use controlling speech when boys are present in a

mixed group interaction, which is likely due to another trend found, that boys in mixed-

gender groups tend to ignore the attempts at polite influence made by the girls (Leaper,

1991). This study also curiously found that, while girls are likely to adapt their

communication style to match that of the boys’ when in a mixed-gender group, boys are

significantly less likely to adopt communication techniques commonly used by and

associated with girls or femininity. Taking this into account, it is clear that same-gender

affiliations are extremely powerful contexts for a child’s gender-role socialization,

research has shown that a preference for friends of the same gender has a positive

correlation with a given child’s display of gender-typed behaviors and attitudes (Leaper,

1991). In layman’s terms, this means that exposure to majorly same-gendered peers

enforces and solidifies stereotypical behavior while spending time with mixed-gender

peer groups minimizes this effect.

All of the previously stated gender-typed behaviors and attitudes are merely a

small handful of the effects caused by society’s sexist expectations and ideologies being

instilled on children, which, due to the impressionable nature of children, gives them very

little choice in developing gender prejudice as they grow up. Gender prejudice is defined

by Eckes and Trautner as “the attitude that a group deserves lower social status based on

gender related categorization,” (Brinkman et al., 2011). Children can be instigators of

gender prejudice, studies suggest that complying with society’s gender norms may make

it easier for a child to navigate the world; however, engaging in this behavior often
 Langer |8

reinforces the belief in traditional gender stereotypes in both the child and their peers.

The most worrisome negative effects of gender prejudice have been observed among kids

who are gender atypical and as such are pressured to conform, with reported effects

including emotional distress and lowered self-esteem. That said, the troubling effects are

not limited to atypical children, countless negative consequences have been studied in

male and female children as well, and the findings of that research is just as troubling

though, admittedly, more studies have focused on the effects on young girls than on

young boys. The 2011 article Teaching Children Fairness: Decreasing Gender Prejudice

Among Children describes this concerning concept perfectly, suggesting that “Reviewing

the long list of potential negative consequences for children who experience gender

prejudice makes it easy to recognize the importance of effective interventions in this

area,” (Brinkman et al., 2011). Children are told what they “should” and what they

“can’t” do because of their gender through messages from the media as well as physical

sources like family, school, and their peers. Traditional gendered roles initially

emphasized women as nurturing and men’s leadership attributes. Over time, these

stereotypes have grown and evolved into the belief that women are best suited for

domestic roles such as housework, cooking, and childcare while men eventually became

expected to be the primary breadwinners for their family (Halpern & Jenkins, 2016).

Enforcing these stereotypes can be extremely detrimental to children in two ways: by

influencing them to take part in gender prejudiced behavior, or by leading them to restrict

themselves in ways that are harmful and destructive.

 Langer |9

There has been and continues to be extensive research taking place that focuses on

the specific effects of this process on young girls more-so than any other demographic.

This is likely because it is impossible not to notice the various ways in which girls are

pressured to succumb to and comply with traditional gender roles in the day-to-day life of

anyone in this society (Brinkman et al., 2011). Placing this gender prejudice pressure on

growing girls can be extremely detrimental to many aspects of their lives including

psychological health and development, academic performance, and how children

perceive themselves. These stereotypes can have a negative effect on academic

performance in the way that they influence both a child’s perceived self-competence as

well as their perceived confidence to their peers. Stereotypes such as the belief that girls

are not as capable of success in math and science subjects as boys. This specific example

was proved in a 2008 study that found that female students reported lower levels of self-

competence than male students did, despite the girls’ strong performances in math and

science (Brinkman et al., 2011). Character traits enforced in girls and women fall into

general themes of expressiveness and communality, this includes but is in no way limited

to expectations of: being ladylike, dependent, nurturing, warm and friendly, a good

listener, sensitive, attentive to their appearance, and loving children. In contrast, behavior

that is forbidden for women and girls includes qualities such as: being dominant,

aggressive, angry, or intimidating (Boyd et al., 2015). As unfortunate as it is, it is integral

that we clearly understand all positive and negative parts of our society as it is presently,

if there is any hope for us to construct and enact any type of change moving forward. In

this case, the painful truth is that, “Young women are often treated like they have less
 L a n g e r | 10

worth than their male counterparts, and after some time they may begin to believe it,”

(Brinkman et al., 2011). It is hard to believe that such sexist ideologies still remain in

contemporary societies, especially after—historically—women have made great leaps

and bounds in the right direction towards gender equality. There are scholars that believe

that the persistence of these traditional gender stereotypes despite contrasting

accomplishments through social movements can be attributed to the fact that, in its most

basic form, the structure of American society is still patriarchal, with a gender-typed

division of labor and societal pressure to conform, and thus will negate any progress

made against it. This has contributed to the construction of a gendered power balance

where cues associated with dominance are fostered in boys yet discouraged in girls, and

cues associated with submissiveness are encouraged in girls but shamed in boys (Boyd et

al., 2015). Studies have proven that there is a direct link between experiences of gender

prejudice and the loss of self-esteem that is often documented throughout adolescence in

females (Brinkman et al., 2011).

While it is true that more research efforts have analyzed how gender prejudice

affects women and girls at the present time, that by no means indicates that exposure to

gender prejudice has less of an effect on men and boys. Making that assumption would be

a gender-prejudiced belief in and of itself. Males experience this in many ways, but

especially in the societal expectation for them to align themselves with the rigid concept

of masculinity enforced by society in their everyday lives. Boys are not supposed to need

help, with anything, they are supposed to be “tough” and to solve any problems that may
 L a n g e r | 11

arise in their lives themselves without assistance (Brinkman et al., 2011). Examples of

ideologies that these pressures frequently forge in males can be observed in the form of

extremely strict expectations to restrict intimacy in male friendships, to limit emotional

expression, and being indeterrably driven to succeed. These expectations seem to be

chiseled in stone, leaving no room for variation or exceptions, even when the problems at

hand are more than he can handle, including situations such as relationship problems,

difficulty in school, drug abuse, and struggles with mental illnesses like depression. The

ideal man, according to these traditionally gender-stereotyped expectations, displays

characteristics like aggression, leadership, career-orientation, independence to name a

few, as well as various other qualities that are representative of agency and

industriousness. On the other end of things, boys and men are never supposed to appear

emotional, weak, or naïve, lest they be rejected by their peers (Boyd et al., 2015). This

rejection can come in the form of being isolated by their peers, discipline from a parental

figure, watching negative consequences of such actions happen to TV characters, and

unfortunately many more ways.

Children take influence from everything in the world around them, this includes

people that they observe and interact with like parents, peers, and authority figures as

well as environments that they interact within such as school, home, and playgrounds.

This is not all though, because—whether we like it or not—our sponge-children absorb

information from any and all forms of media that they are exposed to every single day of

their lives in our modern-day, technologically advanced world (Ward, 2005). As such, the
 L a n g e r | 12

qualities associated with traditional gender-stereotypes have completely saturated the

media as well as children’s popular culture, including kids’ TV programs. Media is an

extremely powerful tool of socialization that can draw attention to or away from various

aspects of the world (Ward, 2005). It would be a truly difficult challenge to find any type

of media product that does not convey a message defining what “normative” behaviors

are expected of men and women or giving encouragement and support to these

expectations (Ward, 2005). This is why it is so critically important to educate children

about gender prejudice and gender stereotypes, and give them the tools to identify and

challenge such ideologies in their lives. A multicultural education has been found to be

very effective in prejudice reduction, designed to “help students develop more democratic

attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors” (Banks, 1993). After analyzing the results of

many different studies surrounding the topic, researchers are now advocating for the use

of psychological interventions as a method of teaching children about gender roles,

increasing their awareness of gender prejudice, and giving them the ability to identify and

label interactions of such prejudice. While the idea of implementing intervention

programs for children has incredible potential and similar programs have been very

successful in adults, it is still an extremely new concept and as such, few programs of

child intervention have been created and even less of them have been studied at the

current time. The FAIR Program (Fairness for All Individuals through Respect) is one

example of these programs that does exist, which is examined by Brinkman, Jedinak,

Rosen, and Zimmerman in their article Teaching Children Fairness: Decreasing Gender

Prejudice Among Children (Brinkman et al., 2011). In its most basic form, the FAIR
 L a n g e r | 13

Program celebrates diversity, builds children’s awareness of social justice, and fosters

critical thinking through the use of specific activities that are designed to allow students

involved to reflect on and share their own personal experiences of injustice with their

peers. It is the hope of its developers that through education of this sort, there will be an

observable decrease in events wherein a child engages in gender prejudiced behavior

(Brinkman et al., 2011).

I believe that we are not raising our sons and daughters to the best of our abilities.

Not only that, but I strongly believe that by continuing to socialize generation after

generation of children to fit into society’s gender binary boxes, we are failing to prepare

our children for the world. Consequently, we are raising individuals who will grow up to

be forced into and trapped inside of one of two tiny, restricting boxes, never allowed to

reach their full potential in their adult lives. Some will go on fortify the sexist norms our

country holds by trying to control their peers or by allowing their peers to hold

dominance over them, while others, unfortunately, will find themselves battling mental

illness and countless other struggles because they feel ostracized by society and do not

know how to love and accept themselves for who they are. Neither end-result is

attractive, and personally—as a woman—neither option is a path I would want for any

children that I may have in the future. As a society, we need to make the decision to work

together towards a healthier, more realistic perception of gender that accepts gender in all

its fluidity to benefit the lives of the generations to come.

 L a n g e r | 14

References
Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children's Search for Gender Cues Cognitive Perspectives on Gender
Development. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 13(2), 67-70. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.00276.x

Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and Involvement in Children's Discourse: Age, Gender, and Partner Effects.
Child Development, 62(4), 797. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9109162254
Deutsch, F. (January 01, 2007). Undoing Gender. Gender & Society, 21, 1, 106-127.
Brinkman, B. G., Jedinak, A., Rosen, L. A., & Zimmerman, T. S. (2011). Teaching Children Fairness:
Decreasing Gender Prejudice Among Children. Analyses Of Social Issues & Public Policy, 11(1), 61-81.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01222.x

Murnen, S. K., Greenfield, C., Younger, A., & Boyd, H. (2016). Boys act and girls appear: A
content analysis of gender stereotypes associated with characters in children's popular culture.
Sex Roles, 74(1-2), 78-91. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0558-x

Ward, L. M. (2005). Children, Adolescents, and the Media: The Molding of Minds, Bodies, and
Deeds. New Directions For Child & Adolescent Development, 2005(109), 63-71.

Giaccardi, S., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., Manago, A., & Lippman, J. (2016). Media and
modern manhood: Testing associations between media consumption and young men's acceptance
of traditional gender ideologies. Sex Roles, 75(3-4), 151-163.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0588-z

Birns, B., Cascardi, M., & Meyer, S. (1994). Sex-role socialization: Developmental influences
on wife abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(1), 50-59.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0079491

Halpern, H. P., & Perry-jenkins, M. (2016). Parents’ gender ideology and gendered behavior as
predictors of Children’s gender-role attitudes: A longitudinal exploration. Sex Roles, 74(11-12),
527-542. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0539-0