The stability of individual differences in gender typing: Implications for ...

Sex Roles, Vol. 29, Nos. 11/12, 1993

The Stability of Individual Differences in Gender Typing: Implications for Understanding Gender Segregation 1 Kimberly K. Powlishta 2 Northern Illinois University

Lisa A. Serbin and Lora C. Moiler Concordia University

The stability o f individual differences has important implications for understanding the origins of gender-typed behaviors. For example, if some children have a stronger preference for same-sex playmates (gender segregation) than do others, then exploring characteristics that may differentiate these children from their peers (e.g., preference for gender-typed toys or teacher proximity) should prove fruitful Otherwise, research might be focused more appropriately on group-level processes or situational factors rather than individual differences. In the current study, 57 21/2- to 3-year-olds from middle-class Canadian homes were observed repeatedly during free play at their preschools. Four aspects of gender typing (gender segregation, use of masculine and feminine gender-typed toys, teacher proximity) were measured so that the stability of individual differences and relations among the measures could be assessed. Stable individual differences were found for all four measures among 1The authors would like to thank the children, their families, and the staffs of St. Andrew's and Rainbow Preschools of Montreal for making the study possible. We are also grateful to Judith Gulko, who collaborated in developing the observational code and in supervising data collection and coding; Wendy Siefert, who helped collect and code the data; and Heather Chang, who assisted with data analysis. This project was partially supported with funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the FCAR of the Ministry of Education of Quebec. Portions of this paper were presented at the Conference on Human Development, Atlanta, Georgia, April, 1992. 2To whom reprint requests should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115. 723

o36o-oo25/93/12oo-o7235o7.oo/o © 1993PlenumPublishingCorporation

724

Powlishta, Serbin, and Moiler

boys, and for two of the measures (feminine toy play, teacher proximity) among girls. In addition, boys who played most frequently with masculine toys rarety were observed in proximity to the teacher. However, there was no relation between gender segregation and the other indices of gender typing.

The stability of individual differences in gender typing has been a relatively neglected topic of study (Huston, 1983; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). [The term "sex" will be used when referring to the biological categories of male and female (e.g., "members of their own sex," "within-sex variability," "same-sex playmates"); otherwise, the term "gender" will be used (e.g., "gender-typing," "gender roles") to recognize the potential importance of environmental as well as biological origins of the phenomena.] Information about stability may have important implications for understanding the origins of gender-typed behaviors. If some children consistently display gender-typed behavior more than other children, then identifying characteristics or circumstances unique to those highly gender-typed individuals should help clarify causes of the behavior. On the other hand. if stable individual differences do not exist, then research attempts to understand the behavior might he focused more appropriately on group-level or situational factors. This point is clearly illustrated by the phenomenon of "gender segregation." For many decades, people studying social development have noted the striking affinity children have for playmates of their own sex, whether they are observed in natural (e.g., Parten, 1932, 1933) or experimental (e.g., Wasserman & Stern, 1978) contexts. Numerous investigators have documented the strength and pervasiveness of the phenomenon, which is seen as early as 2 or 3 years of age and increases dramatically during the elementary-school years (see Maccoby, 1988, and Maccoby and Jacklin, 1987, for recent reviews). The potential consequences of gender segregation, through its provision of different socialization contexts for boys and girls, are great. Boys tend to play in larger, hierarchically organized groups, to play more in public places, and to engage in more rough play, teasing, and aggression than girls; girls engage in more turn taking and joint decision making, receive more adult supervision, and have friendships characterized by more self-disclosure than boys (Maccoby, 1985). Experience in these different "subcultures" may perpetuate gender-differentiated styles of interaction and inhibit cross-sex cooperation, consequences that could persist into adulthood (Lockheed & Klein, 1985). Nevertheless, the reasons why children prefer same-sex playmates have not been clearly established.

Individual Differences in Gender Typing

725

Gender differences in preferred toys or in desire for adult proximity are two mechanisms proposed to account for this pattern (Goodenough, 1934; Huston, 1983; Powlishta & Maccoby, 1990). That is. children are thought to gravitate toward "gender-appropriate" toys and activities, with boys moving away from adults and girls remaining in adult proximity. As a result, they encounter other children who are primarily of their own sex, leading to gender segregation. Because individual boys and girls appear to vary in their desire for adult proximity (Huston, Carpenter, Atwater, & Johnson, 1986) and gender-typed toys (Huston, 1983), by implication, there should be within-sex variation in gender segregation as well. That is, girls with the greatest desire for feminine toys and adult presence, and boys with the greatest desire for masculine toys and adult absence, should display the most gender segregation. As Maccoby and Jacklin (1987) point out, these predictions contain the following almost universal assumption: that stable individual differences in gender segregation exist, differences that potentially could be explained by variability on other gender-typed characteristics (namely toy preferences or teacher proximity). If this assumption is correct, then a correlational approach that compares children who show high and low amounts of gender segregation should prove fruitful. This assumption overlooks an alternative possibility, however: most children of a particular age may be quite similar in their average degree of same-sex playmate preference, with variability found at any point in time merely being the result of situational factors or random fluctuations; children who show the most gender segregation on one occasion may not be the most segregated on another occasion. If stability is lacking in this way, then research exploring the causes of segregation might be focused more appropriately on developmental or group-level processes, or on aspects of the social context that encourage or inhibit gender segregation among all children, rather than on individual differences. A lack of stability would also have implications for how the consequences of gender segregation are studied. Segregation may contribute to average differences in the interaction styles of boys and girls, but it cannot account for variability within each sex if individual differences among children are unstable. Relatively few empirical studies have addressed the issue of gendertyping stability. This is true not only for gender segregation, but for other gender-differentiated measures as well (Huston, 1983; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). For example, although girls often maintain closer proximity to adults than do boys (e.g., Carpenter & Huston-Stein, 1980; Carpenter, Huston, & Holt, 1986), it is not clear whether some girls display this tendency consistently more than others. The existence of significant correlations between participation in adult structured activities and other social

726


behaviors, controlling for sex (Huston et al., 1986), implies that there are reliable individual differences in adult proximity seeking. But the stability of this measure has not been tested directly. In forced-choice laboratory settings, children typically demonstrate significant test-retest reliability in their gender-typed toy and activity preferences (Beere, 1979; Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1992). Data from naturalistic settings are rare. However, at least two studies have found significant stability in gender-typed toy use by preschoolers during free play (Connor & Serbin, 1977, Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). The few studies of stability in same-sex playmate preferences have yielded inconsistent results. Maccoby and Jacklin (1987) failed to find significant individual stability over a one-week period, for either 41/2- or 61/2-year-olds. However, given the small sample sizes, especially for the younger group (N's = 12 and 40, respectively), the null results should be interpreted with caution. Among a somewhat larger sample (N = 79), the correlation between same-sex preference in outdoor play at age 41/2 and the same behavior two years later was significant for boys only (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). A subsequent study of 40 preschoolers (Williamson, 1986, as cited in Maccoby, 1988), in contrast, found significant short-term stability in relative degree of gender segregation for girls, but not for boys. Finally, using self-report measures with older children and preadolescents, two studies have found stable individual differences in same-sex preference among both boys and girls (Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1993; Serbin et al., 1993). Given this relative scarcity of studies, as well as the sometimes contradictory results obtained, whether various aspects of gender typing reflect stable individual differences remains an important empirical question (Huston, 1983; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). The current study addressed the issue of stability among 21/2- to 3year-old children. While gender segregation has been consistently observed in this age range, the phenomenon is still emerging within this age group, making it an important period for studying the origins of gender segregation. Because the most effective research approach will be quite different depending on whether or not gender segregation is a stable phenomenon, it is particularly important to examine stability at this age. The purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to test the stability of individual differences on four measures of gender typing (gender segregation masculine and feminine gender-typed toy play, teacher proximity); and (2) assuming that consistent individual differences exist, to examine relations among the measures to see whether degree of gender segregation can be predicted from a child's level of gender typing in the other domains.


727

METHOD

Subjects Fifty-seven children (28 males, 29 females) from English-speaking or bilingual (English and other) middle-class Canadian families participated in the study. Approximately 80% of the children were White, 17% were Asian, and 3% were Black. They ranged in age from 26 to 40 months at the start of data collection (M = 34.84 months; boys' M = 34.32, SD = 3.56; girls' M = 35.35, SD = 2.62) and were observed during their first year of preschool attendance in one of five participating classes. An additional 94 older children (ages 4 and 5; 60 boys, 34 girls) from these classes were available as potential play partners for the focal subjects; total classroom composition ranged from 50% to 66% boys. [Although the presence of older children could encourage somewhat different play behaviors than would be seen in age-homogeneous classes, previous research (as well as anecdotal evidence from the current study) indicated that children in mixed-age classrooms tend to select playmates who are similar to themselves in age (Roopnarine & Johnson, 1984). This would be expected to reduce the potential impact of having older classmates present.]

Procedures Children were videotaped during free play periods in their classrooms approximately twice a week for 4!/2-6 months by one of four female data collectors. Each of the data collectors had participated in a two-week familiarization period so that the children were accustomed to the presence of the researchers and the hand-held video camera. During data collection, a timesampling procedure was employed, such that target children were observed in random order for 10 seconds each, with the cycle of observation intervals repeated from 3 to 7 times during each taping session. An average of 75 10-second intervals (range = 14-111) were recorded for each child. Coders then viewed the videotapes and noted the following for each 10-second interval: (1) the toys being used by the target child (from 27 potential toy categories), (2) the number of boys and girls who were in the target child's immediate peer group (i.e., within a five-foot radius of target child, at target child's activity table, or verbally or physically interacting with target child), and (3) whether or not the teacher was present (i.e., within five feet of target child, structuring target child's activity, or otherwise interacting with target child). These coders had been trained to at least 80% agreement (88% for toys and peer group composition; 84% for

728


teacher presence) using videotapes collected during the familiarization period. Weekly reliability checks were then made throughout the coding period for a randomly selected 24% of the tapes. Reliability was maintained at or above initial levels.

RESULTS

Creation of Measures Toy use, peer group composition, and teacher presence frequencies were used to derive several indices of gender typing. To obtain scales of masculine and feminine gender-typed toy use, a child's frequency of play with each toy was divided by the number of intervals the child was observed. The average proportion of intervals boys and girls played with each toy was then compared using t tests. Given the relatively small sample size, in order to include as many toys as possible in these scales, and thus maximize the potential for stability, liberal statistical criteria were employed (Connor & Serbin, 1977): those toys that boys tended to play with more than girls (p < .20, one-tailed test) were classified as male preferred or "masculine"; toys used more frequently by girls than by boys were classified as female preferred or "feminine." This procedure yielded a total of 8 masculine toys and 5 feminine toys, which are listed in Table I. Each child's frequencies for playing with all the toys in a given category were summed and divided by the number of intervals the child was observed to create two composite measures: "masculine toy play" and "feminine toy play." [In one of the classrooms, there was almost no masculine toy play by either sex (M = .08, SD = .03 for boys; M - .05, SD = .03 for girls, as compared to M = .34, SD = .16 and M = .12, SD = .05, respectively, in the other classrooms). Two of the 8 masculine toys were not even available in this room. Therefore, the 6 boys and 12 girls from this room were eliminated from further analyses involving masculine toy play.] A third measure, "teacher presence," was derived simply by dividing the number of intervals during which each child was observed while in the teacher's presence by the total number of intervals the child was observed. Finally, a measure reflecting degree of preference for same-sex playmates was derived from the group composition variables. Because there were usually unequal numbers of boys and girls present in the class, each child's frequency of playing with boys and girls needed to be compared to chance expectations. The normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used for this purpose. Specifically, the proportion of potential group members (i.e., all classmates) who were of a child's own sex was

729

Individual Differences in Gender Typing Table I. Toys Classified as Masculine and Feminine

Masculine toys

Feminine toys

Small blocks

Art items

Vehicles

Dolls/stroller

Riding toys

Toy telephone

Tools

Small manipulative toys (puzzles, board games, playdough)

Ball "Store" items

Dress-up items (e.g., jewelry, hair and make-up accessories)

Water play items Fisher-Price toys (e.g., farm, garage)

subtracted from the proportion of actual group m e m b e r s who were of the child's own sex, collapsed across observations. This index was then divided by the appropriate standard deviation and a continuity correction was app l i e d ( H a y s , 1981). [z = (x - N p + . 5 ) / s q r t ( N p q ) ; = ( x / N - p + .5/N)/sqrt(pq/N), where x is the n u m b e r of same-sex playmates, N is the total n u m b e r of playmates, p is the proportion of potential playmates (i.e., class m e m b e r s present) who are of the child's own sex, and q = 1 - p , collapsed over all of the child's observations.] A resulting z score of 1.96 or greater indicated that the child was playing with same-sex others significantly more (p < .05) than expected by chance. This z score also can be treated as a continuous variable, indicating degree of gender segregation. Negative scores reflect some amount of cross-sex preference, positive scores reflect a same-sex preference, and a score of zero indicates no preference. G e n d e r Differences a n d Within-Sex Variability

M e a n s and standard deviations, by sex, for the four measures of gender typing can be seen in Table II. Not surprisingly, since they were empirically defined, boys and girls differed from each other in amounts of play with masculine and feminine toys. Boys played significantly m o r e often with masculine toys than did girls, t(37) = 5.11, p < .001. However, there

730

Powlishta, Serbin, and Moiler Table II. Means (and Standard Deviations) on the Four Measures of Gender Typinga Boys

Girls

Masculine toy playb

.34 (,16)

.12 (.05)

Feminine toy play b

.18 (.09)

.36 (.10)

Teacher presence b

.26 (.12)

.33 (.11)

.44 (2.63)

2.50 (2.23)

Gender segregation c

a Mean scores for boys and girls differ significantly on all four measures; standard deviations differ significantly for masculine toy play only (p's < .05). b Means indicate proportion of observation intervals during which the specified behavior occurred. CMeans reflect deviation from chance expectations (0), based on the standard normal distribution.

was considerable within-sex variability, especially for boys (p < .001 on test of variance homogeneity). Girls spent from 5% to 22% (M = 12%) and boys from 5% to 71% (M = 34%) of their intervals playing with masculine toys. [Because there was heterogeneity of variance, the t test comparing mean percent of masculine toy play for boys and girls was repeated using an unpooled error estimate. The result was nearly identical, t(25.96) = 6.09, p < .001.] Girls, on the other hand, played significantly more often with feminine toys than did boys, t(55) = 7.26, p < .001. There was considerable within-sex variability for both sexes, which did not differ significantly in this respect (p = .84). Girls spent from 18% to 54% (M = 36%) and boys from 0% to 47% (M = 18%) of their intervals playing with feminine toys. The proportion of observations during which the teacher was present also differentiated the sexes, with girls in proximity to the teacher significantly more often than boys, t(55) = 2.30, p < .05. As with feminine toy play, boys and girls had equal amounts of within-sex variability on this measure (p = .83), ranging from 13% to 58% (M = 33%) for girls and 6% to 52% (M = 26%) for boys. Girls also showed greater amounts of gender segregation than did boys, t(55) = 3.20, p < .005. In fact, only for girls was the mean level of segregation significantly greater than zero (means = 2.50 and .44, respectively).


731

Once again, the two sexes had similar within-group variability (p = .39), ranging from -7.09 (indicating a significant cross-sex preference) to 6.39 (a significant same-sex preference) for boys, and from -1.43 (no significant preference) to 6.95 (a significant same-sex preference) for girls. These scores represent a percent of same-sex playmates ranging from 20% to 83%, corrected for chance. Using the segregation scores to categorize individual subjects, we find that 6 out of the 28 boys were observed with members of their own sex significantly more than expected by chance (i.e., gender segregation scores greater than or equal to 1.96). An additional 2 boys had a significant preference for female playmates (segregation scores _< -1.96). Among girls, 18 of 29 were showing significant levels of gender segregation, with none preferring male playmates.

Stability of Individual Differences To test whether individual differences in gender typing were stable, a procedure based on the split-half method for assessing reliability (Crocker & Algina, 1986) was employed. (Because there was some variation in number of observations per child, split-half reliability was chosen over Chronbach's alpha.) Each child's data were divided into two parts, one part containing data collected on "even" observation days for that child, and the other based on alternating "odd" observation days. The four gendertyping scores were then calculated separately for each half of the data. In order to assure that any differences among the five preschool classes as whole did not contribute to apparent consistency of individual differences, these pairs of scores were standardized within class. The standardized o d d even pairs were then correlated with each other, and the Spearman-Brown correction was applied (Crocker & Algina, 1986). As shown in Table III, for all four measures, boys displayed individual differences that were consistent across the two sets of observations. Girls maintained their relative positions on only two of the measures, however: teacher presence and feminine toy play.

Relations Among the Measures Because some consistent individual differences in gender typing were found in the previous analyses, we next examined whether individual differences on one measure of gender typing were related to differences on other measures. (Once again, scores were standardized within class.) Two hypotheses regarding gender segregation could be tested in this manner:

732

Powlishta, Serbin, and Moiler Table III. Split-Half Correlations Assessing the Consistency of Individual Differences on the Four Gender-Typing Measures" Boys

Girls

Masculine toy play

.72c

.31

Feminine toy play

.64 c

.68c

Teacher presence

.48b

.62 c

Gender segregation

.73 c

.20

a Spearman-Brown correction was applied to all correlations; the same pattern of significance was found using uncorrected Pearson correlation coefficients. b p < .01, one-tailed test. Cp < .001, one-tailed test.

(1) if differential interests in toys contribute to gender segregation, then children who engage in relatively high levels of gender-typed toy play (masculine for boys, feminine for girls) should show the greatest amounts of segregation; and (2) if differential attraction to the teacher contributes to gender segregation, then girls with high scores and boys with low scores on teacher presence should show the greatest amounts of segregation. As can be seen in Table IV, neither of these hypotheses were confirmed. In fact, there was trend for girls who played most with masculine toys to have

Table IV. Correlations Among the Four Sex-Typing Measures Feminine toy play

Teacher presence

Gender segregation

--.40a

-.76 b

.05

Feminine toy play

--

.06

.01

Teacher presence

__

__

-.20

Girls Masculine toy play

Boys Masculine toy play

.08

-.38

Feminine toy play

__

.13

.27

Teacher presence

__

__

.13

ap < .10, bp < .001,

two tailed test. two-tailed test.

.42a


733

the greatest affinity for same-sex playmates. No other correlations were significant for girls. Boys showed somewhat more consistency among their measures of gender typing. Those who played most with masculine toys were least likely to be observed near the teacher (p < .001) and were somewhat less likely to play with feminine toys (p < .10). However, degree of gender segregation was related to neither gender-typed toy play nor teacher presence.

DISCUSSION The 2 8 - to 3-year-old children observed in this study were in the early stages of gender segregation. Approximately 60% of the girls and 20% of the boys had significantly more peer group contacts with members of their own sex than would be expected by chance. This difference between the sexes replicates an earlier finding with 1--6-year-old children (LaFreniere, Strayer, & Gauthier, 1984); girls start to prefer same-sex peers at an earlier age than do boys. It was only boys, however, who showed stable individual differences in their degree of same-sex preference. Although girls displayed just as much within-sex variability as boys, the amount of gender segregation each girl showed on one half of the observations was unrelated to her degree of segregation during observations made on alternate days. The reason for girls' lack of stability is unclear; the finding is especially difficult to interpret given the gender differences noted above in the average level of segregation. Despite equal amounts of within-sex variability in segregation, that variability occurred over different ranges for boys and girls: boys ranged from showing significant cross-sex playmate preferences to significant samesex preferences, with the majority playing similarly often with boys and girls; girls ranged from having no significant preference to showing varying degrees of preference for female playmates, with the majority being in the latter category. Perhaps there is more short-term stability in whether or not a child has begun to segregate by sex than there is in the degree of same-sex preference once it emerges. In other words, it is possible that the emergence of gender segregation represents a qualitative development, in which the child moves from ignoring to focusing on the sex of potential playmates. Varying degrees of gender segregation, once it emerges, could be more a function of situational factors than of stable individual differences. Because girls were more likely than boys to have begun segregating, this could account for girls' overall lack of stability in the gender segregation measure. This interpretation is highly speculative, however. Future studies are

734


needed to determine whether boys' stability declines with age as their samesex preferences increase. Girls also were inconsistent in their attraction to masculine toys. Given their low overall amount of masculine toy play and their relatively small within-sex variability on this measure, the lack of stability is not surprising. At least at this young age, we were unable to identify girls who could be labeled "tomboys," based either on their peer or toy preferences. Only frequency of feminine toy use and teacher proximity consistently differentiated girls from each other. Boys, on the other hand, displayed stable individual differences not only for gender segregation, but also for the other three indices of gender typing. Although they were observed playing with feminine toys or in the presence of the teacher less often than were girls, both of these behaviors occurred with sufficient frequency and variability among boys to yield stable patterns. Certain boys also played with masculine toys consistently more than did others. These same boys were rarely observed in the teacher's presence and tended to avoid feminine toys. Thus, some boys appeared to be generally more gender typed than others. These boys were no more likely than their peers to have same-sex playmates, however. In fact, degree of segregation was unrelated to any of the other measures of gender typing collected in the current study. Contrary to common belief, boys who avoided the teacher or who had particularly masculine toy interests and girls who remained near the teacher or who had particularly feminine toy interests did not display the most gender segregation. Instead, there was a counterintuitive trend: girls who played most often with "boys' toys" tended to be seen most frequently with other girls. Perhaps these girls avoided boys so they could feel more comfortable playing with masculine toys, since the presence of cross-sex peers tends to inhibit "genderinappropriate" play (Serbin, Connor, Burchardt, & Citron, 1979). Maccoby and Jacklin (1987) found a similar positive relation between "masculine" behaviors (e.g., rough play, assertiveness) and gender segregation in girls. Although a child's attraction to the teacher or to gender-typed toys was not a significant predictor of his or her preference for same-sex peers in the current study, the fact that there were consistent individual differences in this preference, at least for boys, suggests that we should not abandon an "individual differences" approach to gender segregation. That is, there may be something distinctive about children who consistently display high or low levels of segregation. Perhaps children's styles of playing with or influencing their peers determine whether they will find peers of their own sex more compatible than cross-sex peers, regardless of the specific toys they are using (Maccoby, 1988; Moiler, Powlishta, & Serbin, 1990; Powlishta & Maccoby, 1990). Additionally, some children may be more gender schematic


735

(Bern, 1981; Levy & Carter, 1989; Martin & Halverson, 1981; Serbin & Sprafkin, 1986) than others, and thus pay more attention to the sex of potential playmates. These results do indicate that the exploration of individual differences is unlikely to yield a complete understanding of gender segregation. Even when the correlations assessing individual consistency in the present study were significant, they tended to be of only moderate size. The amount of gender typing displayed at a given moment appears to be determined by something more than the enduring traits of individuals. Previous studies have shown that children are more likely to exhibit gender segregation in some contexts than in others (see Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987). Understanding situational factors governing the display of gender-typed characteristics should be an important goal for researchers in the field of gender role development. Future attempts to identify causes of gender segregation should focus on group-level processes as well. Children's knowledge that they are members of two distinct categories--male and female--may set generic group processes in motion, whereby the ingroup is favored and the outgroup is denigrated (Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1987; Powlishta, 1990; Tajfel, 1982). Because gender is such a salient and universal basis for categorization, these group processes may explain why gender segregation is so pervasive without being solely dependent on stable characteristics and preferences of individual children. Viewing gender segregation as a group phenomenon also has implications for studying its consequences. Experience with same-sex playmates may cause or perpetuate gender differences in other behaviors (e.g., interaction style). But if children do not consistently differ in their degree of segregation, then its impact may not be readily apparent using an individual differences or correlational research approach. To fully understand both the causes and consequences of gender segregation, we must investigate situational, group, and developmental patterns as well as individual differences.

REFERENCES Beere, C. A. (1979). Women and women's issues. A handbook Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bern, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account Review, 88, 354-364. Bukowski, W. M., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1993). between same-sex and other-sex peer relations during early Psychology, 29, 255-263.

o f tests and measures. San of sex typing. Psychological Differences and consistency adolescence. Developmental

736


Carpenter, C. J., & Huston-Stein, A. (1980). Activity structure and sex-typed behavior in preschool children. Child Development, 51, 862-872. Carpenter, C. J., Huston, A. C., & Holt, W. (1986). Modification of preschool sex-typed behaviors by participation in adult-structured activities. Sex Roles, 14, 603-615. C o n n o r , J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1977). B e h a v i o r a l l y b a s e d m a s c u l i n e - and feminine-activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48, 1411-1416. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modem test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Goodenough, F. (1934). Developmental psychology: An introduction to the study of human behavior. New York: Appleton-Century. Hays, W. L. (1981). Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (VoL 4, 4th ed.) Socialization personality and social behavior. New York: Wiley. Huston, A. C., Carpenter, C. J., Atwater, J. B., & Johnson, L. M. (1986). Gender, adult structuring of activities, and social behavior in middle childhood. Child Development, 57, 1200-1209. LaFreniere, P., Strayer, F. F., & Gauthier, R. (1984). The emergence of same-sex preferences among preschool peers. Child Development, 55, 1958-1966. Levy, G. D., & Carter, D. B. (1989). Gender schema, gender constancy, and gender-role knowledge: The roles of cognitive factors in preschoolers' gender-role stereotype attributions. Developmental Psychology, 25, 444-449. Lockheed, M., & Klein, S. (1985). Sex equity in classroom organization and climate. In S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755-765. Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Social groupings in childhood: There relation to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Theories, research and issues. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex-typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119-1134. Moiler, L. C., Powlishta, K. K., & Serbin, L. A. (1990, November). Three theories of gender segregation: Cognitive consonance, sex-typed toy play and play style compatibility. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Convention of the Societe Quebecoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie. Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnon,nal and Social Psychology, 27, 243-269. Parten, M. B. (1933). Social play among preschool children. JoutT~al of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 130-147. Powlishta, K. K. (1990, May). Intergroup processes and sex role development. Paper presented at the University of Waterloo Conference on Child Development, Waterloo, Ontario. Powlishta, K. K., & Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Resource utilization in mixed-sex dyads: The influence of adult presence and task type. Sex Roles, 23, 223-240. Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (1984). Socialization in a mixed-age experimental program. Developmental Psychology, 20, 828-832. Serbin, L. A., & Sprafkin, C. (1986). The salience of gender and the process of sex-typing in three- to seven-year-old children, Child Development, 57, 1188-1199. Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex-typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Soc&ty for Research in Child Development, 58(2). Serbin, L. A., Connor, J. M., Burchardt, C. J., & Citron, C. C. (1979). Effects of peer presence on sex-typing of children's play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27, 303-309.


737

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. Wasserman, G. A., & Stern, D. N. (1978). An early manifestation of differential behavior toward children of the same and opposite sex. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 129-137. Williamson, L. (1986). Individual differences in preschoolers' gender segregation and sex-OJped play. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Stanford University.