Ballet, football, or both?: Children’s gender-typed predictions about gender uncertain individuals

• In Event: Gendered Play and Development

Abstract

Gender is a fundamental social category for children (Ruble et al., 2006). Children use binary gender labels to predict an individual’s characteristics (Taylor et al., 2009; Gelman et al., 1986). However, it is necessary to consider labels beyond “boy” and “girl,” such as through gender category uncertainty (Yuly-Youngblood & Boseovski, 2022), which denotes someone whose appearance or label does not confirm a binary gender category. It is unclear if children across age will assign masculine- or feminine-typed characteristics to gender uncertain individuals.

As part of a larger study, 106 5- to 8-year-olds saw two gender uncertain characters. Each was introduced in a story regarding traits or preferences. Half of the sample heard a gender uncertainty label (labeled condition: “We’re not sure about this person. This person doesn’t look like a boy or a girl.”). The remaining half heard miscellaneous information (unlabeled condition). Then, a 10-question gender-typing measure was administered (e.g., “Does this person know a lot about ballet, football, or both?”). For exploratory purposes, children were asked if they believed each character was a boy, girl, or if they were uncertain.

For the gender-typing measure, a significant story x age group interaction arose, F(1, 100) = 6.75, p = .011, ηp2 = .06. For the trait story, 7- to 8-year-olds (M = 6.62, SD = 3.18) made more masculine-typed predictions than 5- to 6-year-olds (M = 9.12, SD = 3.29), t(103) = 3.95, p < .001. For the preference story, 7- to 8-year-olds (M = 7.74, SD = 3.78) and 5- to 6-year-olds (M = 7.92, SD = 2.82) made masculine-typed predictions, t(103) = .28, p = .77.

For the exploratory measure, a significant effect of labeling emerged, F(1, 101) = 6.89, p = .01, ηp2 = .06. Children in the unlabeled condition reported that the characters were boys (M = -.96, SD = 1.11) more than children in the labeled condition (M = -.42, SD = .96), t(103) = -2.67, p = .009. A significant effect of story also emerged, F(1, 101) = 4.45, p = .04, ηp2 = .04. Children reported that the characters were boys for the preference story (M = -.43, SD = .66) more than the trait story (M = -.27, SD = .67), t(104) = 2.08, p = .04.

Despite flexible gender attitudes (Taylor et al., 2009), older children made masculine-typed predictions about gender uncertain individuals. Conversely, younger children’s predictions were unsystematic, but only for the trait story. These patterns occurred regardless of gender uncertainty labels. Perhaps children relied on appearance features to guide predictions, as the characters had short hair (possibly masculine). However, past work establishes that children do not prioritize appearance to make predictions about people (Diesendruck & haLevi, 2006). Alternatively, perhaps children categorized the characters as boys, leading to masculine-typed predictions regardless of a gender uncertainty label. Indeed, the exploratory measure suggested that children believed that the characters were boys in some instances. These findings highlight the importance of extending gender classification beyond the binary to promote gender diversity among children.

Authors

• Andrea C. Yuly-Youngblood, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
  Presenting Author

• Janet J Boseovski, University of North Carolina at Greensboro