Adults' evaluations of a child as a function of sex of adult and sex of child.

Abstract

Male and female college students watched a videotape of a 3-year-old child who was identified as either a girl or a boy; they then rated the child on a number of personaltiy and ability measures. Males' ratings on many of the measures were more favorable for the "girl" than for the "boy," whereas females' ratings were more favorable for the "boy" than for the "girl." In addition to these interactions, there was also a main effect for sex of subject, with females rating the child more favorably than males.

Gender-biased Perceptions of Preschoolers? Behavior: How Much Is Aggression and Prosocial Behavior in the Eye of the Beholder?

“…This study was conducted using a betweensubjects design; that is, each participant read only one set of transcripts (i.e., with or without gendered labels), which were randomly assigned. Past researchers have used this methodology in order to decrease the chance that participants would identify the true purpose of the task and change their responses accordingly (Gallivan, 1991;Gurwtiz & Dodge, 1975). Definitions and examples based on past research (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and equivalent to the information provided to the original observers were provided on a separate sheet to which the participants could refer throughout the study.…”

“…In addition, past research has revealed that college students rely more on gender stereotypes when predicting children's current and future behaviors than do younger children (Berndt & Heller, 1986). Moreover, men and women college students have been shown to possess strong gender stereotypes and evaluative biases based on knowledge about gender of young children in experimental studies (Gurwtiz & Dodge, 1975). Past research on observer bias has also revealed that men tend to rate boys as more physically aggressive than girls, even when boys and girls are behaving in a comparable manner (Lyons & Serbin, 1986).…”

“…Past gender and observer bias research (e.g., Condry & Ross, 1985;Gurwtiz & Dodge, 1975;Kirch, 1999;Lyons & Serbin, 1986;Susser & Keating, 1990) has focused exclusively on physical aggression (e.g., kicking, hitting, threatening physical force), which is more common in boys (Coie & Dodge, 1998), and researchers have neglected other forms of aggression that may be more common in girls. Relational aggression, which is defined as the removal, or the threat of the removal, of a relationship as the means of harm (e.g., giving the silent treatment or ignoring a peer, excluding peers from play or activities, spreading malicious lies or gossip, Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) appears to be more frequent among girls and women across developmental periods (cf.…”

A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence.

“…Some of these processes exacerbate gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic group differences in antisocial trajectories, and some processes exacerbate antisocial tendencies in individuals who have been labeled as aggressive early in life. Beginning in preschool, the very same behaviors may be viewed by others as more aggressive and problematic when displayed by a boy than when displayed by a girl (Fagot & Hagan, 1985;Gurwitz & Dodge, 1975), Others may respond to a child according to their expectancies and stereotypes about that child's behavior. The environmental response to a child will canalize behavioral tendencies gradually over time (Caprara & Zimbardo, 1996).…”

Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems

“…Individuals thus display confirmation biases, in which they engage in attributional processes that are biased toward confirming preexisting schemas or hypotheses despite contradictory evidence (Darley & Fazio, 1980;Ross, 1977). The confirmation occurs through discounting of contradictory cues and overweighting of supporting cues (Gurwitz & Dodge, 1975). In cases in which an action by another produces a negative outcome for the self, any information that is inconsistent with the negative outcome (such as a benign intent cue) is more cognitively complex, and is likely to be discounted unless highly compelling.…”