The priority of cues in sex discrimination by children and adults.

Abstract

The relative importance of cues associated with physical sex characteristics was examined. Realistic plastic dolls were made which allowed presentation of eight different combinations of the male and female sex characteristics of genitals, body type, and hair length. A nude doll was shown to each of 144 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children and 96 adults. Each subject was randomly assigned to view only one of the eight dolls. Scores were tallied for the subject's dressing and naming of the doll as masculine or feminine. Hair and body type were the most important cues for children in establishing the sex of the doll. Genitals, followed by body type, were the most significant cues for adults. The children's scores were not related to factors such as age, sibling patterns, or absence of a parent in the home.

Sex Categorization Among Preschool Children: Increasing Utilization of Sexually Dimorphic Cues

“…Instead, observers rely on secondary sex characteristics or adornment cues for sex categorization. To our knowledge, only one study has examined how secondary sex characteristics-the most reliable visual cues under most circumstances-affect sex-typed judgments among children (Thompson & Bentler, 1971), and none has explicitly examined how such cues affect children's sex categorization. Thus, precisely when such cues influence children's judgments remains unclear.…”

“…Preschool children rely heavily on superficial cues (i.e., hair and makeup) for sex categorization (Thompson & Bentler, 1971), even though internal face structure is more reliable (Burton, Bruce, & Dench, 1993). In fact, children are unable to judge the sex of faces devoid of superficial cues until age 7 (Wild et al, 2000).…”

“…Under some circumstances, however, superficial cues (e.g., hair) carry more weight in gender labeling. In one study (Thompson & Bentler, 1971), preschool children dressed and labeled dolls as either ''Mommy'' or ''Daddy.'' These judgments were most heavily influenced by hair length, followed by body anatomy (i.e., secondary sex characteristics), and finally genitals.…”

Some Effects of Sex-Linked Clothing and Gender Schema on the Stereotyping of Infants

“…Second, the fmdings extend the results of previous research. Like studies in which names (e.g., Condry & Condry, 1976) or bodily features (e.g., Thompson & Bentler, 1971) served as cues for the perceived sex of infants, the present investigation shows that other nonverbal cues (i.e., clothing) can act as gender advertisements. Unlike studies in which sex-related cues were explicitly provided to observers in instructional sets (e.g., Condry & Condry, 1976;Gurwitz & Dodge, 1975;Rubin et al, 1974), the present study demonstrates that observers spontaneously used such cues.…”

Gender identity in a group of retarded children

“…In identifying dressed and undressed cutout figures, Katcher (1955) found that 3-year-olds and older children could identify the dressed figures accurately, yet even 6-year-old children made errors on the undressed figures. In a study by Thompson and Bentler (1971), children 4 to 6 years of age used hairstyle and body type, rather than genital differences, as the primary cues to identify sex. Gesell, Halverson, Thompson, Ilg, Costner, Ames, and.…”