Disscussion A&B - Assignment Essays

Discussion:

Part A: Read the journal article, Halim et. al, 2014 (Week 6 –> Instructional Materials), and briefly summarize the main findings of the three studies. What questions did the studies leave you with? What else would you like to know? If you could further investigate this topic, what would your research question be?

Part B: For this week’s applied assignment, you will be required to generate applied examples for each of the following terms. In order to earn the full points, you will also need to clearly describe

why
this is an example of the term. Each applied example (and justification) should be around 3-5 sentences. You should submit your answers in the submission box below.

(1) Your text defines
proscribed prejudice as prejudices that are contrary to one’s religious beliefs and so are not allowable under religious doctrine. On the other hand, a
permitted prejudice is defined as prejudices that do not violate one’s religious beliefs and so are allowable under religious doctrine.

· For these terms, provide an example of a
proscribed prejudice and then one of a
permitted prejudice. The example does not have to align with your own religious doctrine (if applicable).

· Within your answer be sure to explain

why
the prejudice would be considered either proscribed or permitted.

(2) Your text defines an
authoritarian personality as a personality type that is especially susceptible to unquestioning obedience to authority.

· For this term, think of a current (i.e., alive) well-known person whom you believe exhibits many of the necessary characteristics of an
authoritarian personality. This person should be a celebrity, politician, artist, etc. whom most people in the class will know about. Within your answer be sure to explain why you believe this person is a great example of an authoritarian personality.

(3) Your text defines
intergroup anxiety as the feelings of discomfort many people experience when interacting with, or anticipating an interaction with, members of other groups.

· For this term, provide an example of how you have seen a current event or issue be influenced by
intergroup anxiety. Within your answer, be sure to describe how your example clearly exemplifies intergroup anxiety and why.

Pink Frilly Dresses and the Avoidance of All Things “Girly”: Children’s
Appearance Rigidity and

Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

May Ling Halim
California State University, Long Beach

Diane N. Ruble and Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda
New York Univers

ity

Kristina M. Zosuls
Arizona State University

Leah E. Lurye and Faith K. Greulich
New York University

Many young children pass through a stage of gender appearance rigidity; girls insist on wearing dresses,
often pink and frilly, whereas boys refuse to wear anything with a hint of femininity. In 2 studies, we
investigated the prevalence of this apparent hallmark of early gender development and its relation to
children’s growing identification with a gender category. Study 1a examined the prevalence of this
behavior and whether it would exhibit a developmental pattern of rigidity followed by flexibility,
consistent with past research on identity-related cognitions. Interviews with 76 White, middle-class
parents and their 3- to 6-year-old children revealed that about two thirds of parents of 3- and 4-year-old
girls and almost half (44%) of parents of 5- and 6-year-old boys reported that their children had exhibited
a period of rigidity in their gender-related appearance behavior. Appearance rigidity was not related to
parents’ preferences for their children’s gender-typed clothing. Study 1b examined whether cognitive
theories of identity development could shed light on gender appearance rigidity. The more important and
positive children considered their gender and the more children understood that gender categories remain
stable over time (gender stability), the more likely children were to wear gender-typed outfits. In Study
2, we extended this research to a more diverse population and found that gender appearance rigidity was
also prevalent in 267 4-year-old children in the United States from African American, Chinese,
Dominican, and Mexican immigrant low-income backgrounds. Results suggest that rigid gender-related
appearance behavior can be seen among young children from different backgrounds and might reflect
early developing cognitions about gender identit

Keywords: gender identity, appearance, centrality, gender constancy, gender cognitions

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034906.sup

Our appearances are a symbolic representation of our self-
concepts and convey messages to others about how we would like
to be perceived. Clothing is a critical way we communicate our
identity to others (e.g., Feinberg, Mataro, & Burroughs, 1992) and
can signal membership in or separation from social groups (e.g.,
Freitas, Kaiser, & Hammidi, 1996). It is surprising, then, that the
topic of children’s gender-typed appearances has been virtually

ignored in the gender identity development literature. The study of
gender development has been dominated by a focus on gender
stereotyping or activity preferences and behaviors (Zosuls, Miller,
Ruble, Martin, & Fabes, 2011), despite numerous calls to focus on
multiple domains (Huston, 1983; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum,
2006). Children’s gender-typed appearance is also unique from
other aspects of gender-typing. During the course of a day, playing

This article was published Online First November 25, 2013.
May Ling Halim, Department of Psychology, California State Univer-

sity, Long Beach; Diane N. Ruble, Department of Psychology, New York
University; Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Department of Applied Psychol-
ogy, New York University; Kristina M. Zosuls, Department of Family and
Human Development, Arizona State University; Leah E. Lurye and Faith
K. Greulich, Department of Psychology, New York University.

This study was conducted at the Social Development Lab within the
Department of Psychology in the New York University Graduate School of
Arts and Sciences (GSAS) as well as at the Center for Research on Culture,
Development, and Education (CRCDE), within the Department of Applied
Psychology at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Edu-
cation, and Human Development. This research was supported by the
National Science Foundation Grants BCS 021859 and IRADS 0721383 to

Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda. Preparation of this article was also sup-
ported in part by National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
ment Research Grant R01 HD04994 and an American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act supplement to Diane N. Ruble.

We thank our colleagues and staff at the CRCDE and at GSAS, partic-
ularly Celena Chong, Sandra Dias, Shuan-Ju Hung, Cristina Hunter, Cyndy
Karras, Yana Kuchirko, Jennifer Ledesma, Catharine Lennon, Alana Paz,
Julia Raufman, Jessica Senie, Emerald Shee, Irene Sze, Sheena Yap,
Abigail Walsh, and Irene Wu, as well as the mothers and children who
participated in our research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to May Ling
Halim, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long
Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840-0901. E-mail:
mayling.halim@csulb.edu

T
h

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

Developmental Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 50, No. 4,

1091

–1101 0012-1649/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034906

1091

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034906.supp

mailto:mayling.halim@csulb.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034906

with toys or with same- or other-gender peers is a transitory
behavior, yet appearances are comparatively stable. Clothing thus
allows a child to announce to the world, “This is who I am” as a
girl or boy.

Appearance rigidity, adherence to conforming to gender norms
in one’s appearance through gender-stereotypical dress, is one
particular phenomenon that might elucidate this appearance–
identity link in young children. Some young girls, it seems, ac-
cording to parent anecdotes and informal observations, go through
a phase in which they refuse to wear anything but pink, frilly
dresses (Ruble, Lurye, & Zosuls, 2007). Parents have reported that
this “rigidity” can be seen in the level of gender stereotypicality
(e.g., wearing pink from head to toe) and in the frequency of its
occurrence (e.g., insisting on wearing a dress every single day, rain
or shine).

We might speculate that this kind of behavior is linked to
socialization processes, especially pressures from advertising.
Girls might copy Disney princesses (England, Descartes, &
Collier-Meek, 2011), and others might reinforce their behavior
with praise. However, such an interpretation seems incomplete.
For example, in line with theories about the benefits of androgyny
(Bem, 1981), the insistence on wearing ultra-feminine clothing
might upset some parents, causing them to feel that they have
failed to raise their daughters in a gender-neutral fashion, as the
popular media has noted (Fine, 2010; Orenstein, 2010; Padawar,
2012). In addition, about a third of young children exhibit other
forms of rigidity or “extremely intense interests” beyond those that
involve gender identity (DeLoache, Simcock, & Macari, 2007).
Moreover parents reported that these preoccupations originated
from the child rather than being encouraged by others. These
counterefforts by some parents and children’s intense interests
across domains suggest that appearance rigidity might emanate, at
least in part, from factors other than external socialization, such as
cognitive–developmental and motivational processes, referred to
here as self-socialization.

Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

Cognitive theories of gender development emphasize three key
features (Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002). First, children are
viewed as active, internally motivated agents who construct the
meaning of gender categories (Tobin et al., 2010). Once children
understand that they belong to a gender category, they embark on
an investigation as “gender detectives,” attending to information
about their own gender and about differences between girls and
boys (Martin & Ruble, 2004). Second, children’s emerging under-
standing of gender concepts motivates them to master gender
categories by behaving in gender-appropriate ways (Stangor &
Ruble, 1987). Third, there exists a developmental trajectory of
gender typing. Once children recognize an important categorical
distinction such as gender, they might exhibit phase-like shifts in
the rigidity of category-relevant beliefs and behaviors, moving
from a beginning awareness, to rigidity, to flexibility (Ruble,
1994), a trajectory supported by research on children’s endorse-
ment of gender stereotypes (Miller, Trautner, & Ruble, 2006;
Trautner et al., 2005).

Children’s gender appearance is an ideal behavior to test cog-
nitive theories of gender development, as it is a clear marker of
gender typing that is relatively permanent across situations. More-

over, appearances are both highly salient and important to young
children as their person perception relies on peripheral character-
istics such as physical appearance (Ruble & Dweck, 1995). We
propose that increases in children’s adherence to wearing feminine
or masculine clothing might be viewed as a manifestation of their
passage through the rigidity phase in the trajectory of gender
development (Halim, Ruble, & Amodio, 2011), reflecting cogni-
tions about basic gender identity as a girl or boy, along with
early-acquired and highly visible gender-stereotype knowledge
(Miller, Lurye, Zosuls, & Ruble, 2009).

Goals and Predictions for the Present Studies

Appearance rigidity among girls has been described previously
(i.e., the “pink, frilly dress” phenomenon, or PFD; Ruble, Lurye, et
al., 2007), but there has been no direct empirical inquiry to date
regarding the phenomenon. In our present research, we aimed to
(a) describe children’s appearance rigidity, (b) examine whether
gender identity predicts children’s gender appearance rigidity, and
(c) explore whether appearance rigidity generalizes to diverse
populations.

Appearance Rigidity

We examined the alternative hypotheses that appearance rigidity
might be seen in only a few, select young girls or that appearance
rigidity might be relatively common in young girls. We were also
interested to see whether boys would exhibit their own version of
appearance rigidity. Because appearance rigidity is an appearance-
based phenomenon, we expected a lower prevalence among boys,
given past research suggesting that stereotypes of girls revolve
around appearances and stereotypes of boys might revolve more
around activities (Miller et al., 2009; Cristofaro & Tamis-
LeMonda, 2008). Nevertheless, if appearance rigidity is found in
boys, we expected it to include the embracing of superhero outfits
(Neppl & Murray, 1997; Paley, 1986) or the donning of other
masculine items such as suits and ties. We further anticipated that
boys might exhibit appearance rigidity by avoiding feminine cloth-
ing as gender-role behavior is sometimes more often defined and
exhibited as something boys should not do, rather than what they
should do (Chiu et al., 2006; Hartley, 1959; Pickering & Repa-
choli, 2001).

We also hypothesized that the prevalence of gender-related
appearance would show a trajectory of rigidity followed by flex-
ibility across age as predicted by cognitive theories of gender
development. Namely, because gender labeling and identity are
evident in many children by age 2 (Zosuls et al., 2009) and gender
stability usually emerges by age 3 or 4 (Ruble et al., 2006), we
expected 3- and 4-year-old children to show more appearance
rigidity than 5- and 6-year-old children. In addition, we anticipated
that boys would show appearance rigidity later than girls because
girls’ gender development sometimes precedes boys’ (Ruble et al.,
2006; Zosuls et al., 2009).

Gender Identity and Gender-Typed Appearance

Our second aim was to examine the link between appearance
rigidity and two aspects of gender identity development that cap-
ture the motivational (gender centrality and evaluation) and knowl-

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1092 HALIM ET AL.

edge (gender constancy) components of cognitive theories of gen-
der development. Gender centrality refers to the importance of
gender to the self-concept and evaluation refers to personal regard
for one’s own gender (see Egan & Perry, 2001).

There has been little research directly examining connections
between gender centrality/evaluation and gender-typed behaviors
in young children. We hypothesized that higher levels of identifi-
cation with one’s own gender would be associated with higher
levels of gender-typed appearances. Children who feel that their
gender identities are important and positive might desire for others
to recognize their gender identities and go to great lengths to
convey the right message with their clothing.

Full gender constancy involves learning three increasingly so-
phisticated gender category concepts by approximately the age of
6 or 7 years: (a) identity—that they and others are either boys or
girls; (b) stability—that one’s sex remains stable over time (e.g.,
knowing that a baby girl will become a woman); and (c) consis-
tency—that despite superficial changes (e.g., if a boy wears a
dress), sex does not change (Slaby & Frey, 1975). Researchers
examining the connection between gender constancy and gender-
typed behaviors have reached mixed conclusions (Halim & Ruble,
2010). Some find positive associations, whereas others find no
associations (see Martin et al., 2002). Recent analyses parsing the
stages of constancy have suggested that stability might be a better
predictor of gender rigidity compared with gender consistency
(Smetana & Letourneau, 1984), which has been related to de-
creased rather than increased gender rigidity (Ruble, Taylor, et al.,
2007; Zucker et al., 1999). Thus, we hypothesized that gender
stability would predict gender-typed appearance. We reasoned that
if children have attained gender stability, they might feel more
committed to their gender and thus dress in more gender-
stereotypical ways.

Appearance Rigidity in Multiple Cultures

A third goal was to explore whether appearance rigidity would
be seen in children from diverse ethnic backgrounds. There might
be large variation in the gender attitudes, gender roles, and gender
stereotyping of different cultural communities due to historical and
philosophical influences (Kane, 2000). For example, machismo
and marianismo, or, broadly, male dominance and female submis-
siveness, might characterize Latino culture (Julian, McKenry, &
McKelvey, 1994). Chinese Confucian teachings emphasize male
dominance in a patriarchal clan system (Hofstede, 1980), while
dictating that the female role is to serve (Tu, 1985). In contrast,
some have argued that workforce participation by African Amer-
ican women and the value of equality in American culture more
broadly have created greater gender equality in African American
families (Gutman, 1976; Tamis-LeMonda & McFadden, 2009). In
light of the gendered contexts of different communities, examining
gender appearance rigidity across ethnically diverse children from
different social classes provides a stringent test of the prevalence
and generality of the phenomenon.

Overview

We conducted two studies. Study 1a investigated whether gen-
der appearance rigidity is apparent in early childhood in a middle-
class, mostly White sample. We also investigated whether parents’

preferences are associated with children’s gender appearance ri-
gidity. In Study 1b, we tested cognitive theories of gender devel-
opment by examining whether appearance rigidity was connected
to children’s gender identification and understanding of gender
stability. In Study 2, we tested whether appearance rigidity was
generalizable to populations of children from different ethnicities
and from a different socioeconomic class.

Study 1a

Method.
Participants and procedure. Parents of 76 children (39 girls

and 37 boys) were recruited from public and private schools in
New York City and from university faculty and staff as part of a
larger study on gender development. Children’s ages ranged from
3.13 to 6.98 years (M � 4.92, SD � 1.03; 16 three-year-olds, 22
four-year-olds, 26 five-year-olds, and 12 six-year-olds). The
younger cohort consisted of 38 children (19 girls and 19 boys; M
age � 4.08 years, SD � 0.56), as did the older cohort (20 girls and
18 boys; M age � 5.78 years, SD � 0.59). Families came from
middle- to upper middle-class backgrounds (average income
$120,000–$140,000; average education of parents: some graduate
school) and were mostly White (about 90%), with a small number
of Asian, Latino, and African American families. Female research-
ers interviewed the primary caretaker of each child (74 mothers
and two fathers) at the university and by phone.

Measures.
Lifetime appearance rigidity. Because we assumed that chil-

dren’s extreme insistence on wearing gender-typed clothing would
be a relatively short-lived phase, we asked about “lifetime” ap-
pearance rigidity to assess whether appearance rigidity was ever
exhibited (in the past or present). Interviewers asked parents, “Has
your daughter (son) ever insisted on wearing traditional feminine
(masculine) clothes whenever she (he) went out? Please describe
what that was.” Three independent judges coded responses (� �
.88) and discussed all disagreements until they reached agreement.
Judges first rated responses on a 4-point scale: 1 � no interest in
wearing traditional gender-typed clothes (e.g., “No”; “He does not
care what he wears”); 2 � little interest/ambiguous (e.g., “No,
[she] didn’t insist. [She] just likes to wear nice clothing—dresses
or pants”; “No, he is greatly influenced by what boys in class
wear”); 3 � pretty interested (e.g., “She likes to wear dresses”;
“He wears boys’ clothing; color is important to him”); 4 �
insistent (e.g., “Yes, pretty dress—pink and frilly,” “Yes, he
wouldn’t be caught dead in girls’ clothing”; M � 2.51, SD �
1.36). Because we were interested in the most extreme cases and
wanted to be conservative in our estimates of prevalence, we
defined children who exhibited appearance rigidity as those coded
as 4’s.

The ways in which children expressed appearance rigidity were
also categorized. Categories included (a) dresses and skirts, (b)
gender-typed colors (pink/purple versus blue; Chiu et al., 2006),
(c) texture/feel/movement of a fabric or a piece of clothing (e.g.,
“frilly,” “flowing [and] silky,” “stuff that twirls,” “velvet”), (d)
decorations/patterns (e.g., flowers, hearts), (e) fancy or formal
dress (e.g., ties for boys), (e) avoidance of other-gender-typed
clothing or colors (e.g., pants for girls, pink/purple colors for
boys), (f) superhero costumes and graphics, and (g) other (e.g.,
ballet slippers, briefcases). A single child’s expression could fall

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1093APPEARANCE RIGIDITY

into more than one category (e.g., pink dresses would be catego-
rized under gender-typed color and dresses/skirts).

Current gender-typed appearance. To capture current gender-
typed appearance, interviewers asked parents, “What is a typical
outfit for your child?” The same three independent judges coded
all of the responses (� � .81) for the degree of femininity and the
degree of masculinity of the typical outfit for both boys and girls
on a scale from 1 to 5 (see online supplemental materials),
r(70) � �.57, p � .001. We reverse-coded how other-gender-
typed the outfit was and then averaged the two items to create a
scale. Current gender-typed appearance was correlated with life-
time appearance rigidity, r(70) � .25, p � .038. Six children were
missing data due to an interview error.

Parent preferences for child’s clothing. To measure parents’
preferences toward their children’s clothing, we asked parents of
girls (boys), “How comfortable do you feel when your child
dresses up in “girlish” (“boyish”) clothes?” (1 � very uncomfort-
able, 7 � very comfortable). We also asked, “What are your
preferences regarding your child’s clothing?” (for girls [boys]: 1 �
very masculine [very feminine], 5 � very feminine [very mascu-
line]). Four parents did not complete the interview due to time
constraints and had missing data. Parents of boys (M � 3.71, SD �
0.83) and girls (M � 3.47, SD � 0.74) did not significantly differ
in their preference for gender-typed clothing, t(69) � 1.31, ns.
However, parents of boys (M � 6.88, SD � 0.41) compared with
parents of girls (M � 6.46, SD � 0.84) reported being more
comfortable if their child wore gender-typed clothing, t(53.3) �
2.74, p � .008, d � 0.75. These items were correlated, r(70) � .34,
p � .004, and thus were standardized around their means and
averaged together.

Results.
Plan of analyses. We first describe the distributions of chil-

dren who have ever exhibited (“lifetime”) appearance rigidity, then
provide details about how many children displayed current appear-
ance rigidity. Next, to explore trajectories of gender-typed appear-
ance, we examine gender by cohort interactions for lifetime and
current gender-typed appearance using chi-squares and analyses of
variance (ANOVAs). Finally, we investigate whether parent pref-
erences concerning clothing were associated with children’s cur-
rent gender-typed appearance using multiple regressions.

Prevalence and extremity. Analyses of the lifetime appear-
ance rigidity measure indicated that 54% of the girls (68% in the
younger cohort and 40% in the older cohort) were reported as
having ever exhibited appearance rigidity (this finding also means
that 46% either had never exhibited appearance rigidity or had
shown a little bit or some interest; see Table 1). In contrast, 27%
of the boys (11% in the younger cohort and 44% in the older
cohort) were reported to have been insistent on wearing gender-
typed clothing at some point in their early childhood. This result
also means that 73% of boys either had never exhibited appearance
rigidity or had shown a little bit or some interest.

Parents’ comments indicated that this lifetime appearance rigid-
ity was quite extreme for some of the girls. About a quarter of the
parents of girls who had exhibited appearance rigidity (24%) used
expressions such as “has to,” “no option,” “won’t wear anything
else,” “not a choice,” or “that’s it.” Parents also pointed to chil-
dren’s refusals or rejections of certain items of clothing (80% of
boys and 19% of girls who exhibited appearance rigidity).

Ways in which children express lifetime appearance rigidity.
For girls, parent responses clustered around the adherence to
dresses and skirts and the avoidance of pants (see Table 2 and
Figure 1). For boys, parent responses converged on the avoidance
of feminine clothing and in some cases the donning of superhero
costumes and formal menswear. Children insisted on wearing
gender-typed clothing on a daily basis and often refused other, less
gender-typed, suggested options. About 17% of children showed
lifetime appearance rigidity in only one category (i.e., dresses);
32% showed rigidity in two or three ways (i.e., dresses and pink);
and 12% showed rigidity in between four and six ways. About
40% of parents did not mention specific clothing elements, usually
answering with unequivocal yes’s or no’s.

Differences by gender and cohort. We examined gender and
cohort differences in both lifetime and current appearance rigidity.
Because the distribution of lifetime appearance rigidity was non-
parametric (79% of children at the ends of the distribution), we
contrasted the most rigid children (4’s) with everyone else. Results
revealed that, across cohorts, more girls than boys showed lifetime
appearance rigidity, �2(1, N � 76) � 5.66, p � .017, � � .27. In
addition, there was a gender by cohort interaction, G2(df � 4) �
14.70, p � .005. Among girls, lifetime appearance rigidity was
marginally more prevalent in the younger than in the older cohort,
�2(1, N � 39) � 3.17, p � .075, � � .29 (see Figure 2). It seems
possible that given the high frequency of lifetime appearance
rigidity among 3- to 4-year-olds, some parents of 5- to 6-year-old
girls might have underreported past gender-rigid behavior among
their daughters. In contrast, lifetime appearance rigidity was more
prevalent in boys in the older (44%) than in the younger (11%)
cohort, �2(1, N � 37) � 5.39, p � .020, � � .38.

For current gender-typed appearance, a two-way ANOVA re-
vealed that although the main effects of gender, F(1, 66) � 1.69,
and cohort, F(1, 66) � 0.19, were not significant, a gender by
cohort interaction was found, F(1, 66) � 7.11, p � .010, �2 � .10.
As expected, girls in the younger (M � 4.32, SD � 0.69) com-
pared with the older (M � 3.78, SD � 0.79) cohort were rated as
exhibiting a higher level of current gender-typed appearance,
t(35) � 2.21, p � .034, d � 0.75. In contrast, boys in the older
(M � 4.46, SD � 0.66) compared with the younger (M � 4.08,
SD � 0.71) cohort did not significantly differ. Overall, children

Table 1
Percentage of Children Who Have Shown Appearance Rigidity
(Lifetime Appearance Rigidity)

Gender/age groups
No

interest
Little

interest
Pretty

interested Insistent

Girls

3- & 4-year-olds 16 11 5 68
5- & 6-year-olds 35 15 10 40

All girls 26 13 8 54

Boys

3- & 4-year-olds 68 21 0 11
5- & 6-year-olds 33 6 17 44

All boys 51 14 8 27

All 3- & 4-year-olds 16 11 5 68
All 5- & 6-year-olds 35 15 10 40
All children 38 13 8 41

Note. Percentages are calculated for each row.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1094 HALIM ET AL.

currently dressed in rather gender-typed ways (overall M � 4.14
on a scale from 1 to 5, SD � .75), especially girls in the younger
cohort (M � 4.32 on a scale from 1 to 5, SD � .71).

The role of parents. Finally, we examined the possible asso-
ciation between parents’ preferences and children’s appearance
rigidity. We did this in several ways. First, we examined the
parents’ open-ended responses for spontaneous reactions to this

behavior. In their open-ended responses concerning lifetime ap-
pearance rigidity, none of the parents of children who insisted on
wearing gender-typed clothing reported actively encouraging or
supporting their children to wear gender-typed clothing. Indeed,
some parents reported having to resort to some sort of negotiation
or persuasion to dress their daughters in a manner that deviated
from their daughters’ wishes (e.g., “[She] always prefers a dress. I
have to convince her if it’s cold to wear leggings”). Second, we

70
80

ig
id

ity

40
50
60
70

pp
ea

ra
nc

e
R

Girls

Boys

0
10
20
30

Ex
hi

bi
te

d
A

0
3- & 4-yr-olds 5- & 6-yr-olds%

Figure 2. Study 1a: Prevalence of lifetime appearance rigidity by gender
and cohort.

Table 2
Study 1a: Characteristic Examples of Lifetime Appearance Rigidity

Gender/clothing item Parent quotes

Girls
Dresses and skirts “No option, she wears dresses and won’t wear anything else, always stockings even when it is cold out.”

“All the time, skirts—pastel colors, [she] has to wear skirts, [she’s] always done this since [she] turned
3.”

“[She] always prefers a dress. I have to convince her if it’s cold to wear leggings.”
“[Her typical outfit is] a dress or a skirt. We do negotiate if [we’re] going to the park, but [she] doesn’t

like jeans unless [they] have embroidered flowers [on them].”
“Pretty dress—pink and frilly.”
“Dress, tights, Mary Jane shoes; pink is [her] favorite color now.”

Avoidance of pants “Pants are not a choice. [She says,] ‘I want to wear a dress, and that’s it.’
“Dress over skort.”
“I bought two pairs of corduroy pants [for her]. She won’t wear them because [they’re] too masculine.”
“[She] refuses to wear pants–I have to persuade her. [My daughter says,] ‘I want to wear a dress–I don’t

like pants.’ ”
Other “She’d wear [her pink ballet slippers] all the time if she could.”

Boys
Avoidance of feminine clothing “He wouldn’t be caught dead in girls’ clothing.”

“Negated burgundy pants because ‘red is for girls.’”
“He wouldn’t wear a sweater that is feminine—he won’t wear hand-me-downs from his big sister.”
“At [his] grandmother’s, he had no underwear. She put hers on him. He got upset.”
“Won’t wear his sister’s pink hand-me-downs.”
“Won’t wear pink or purple. Says boys’ stuff is better in general.”
“He refuses colors ‘for girls.’”
“Wouldn’t wear sandals because they looked like girls’ [sandals].”

Superhero “Superhero costumes—Superman, Spiderman.”
“Batman outfits.”

Formal menswear “Suit and tie and shoes and briefcase! [He says to me,] ‘Don’t I look handsome!’”
“Loves to wear shirts and ties.”

Other “[He] loves to wear baggy cargo pants.”

Note. Reponses to the question, “Has your daughter/son ever insisted on wearing traditional feminine/masculine clothes whenever she/he went out? Please
describe.”

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Dres
se

s/s
kir

Colo
rs

Te
xtu

Dec
ora

tio
ns

Fan
cy

vo
id

oth
er-

ge
nd

Sup
erh

ero

Othe
r

%
o

f C
hi

ld
re

Girls

Boys

Figure 1. Study 1a: Categorization of the way girls and boys manifest
appearance rigidity based on parents’ reports.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1095APPEARANCE RIGIDITY

asked parents, “During an average week, how frequently do you
attempt to influence your child’s clothing?” (0 � never, 1 �
rarely, 2 � a couple times, 3 � often, 4 � a lot). The average
response indicated low parental attempts to influence children’s
outfits (M � 1.51, SD � 1.20).

Third, we examined whether parents’ preferences for their chil-
dren’s clothing in terms of femininity/masculinity were associated
with their child’s current appearance rigidity. We conducted a
hierarchical multiple regression, in which children’s current ex-
pression of appearance rigidity served as the dependent variable
with age and gender entered on the first step, parent preferences
entered on the second step, the 3 two-way interactions entered on
the third step, and the three-way interaction entered on the fourth
step. No significant effects were found. The largest coefficient for
parents’ preferences predicting children’s current appearance ri-
gidity was found on the second step but was not significant,
� � �.18, t(65) � 1.36, ns. See supplemental online materials for
more details.

Discussion. These data are the first to document the preva-
lence of gender appearance rigidity in young children. We used
strict criteria for calculating the prevalence of lifetime appearance
rigidity, and using these criteria, we found that more than half of
girls and a little more than a quarter of boys had at some point
strongly insisted on wearing gender-typed clothing (Table 2). On
the other end of the spectrum, about a quarter of girls and about
half of boys had never shown any appearance rigidity over their
lifetimes. These data point to the variability in children’s appear-
ance rigidity.

As expected, lifetime gender appearance rigidity was reported to
be more prevalent in girls than in boys. In addition, we found that
lifetime appearance rigidity was marginally reported more often
for 3- and 4-year-old girls (68%) compared with 5- and 6-year-old
girls (40%), whereas lifetime appearance rigidity was reported
more often for 5- and 6-year-old boys (40%) compared with 3- and
4-year-old boys (11%). Current appearance rigidity showed simi-
lar, and significant, patterns for girls, but no differences by cohort
for boys. Together these results tentatively suggest a later onset of
appearance rigidity for boys. This delay would mirror research
showing that girls are often a little ahead of boys in gender
development (Zosuls et al., 2009). Alternatively, because boys
most frequently expressed appearance rigidity by avoiding any-
thing feminine, it might be that it takes longer to learn what to
avoid about the other gender (e.g., Chiu et al., 2006), than to learn
what to embrace about one’s own gender.

The qualitative data on lifetime appearance rigidity suggested
that some children were quite insistent on wearing or avoiding
feminine clothing. Qualitatively, parent-reported reactions ranged
from tolerance to reasoning with or making compromises with
their children. Interestingly, only parents of daughters explicitly
mentioned conflict. Perhaps parents of sons were very comfortable
with their boys wearing ‘boyish’ clothing. Somewhat surprisingly,
parents’ preferences did not predict children’s current gender ap-
pearance rigidity.

Study 1b

In Study 1b, we used child interviews to test whether two
aspects of self-socialization in gender identity development—(a)
feelings of importance and positive evaluation of one’s gender and

(b) understanding of the permanence of gender categories—could
help explain why young children want to dress like girly girls and
masculine boys. We tested these hypotheses by examining the
association between these aspects of gender identity development
with their current gender appearance rigidity as reported by their
parents in Study 1a.

Method.
Participants and procedure. Participants included the 76 chil-

dren of the parents in Study 1a. While parents were being inter-
viewed, children were interviewed separately in two sessions at the
university or in their schools.

Measures.
Current expression of appearance rigidity. Appearance rigid-

ity was measured using the parent reports of current expressions of
appearance rigidity described in Study 1a.

Centrality and evaluation. Interviewers asked children about
how important and positive being a girl or boy was to them, using
10 items adapted from adult identity measures of centrality and
evaluation (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) asked in a Harter-type
format (Harter, 1982; Ruble, Taylor, et al., 2007; e.g., to a girl,
“Some girls feel that [being a girl is important to them/girls are
great], but other girls do not feel that [being a girl is important to
them/girls are great]”). Children chose which group they were
more like and whether it was “sort of true” or “really true” for
them (1 � really not at all true, 2 � sort of not true, 3 � sort of
true, 4 � really true). Higher numbers indicated greater centrality
and evaluation. We combined centrality and evaluation items
because these two components of identification were correlated,
r(72) � .59, p � .001. Overall, centrality and evaluation of one’s
own gender were moderately high ( � .72; M � 3.41, SD � 0.60;
range: 1.60–4.00). No gender differences were found.

Stability constancy. There were two parts of the stability mea-
sure. The first part consisted of seven forced-choice questions
(e.g., “When you grow up, will you be a man or a woman?”; 0 �
incorrect, 1 � correct; Ruble, Taylor, et al., 2007; Slaby & Frey,
1975). The second part consisted of seven sets of drawings where
children had to match children and adults by gender (e.g., “What
did this adult look like as a child?”; for more details, see
Hirschfeld, 1996; Ruble, Taylor, et al., 2007). Children needed to
match by gender for responses to be counted as correct. The
stability scale was a sum of the 14 total items ( � .71; M � 12.72,
SD � 2.02; range: 7.00–14.00). Girls (M � 13.11, SD � 1.49)
showed somewhat more understanding of gender stability than did
boys (M � 12.31, SD � 2.41), t(57.6) � 1.71, p � .093.

Results.
Plan of analyses. We examined whether gender identification

would be associated with current gender-typed appearance by
conducting hierarchical multiple regressions. We treated children’s
current gender-typed appearance as the dependent variable with
age and gender entered on the first step, the identity variable of
interest entered on the second, the 3 two-way interactions entered
on the third, and the three-way interaction entered on the fourth.
All continuous predictors were mean-centered. Gender was
dummy coded (girls � 0; boys � 1).

Gender centrality and evaluation. Consistent with our hy-
pothesis, gender centrality/evaluation positively predicted chil-
dren’s current appearance rigidity adjusting for age and gender,
� � .25, t(62) � 2.08, p � .042. We found no other significant
effects.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1096 HALIM ET AL.

Gender stability. Confirming our hypothesis, an understand-
ing of gender stability was associated with children’s current
appearance rigidity, � � .32, t(64) � 2.24, p � .028. We found no
other significant effects. See supplemental materials about gender
consistency as a predictor.

Discussion. The data lend support to cognitive theories of
gender development regarding children’s appearance rigidity.
First, we found that gender centrality and evaluation positively
predicted children’s current appearance rigidity across age and
gender. These findings suggest that children exhibiting appearance
rigidity might be doing so, in part, because they consider their
gender identity to be an important and positive aspect of them-
selves. In addition, we found that a greater understanding of
gender stability predicted children’s current appearance rigidity
across gender. These data indicate that children’s current appear-
ance rigidity might mark a solidified commitment to their gender
identities, once children know that gender is relatively permanent
over time. These associations are consistent with predictions from
the phase model of transitions (Ruble, 1994) with children’s cog-
nitive development predicting their identity-displaying behavior.

A limitation of Study 1 was the homogeneity of our sample. We
suggest that appearance rigidity could be found in any culture in
which gender is an important and salient categorical distinction
and in which certain appearance characteristics are closely con-
nected with gender. Hence, to examine the generalizability of
gender appearance rigidity during early childhood to other cultural
communities, we conducted a second study on a different, diverse
population.

Study 2

Study 2 examined whether the identified patterns of gender
appearance found in Study 1 would generalize to 4-year-old chil-
dren from ethnically diverse backgrounds (Mexican, Chinese, Do-
minican, and African American) and from low-income neighbor-
hoods. Based on the responses of parents in Study 1, we
constructed closed-ended questions to assess children’s appear-
ance rigidity. We examined mothers of 4-year-olds, in particular,
because Study 1 showed that appearance rigidity was prevalent at
age 4 and cognitive theories of gender development would also
predict a peak in gender-typed appearance at this time. We chose
these four particular cultural backgrounds based on their increas-
ing presence in the United States and because they each have
unique histories and traditions that might affect children’s gender
typing. In terms of ethnic group differences, African American
children might be expected to display less appearance rigidity than
the three immigrant groups because gender distinctions might be
less salient among African American families in light of high
employment and economic responsibilities of mothers (Hill, 2002;
Jarrett, Roy, & Burton, 2002).

Method.
Participants and procedure. Participants included 267 moth-

ers of 4-year-olds and their children (129 girls, 138 boys: 59
African American [25 girls, 34 boys], 90 Chinese American [45
girls, 45 boys], 61 Dominican American [27 girls, 34 boys], and 57
Mexican American [32 girls, 25 boys]). Among these participants,
100% of the Chinese, 96% of the Mexican, 79% of the Dominican,
and 0% of the African American mothers were born outside the
United States. Average household annual income was approxi-

mately $21,823 (SD � $14,576), and 84% were currently receiv-
ing government assistance (75% of Dominican, 90% of African
American, 86% of Chinese, and 86% of Mexican families).
Twenty-five percent of mothers completed some college, 38%
completed only high school or received a GED, and 37% did not
complete high school. Participants were recruited at the maternity
wards of New York City hospitals in low-income areas to take part
in a larger longitudinal study on culture and school readiness.
Participants were interviewed in their dominant language.

Gender appearance rigidity. We read mothers of sons two
statements: “My son avoids wearing feminine clothing and colors
like pink,” and “My son loves to wear really masculine things like
baseball caps, basketball shoes, and/or sports jerseys” (1 � not at
all true, 2 � a little bit true, 3 � somewhat true, 4 � very true, 5 �
extremely true). We averaged the responses to these two state-
ments to make a scale, M � 3.66, SD � 1.09—for all boys:
r(137) � .30, p � .001; by ethnicity: Chinese: r(44) � .58, p �
.001; Mexican: r(25) � �.13, ns; Dominican: r(34) � .35, p �
.043; African American: r(25) � .10, ns. For mothers of daughters,
we read: “My daughter loves to wear dresses and skirts,” and “My
daughter loves to wear pink clothing and accessories.” We also
averaged the responses to make a scale for girls, M � 3.95, SD �
0.88—all girls: r(129) � .47, p � .001; by ethnicity: Chinese:
r(45) � .42, p � .004; Mexican: r(32) � .47, p � .007; Domin-
ican: r(27) � .08, ns; African American: r(25) � .64, p � .001
(see the online supplemental materials for more information on the
cross-cultural equivalence of the measure). We selected these
items from a larger questionnaire on general gender rigidity be-
cause they directly asked about the appearance rigidity qualities
apparent in Study 1.

Results.
Prevalence of gender appearance rigidity by gender. We

analyzed girls’ and boys’ appearance rigidity separately. Among
girls, gender appearance rigidity was very high (M � 3.95, SD �
0.88). In fact, 69% of girls were reported to exhibit appearance
rigidity, scoring 4 (very true) or 5 (extremely true) on the response
scale. This also means that 31% of girls exhibited some (23%),
little (5%), or no (3%) appearance rigidity, indicated by scores of
1 (not at all true), 2 (a little bit true), or 3 (somewhat true). Among
boys, gender appearance rigidity was also high (M � 3.66, SD �
1.09). A little more than half (56%) of boys were reported to
exhibit appearance rigidity (scoring 4’s or 5’s). Thus, 44% of boys
exhibited some (20%), little (17%), or no (7%) gender appearance
rigidity.

Ethnic group differences in prevalence of gender appearance
rigidity. Because the distributions leaned toward being nega-
tively skewed (for girls:�1.25; for boys: �0.58), to examine
whether rigidity varied by ethnic group, we conducted chi square
tests contrasting children who exhibited appearance rigidity (4’s or
5’s) with children who did not (from 1’s to 3’s). Among girls, there
were significant differences by ethnicity, �2 (3, N � 129) � 7.87,
p � .049, � � .25. Fewer Mexican American girls (50%) showed
appearance rigidity compared with Dominican (82%; p � .012),
Chinese (73%; p � .036), and African American (72%; p � .093)
girls, who did not significantly differ from each other, as deter-
mined by follow-up pairwise chi square tests. Hence, appearance
rigidity was generally prevalent in these 4-year-old girls from
low-income, ethnically diverse backgrounds.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1097APPEARANCE RIGIDITY

Among boys, there was a marginally significant effect for eth-
nicity, �2 (3, N � 138) � 7.37, p � .061, � � .24. More
Dominican American boys (77%) were reported to express appear-
ance rigidity than did boys from the other ethnic groups—Mexican
(48%), Chinese (51%), African American (50%; all ps � .05)—
who did not significantly differ from each other. Thus, appearance
rigidity was found among more than half of these 4-year-old boys
across a diverse number of cultural groups and was even more
prevalent among Dominican American boys.

Discussion. Study 2 showed that appearance rigidity is not
limited to White, middle-class samples. Two thirds of 4-year-old
girls and more than half of 4-year-old boys from diverse ethnic
backgrounds, including Chinese, Dominican, and Mexican immi-
grant children, as well as African American children, on average
showed a moderately high to very high degree of gender appear-
ance rigidity. As in Study 1, the data also point to variability in
children’s appearance rigidity. One third of ethnic minority 4-year-
old girls and 44% of ethnic minority 4-year-old boys showed a
more tempered interest or no interest in gender-typed clothing.
Perhaps these children might be low on gender typing generally;
perhaps their gender identities are not as central to their general
self-identities; or perhaps gender is made less salient in their peer
environments.

We found a few ethnic differences. Unexpectedly, Mexican girls
showed the least amount of gender appearance rigidity, which
contrasts with assumptions that Latino culture might endorse more
gender typing. Moreover, African American girls showed as much
gender appearance rigidity as girls in the other ethnic groups,
contrary to the idea that African American girls might endorse
gender roles less because of African American family structures
(e.g., Hill, 2002). Gender is multidimensional (Ruble et al., 2006);
thus, gender rigidity might be expressed in different ways depend-
ing on what is emphasized in one’s culture. Perhaps as an alter-
native to appearance, Mexican girls express their gender in their
play or peer preferences (Halim, Ruble, Tamis-LeMonda, &
Shrout, 2013). And perhaps African American girls learn that
appearance is particularly important in order to ensure a sense of
respectability and social status (Wolcott, 2001). In the case of the
ethnic group difference among boys, Dominican boys showed
marginally more appearance rigidity than the boys in all the other
ethnic groups. Scholars have noted that gender roles are often
clearly defined in Dominican culture (Lopez, 2002; Cristofaro &
Tamis-LeMonda, 2008). Perhaps gender is particularly salient to
Dominican boys, and they are choosing appearance as the choice
avenue of gender identity expression.

General Discussion

Across multiple studies, mixed methods, and diverse samples,
we found that most girls were reported to show a keen interest in
dressing in gender-typed ways at some point in early childhood
(68% of 3- and 4-year-olds in Study 1; 69% of 4-year-olds in
Study 2). Similarly, but to a lesser degree, a number of boys (more
than half of ethnic minority boys, about a quarter of White middle-
class boys) also were reported to show an affinity for especially
masculine clothing. We consider this prevalence among boys to
be remarkable given our expectations that appearance rigidity
would be a phenomenon found primarily among girls. Although
gender might be more or less salient in different cultural com-

munities, children from multiple ethnic backgrounds—particu-
larly girls— on average exhibited a penchant for gendered
clothing, thereby demonstrating the robustness of gender ap-
pearance rigidity in early childhood.

Gender Differences

Girls generally were reported to exhibit more gender appearance
rigidity than were boys across both studies. This contrast might be
due to gender differences in the construction of the meaning of
gender identity. For girls, being a girl might mean looking like a
girl. For boys, we speculate that being a boy might largely mean
something else, such as acting like a boy. Children’s stereotypes
about girls are largely defined by appearance, whereas children’s
stereotypes about boys are more often defined by behavior and
activities (Miller et al., 2009). It is also possible that boys do not
have to be obsessed with appearances because their wardrobe
choices are more constrained, as boys’ clothing already usually
excludes feminine options. Boys might have less choice in what
they wear and thus find other avenues for the expression of their
gender identities.

Although appearance rigidity was less prevalent among boys,
when boys did show appearance rigidity, it often revolved around
avoiding other-gender-typed clothing, as in Study 1. We speculate
that knowledge of status differences could be emerging; thus, boys
might desire to avoid looking feminine because females have
lower status than males (Rudman & Glick, 2012). It is also
possible that boys might be punished more for looking feminine
than vice versa (Smetana, 1986). Perhaps also, at an early age,
boys’ avoidance of femininity can be seen in their avoidance of
feminine clothing, and later on in development this type of avoid-
ance is extended to other domains such as boys’ self-censorship in
expressing certain emotions (Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992). Be-
cause the avoidance of femininity was a noticeable theme among
boys, it would be beneficial in future research to directly and
systematically assess the avoidance of cross-gender-typed cloth-
ing.

Ethnic Similarities and Differences

Studies 1 and 2 showed that appearance rigidity was comparably
prevalent in both White (68% of 3- and 4-year-olds) and ethnic
minority (69% of 4-year-olds) young girls. Thus across five dif-
ferent ethnic groups, appearance rigidity was the norm among
young girls, although in each sample there were girls who did not
express the highest levels of appearance rigidity as well (31%–
32% in 3- or 4-year-olds). In contrast, cross-cultural comparisons
among boys revealed an interesting finding. In Study 1, only 11%
of 3- and 4-year-old White boys showed appearance rigidity.
Based on these results, it was unexpected to find that more than
half (56%) of 4-year-old ethnic minority boys expressed appear-
ance rigidity (and among Dominican 4-year-old boys, the preva-
lence rate was 77%). This finding suggests that appearances might
be more integral to the gender identities of ethnic minority boys
(see Archer & Yamshita, 2003). Alternatively, as 44% of 5- and
6-year-old White boys in Study 1 showed appearance rigidity,
nearing the 56% of the 4-year-old ethnic minority boys, it is
possible that appearance rigidity has an earlier developmental
course for ethnic minority boys than White boys. A future, direct

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1098 HALIM ET AL.

cross-cultural comparison and a longitudinal study on the devel-
opmental trajectories of appearance rigidity could elucidate this
finding. If other dimensions of gender typing (sex segregation,
play) also showed earlier developmental courses for ethnic minor-
ity boys than for White boys, this might suggest that general
gender identity development might begin earlier for them than for
White boys. We speculate that perhaps gender is more salient in
the environments of ethnic minority boys compared with the
environments of White boys.

Another interesting cultural difference was that in the White,
Chinese, and African American groups, appearance rigidity was
more prevalent in girls than in boys. However, both Latino groups
showed parity in appearance rigidity between girls and boys (82%
and 77% of Dominican girls and boys, respectively; 50% and 48%
of Mexican girls and boys, respectively). We speculate that the
importance of looking feminine or masculine might be stressed
equally for girls and boys in Latino groups.

Testing Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

Supporting cognitive theories of gender development, several
key findings point to the role of children’s self-socialization as an
important addition or alternative to socialization factors in explain-
ing gender appearance rigidity. First, a greater understanding of
gender stability was associated with currently appearing more
gender-typed in Study 1b. Second, currently looking more gender-
typed was linked to motivational underpinnings such as positive
feelings for and evaluations of one’s own gender group in Study
1b. Third, consistent with predictions from the phase model of
transitions (Ruble, 1994), we found in Study 1a that girls’ gender-
typed appearances followed the trajectory of rigidity followed by
flexibility (marginally for the lifetime appearance rigidity measure,
significantly for the current appearance rigidity measure). These
cohort differences suggest that appearance rigidity might change
over the course of early childhood and follow a phase-like pattern
similar to gender-related cognitions, such as gender stereotyping.
However, as to the specific timing of rigidity followed by flexi-
bility, prior research has shown that the rigidity of gender stereo-
typing peaks around ages 5 and 6 and then becomes more flexible
(Miller et al., 2006; Trautner et al., 2005). Thus, these data suggest
that, for girls, a somewhat earlier period of rigidity might occur for
gender-related behavior than for gender-related cognition. It re-
mains to be seen if rigid gendered behavior becomes more flexible
after age 6 for boys. If so, then boys’ trajectories of gender-typed
behavior might align with the trajectories of their gender-related
cognitions. Overall, these data suggest that cognitive processes
might underlie children’s gender appearance rigidity, though lon-
gitudinal research is needed to establish the causal direction of this
relation. Future studies should also test whether the same cognitive
processes are linked to appearance rigidity in ethnically diverse
groups.

Limitations and Future Directions

In the current study, parent preferences were not associated with
children’s gender-typed appearances. However, because our pri-
mary focus concerned testing cognitive theories of gender devel-
opment, our measures of parent preferences were limited in the
number of items used. Also, it is possible that some parents might

have been biased in their reports, either being unaware of or
downplaying how much they actually encourage their children to
dress in stereotypical ways. In addition, it is possible that parent
preferences interact with some other factors, such as children’s
cognitive development, in affecting their gender-typed dress, but
we lacked the statistical power to adequately examine this kind of
interaction. Nevertheless, our parent measures had the benefit of
being very specific (Zosuls, Ruble, Tamis-LeMonda, & Martin,
2013). More research is needed to understand the intersection
between parent preferences and children’s gender-typed dress.
Perhaps a more nuanced measure would capture a bidirectional
influence between children and parents in determining children’s
gendered appearances. Alternatively, parent preferences might not
be as strongly connected to appearance rigidity at this age, but at
earlier ages, when children are not as attuned to gender categories
and are not as invested in their gender identities.

Another limitation was that our measure of appearance rigidity
in Study 2 showed low correlations for some of the ethnic by
gender groups. However, sample sizes were relatively small when
split by ethnic and gender group. Thus, we lacked the power to
draw firm conclusions about the cross-cultural equivalence of the
measure (Cohen, 1992). In addition, because the items in the
measure were very concrete (“skirts,” “baseball caps”) and did not
ask about abstract concepts (like “appearance rigidity”), we are
confident that mothers from all ethnic groups understood the
questions. Nevertheless, it would be interesting for investigators in
a future study to directly examine the particular ways gender
manifests itself in the adornments and dress of different cultural
groups.

The present findings suggest a number of other important di-
rections for future research. One issue concerns the social identity
implications of gender-related appearance rigidity. For example, if
appearance rigidity represents strong gender identification, as our
research suggests, then children who are rigid might show more
ingroup favoritism than those who are more flexible. Our finding
that girls showed more gender appearance rigidity than boys is
consistent with literature sometimes reporting that girls show more
intergroup bias than do boys (Leroux, 2008; Powlishta, 1995;
Susskind & Hodges, 2007; Zosuls et al., 2011).

Another important direction concerns the causes and conse-
quences of individual differences in appearance rigidity. Although
we have emphasized how prevalent appearance rigidity is for girls,
it is important to remember that there was also a subset of girls
who exhibited no appearance rigidity. And although, depending on
the sample, about a quarter to almost half of boys exhibited
appearance rigidity, many boys never did. What makes these
individuals different from one another? Some children could be
generally more gender-typed than others due to experiencing dif-
ferent hormonal environments in utero (e.g., girls exposed to high
levels of androgens could prefer more masculine dress, activities,
and peers; Berenbaum & Snyder, 1995) or experiencing different
amounts of felt pressure to conform to gender norms from family,
peers, or the media (Egan & Perry, 2001). Alternatively, perhaps
some children are defining their gender through other avenues
besides their appearance.

Whatever the explanation for these individual differences, it
would be interesting to track these differences over time and
understand the developmental trajectory of appearance rigidity.
Journalists have increasingly discussed the negative impact of the

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1099APPEARANCE RIGIDITY

princess culture on girls’ development (e.g., Fine, 2010; Orenstein,
2010). On the one hand, in light of the lower levels of appearance
rigidity among older girls in Study 1, which suggests a dearth of
elementary-school-aged girls who wear pink, frilly dresses (Halim
et al., 2011), we posit that appearance rigidity might be a short-
lived phase. If so, then perhaps appearance rigidity need not elicit
stress around parent–child interactions, potentially damaging
parent–child relationships and making children perceive that ex-
pressing one’s gender identity is bad. On the other hand, if ap-
pearance rigidity is more long-term and stable, then it might lead
children, and especially girls, to focus too much on their physical
appearance, especially if they are continually praised by others for
looking pretty. Appearance rigidity might then feed into defining
one’s self and one’s self-worth in terms of how one looks. In turn,
one’s self-esteem might become contingent on self-perceived at-
tractiveness, which can contribute to psychological distress
(Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Eccles, Barber, Jozefowicz, Malenchuk,
& Vida, 1999). A hyper-focus on one’s physical appearance might
also feed into girls’ self-objectification, which has also been as-
sociated with poor psychological adjustment and math perfor-
mance (e.g., Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998).

Conclusion

In conclusion, through multiple methods and across studies in a
large and diverse sample, our study emphasizes that the clothing
that children put on each day has significance and is a central, but
previously missing, piece in the study of gender and identity
development. Whether a girl dons a pink, frilly dress or a boy
wears a red and blue Spiderman T-shirt might reflect changing
understandings of gender categories and developing motivations to
master these categories. Thus, the present findings support the
view of young children as active self-socializing agents, picking up
clues on what gender looks like and doggedly following their
deductions.

References

Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles:
Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Edu-
cation, 65, 169–187. doi:10.2307/2112807

Archer, L., & Yamashita, H. (2003). Theorising inner-city masculinities:
“Race,” class, gender and education. Gender and Education, 15, 115–
132. doi:10.1080/09540250303856

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88
.4.354

Berenbaum, S. A., & Snyder, E. (1995). Early hormonal influences on
childhood sex-typed activity and playmate preferences: Implications for
the development of sexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31,
31–42. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.31

Chiu, S. W., Gervan, S., Fairbrother, C., Johnson, L. L., Owen-Anderson,
A. F. H., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2006). Sex-dimorphic color
preference in children with gender identity disorder: A comparison to
clinical and community controls. Sex Roles, 55, 385–395. doi:10.1007/
s11199-006-9089-9

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cristofaro, T. N., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Lessons in mother–
child and father–child personal narratives in Latino families. In A.
McCabe, A. Bailey, & G. Melzi (Eds.) Spanish-language narration and

literacy: Culture, cognition, and emotion (pp. 54–91). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815669.006

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psycho-
logical Review, 108, 593–623. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593

DeLoache, J. S., Simcock, G., & Macari, S. (2007). Planes, trains, auto-
mobiles—and tea sets: Extremely intense interests in very young chil-
dren. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1579–1586. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1579

Eccles, J., Barber, B., Jozefowicz, D., Malenchuk, O., & Vida, M. (1999).
Self-evaluations of competence, task values, and self-esteem. In, N. G.
Johnson, M. C. Roberts, & J. Worell (Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new
look at adolescent girls (pp. 53–83). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association. doi:10.1037/10325-002

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451

England, D. E., & Descartes, L., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2011). Gender
role portrayal and the Disney princesses. Sex Roles, 64, 555–567. doi:
10.1007/s11199-011-9930-7

Feinberg, R. A., Mataro, L., & Burroughs, W. J. (1992). Clothing and
social identity. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 11, 18–23. doi:
10.1177/0887302X9201100103

Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender. New York, NY: Norton.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M.

(1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-
objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.1.269

Freitas, A., Kaiser, S., & Hammidi, T. (1996). Communities, commodities,
cultural space, and style. Journal of Homosexuality, 31, 83–107.

Gutman, H. G. (1976). The Black family in slavery and freedom. New
York, NY: Vintage.

Halim, M. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Gender identity and stereotyping in
early and middle childhood. In J. Chrisler & D. McCreary (Eds.),
Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 495–525). New York,
NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_24

Halim, M. L., Ruble, D. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2011). From pink frilly
dresses to “one of the boys”: A social–cognitive analysis of gender
identity development and gender bias. Social and Personality Psychol-
ogy Compass, 5, 933–949. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00399.x

Halim, M. L., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Shrout, P. E. (2013).
Rigidity in gender-typed behaviors in early childhood: A longitudinal
study of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 84, 1269–1284.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child
Development, 53, 87–97. doi:10.2307/1129640

Hartley, R. E. (1959). Sex-role pressures and socialization of the male
child. Psychological Reports, 5, 457–468. doi:10.2466/PR0.5.457-468

Hill, S. A. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American
families. Sex Roles, 47, 493–506. doi:10.1023/A:1022026303937

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the
child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hofstede, F. (1980). Culture’s consequences. London, United Kingdom:
Sage.

Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) & P. H.
Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socializa-
tion, personality, and social development (pp. 387–467). New York,
NY: Wiley.

Jarrett, R., Roy, K., & Burton, L. (2002). Fathers in the ’hood: Qualitative
research on African American men. In C. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera
(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 211–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural
variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American,

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1100 HALIM ET AL.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112807

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250303856

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.31

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9089-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815669.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1579

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10325-002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9930-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9201100103

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1465-1_24

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00399.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129640

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.5.457-468

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022026303937

Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family Relations, 43, 30–37.
doi:10.2307/585139

Kane, E. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related atti-
tudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419–439. doi:10.1146/annurev
.soc.26.1.419

Leroux, A. (2008). Do children with gender identity disorder have an
in-group or an out-group gender-based bias? (Unpublished master’s
thesis). Ontario Institute for the Study in Education of the University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lopez, N. (2002). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity
in urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-
evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues:
Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13, 67–70. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004
.00276.x

Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of
early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903

Miller, C. F., Lurye, L. E., Zosuls, K. M., & Ruble, D. N. (2009).
Accessibility of gender stereotypes domains: Developmental and gender
differences in children. Sex Roles, 60, 870–881. doi:10.1007/s11199-
009-9584-x

Miller, C. F., Trautner, H., & Ruble, D. N. (2006). The role of gender
stereotypes in children’s preferences and behavior. In L. Balter & C. S.
Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary
issues (pp. 293–323). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Neppl, T. K., & Murray, A. D. (1997). Social dominance and play patterns
among preschoolers: Gender comparisons. Sex Roles, 36, 381–393.
doi:10.1007/BF02766654

Orenstein, P. (2010). Cinderella ate my daughter. New York, NY: Harper.
Padawar, R. (2012, August 12). Boygirl. New York Times Magazine, pp.

18–23, 36, 46.
Paley, V. G. (1986). Boys and girls: Superheroes in the doll corner.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, S., & Repacholi, B. (2001). Modifying children’s gender-typed

musical instrument preferences: The effects of gender and age. Sex
Roles, 45, 623–643. doi:10.1023/A:1014863609014

Powlishta, K. K. (1995). Intergroup processes in childhood: Social cate-
gorization and sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 31,
781–788. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.781

Ruble, D. N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational
consequences. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (pp. 163–214). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60154-9

Ruble, D. N., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Self-perceptions, person concep-
tions, and their development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social development
(pp. 109–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ruble, D. N., Lurye, L. E., & Zosuls, K. M. (2007). Pink frilly dresses
(PFD) and early gender identity. Princeton Report on Knowledge
(P–ROK), 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/prok/issues/2-
2/pink_frilly.xml

Ruble, D. N., Martin, C., & Berenbaum, S. (2006). Gender development.
In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Personality and social develop-
ment (6th ed., pp. 858–932)). New York, NY: Wiley.

Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L. J., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F. K., Lurye, L. E., &
Shrout, P. E. (2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender

development. Child Development, 78, 1121–1136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01056.x

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2012). Social psychology of gender: How
power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. S. (1975). Development of gender constancy and
selective attention to same-sex models. Child Development, 46, 849–
856. doi:10.2307/1128389

Smetana, J. G. (1986). Preschool children’s conceptions of sex-role trans-
gressions. Child Development, 57, 862–871. doi:10.2307/1130363

Smetana, J. G., & Letourneau, K. J. (1984). Development of gender
constancy and children’s sex-typed free play behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 691–696. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.691

Stangor, C., & Ruble, D. N. (1987). Development of gender role knowl-
edge and gender constancy. In L. S. Liben & M. L. Signorella (Eds.),
New directions for child development: Vol. 39. Children’s gender sche-
mata (pp. 5–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Susskind, J. E., & Hodges, C. (2007). Decoupling children’s gender-based
in-group positivity from out-group negativity. Sex Roles, 56, 707–716.
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9235-z

Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., & McFadden, K. E. (2009). The United States of
America. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental
science (pp. 299–322). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., &
Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-
socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601– 622. doi:10.1037/
a0018936

Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L. Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., &
Hartmann, P. (2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in
children: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development,
14, 365–381. doi:10.1002/icd.399

Tu, W. M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A. J.
Marsella, G. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and the self (pp.
231–251). New York, NY: Tavistock.

Wolcott, V. W. (2001). Remaking respectability: African American women
in interwar Detroit. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.

Zosuls, K. M., Miller, C. F., Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A.
(2011). Gender development research in sex roles: Historical trends and
future directions. Sex Roles, 64, 826–842. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-
9902-3

Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Martin, C. L.
(2013). Does your infant say the words “girl” and “boy”? How gender
labels matter in early gender development. In M. R. Banaji & S. A.
Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and
other species can teach us (pp. 301–305). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.

Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E.,
Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich, F. K. (2009). The acquisition of gender
labels in infancy: Implications for sex-typed play. Developmental Psy-
chology, 45, 688–701. doi:10.1037/a0014053

Zucker, K. J., Bradley, M. D., Kuksis, M., Pecore, K., Birkenfeld-Adams,
A., & Doering, R. W. (1999). Gender constancy judgments in children
with a gender identity disorder: Evidence for a developmental lag.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 475–502. doi:10.1023/A:
1018713115866

Received March 10, 2011
Revision received July 8, 2013

Accepted August 21, 2013 �

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
Ps

yc
ho

lo
gi

ca
l

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
on

e
of

its
al

lie
d

pu
bl

is
he

rs
.

T
hi

s
ar

tic
le

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

1101APPEARANCE RIGIDITY

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/585139

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.419

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9584-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02766654

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014863609014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.781

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601%2808%2960154-9

http://www.princeton.edu/prok/issues/2-2/pink_frilly.xml

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01056.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128389

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130363

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.691

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9235-z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018936

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.399

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9902-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014053

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018713115866

Pink Frilly Dresses and the Avoidance of All Things “Girly”: Children’s App …

Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

Goals and Predictions for the Present Studies

Appearance Rigidity

Gender Identity and Gender-Typed Appearance

Appearance Rigidity in Multiple Cultures

Overview

Study 1a

Method

Participants and procedure

Measures

Results

Plan of analyses

Prevalence and extremity

Ways in which children express lifetime appearance rigidity

Differences by gender and cohort

The role of parents

Discussion

Study 1b

Method

Participants and procedure

Measures

Results

Plan of analyses

Gender centrality and evaluation

Gender stability

Discussion

Study 2

Method

Participants and procedure

Gender appearance rigidity

Results

Prevalence of gender appearance rigidity by gender

Ethnic group differences in prevalence of gender appearance rigidity

Discussion

General Discussion

Gender Differences

Ethnic Similarities and Differences

Testing Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Disscussion A&B ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order