Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bussey y Bandura (1992)
Bussey y Bandura (1992)
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1131530?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing
Gender Development
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
This research was supported by Public Health Research grant MH-5162-25 from the Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health to Albert Bandura, and Australian Research Council grant
A78930570 to Kay Bussey. We are grateful to Kathleen Davies, Elizabeth Grimbeek, and Gwyn
Wachtel for assisting with the data collection, and to the children at Bing Nursery School for
their participation in the study. We thank Barry Zimmerman for helpful comments on an earlier
draft of the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent either to Kay Bussey, School of
Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia, 2109, or to Albert
Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2130.
[Child Development, 1992, 63, 1236-1250. ? 1992 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/92/6305-0009$01.00]
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1237
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1238 Child Development
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1239
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1240 Child Development
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1241
advertise her store on television, and thatasked to sort each of the 12 toys comprising
she would like the children's appraisal of the
the A and B sets and two highly sex-typed
videos. Four 7-year-old children, two boys toys, one feminine and one masculine, from
and two girls, enacted cross-sex preferences
the videos into one of three boxes: a boys'
following a standardized format. The videobox, a girls' box, and a boys' and girls' box.
depicted a child entering a toy store where
Pictures of either two boys, two girls, or a
six toys were displayed on a table. The toys
boy and a girl were placed in front of the
included a dump truck (highly masculine), corresponding boxes to remind the children
tool set (moderately masculine), a piano ofandthe three categories. The observer re-
puppet (both neutral), a tea set (moderately
corded the sorting choices. Items were
feminine), and a baby doll (highly feminine).
scored as correct if the toy was sorted into a
box that matched the cultural sex role stereo-
The children in the videotaped presen-
type of masculine, feminine, or neutral, as
tation examined each of the toys closely and
rated by adults prior to the study. Children
then selected a highly cross-sex typed toy.
received a score of 1 for each toy correctly
The boy selected the baby doll and played
sorted. The total possible score was 12.
with it for 21/2 min. He changed the doll's
diaper, fed her, and patted her. The girl se-
Results
lected the dump truck and played with it for
21/2 min. She put blocks in the back of the A primary aim of this study was to ex-
truck, tipped them out, and scooped them amine the influence of sanctions arising
back up again. Four videotapes were pro- from gender-linked personal standards on
duced with different girl and boy actors togender-related conduct. Hence, the first
control for any possible idiosyncrasies of analysis
the reported is of children's gender-
child actors, and to counterbalance the order
linked standards and the way in which self-
of appearances of girl and boy actors. regulatory control of their own gender-
The children watched the video clipsrelated
of conduct and that of peers changes
with age. To test predictions from social cog-
the girl and boy separately engage in cross-
sex behavior and then recorded their evalua- nitive theory concerning regulatory pro-
tive reactions using the light switches. At the cesses, a micro-level analysis of the relation
outset, a procedural check was performed to between anticipatory self-evaluative reac-
ensure that the child remembered the mean- tions and gender-linked conduct is reported.
ing of the lights and the operation of the Children's gender conceptions and their re-
switches. They all did. The response options lations to gender-linked conduct is also ex-
were the same as those used in the assess- amined.
ment of personal standards: real great, kinda
Evaluative Reactions and Age
great, nothing special, kinda awful, real To examine age differences in chil-
awful. After watching the video for approxi-
dren's evaluative self-reactions, children
mately 30 sec the child was asked, "What were divided into two equal groups on the
would this girl's/boy's friends think about
basis of their age. The younger children's
her/him playing with this doll/truck?" Themean age was 37 months, and the older chil-
child was asked to record his or her evalua-
dren's mean age was 48 months. Table 1 pre-
tions by activating the appropriate light sents the means and standard deviations for
switch. The experimenter was again seated children's affective evaluative reactions to-
with her back to the lights, blind to the re- ward gender-linked conduct as a function of
sponses. The child watched the video for a age, sex, and agent of the conduct.
further 30 sec before being asked, "What do
you think about this boy/girl playing with Self-evaluative reactions.-A 2 (age) x
the doll/truck?" Again, the child was in- 2 (sex) x 2 (gender-linked toys) analysis of
variance was performed on children's self-
structed to record his or her evaluations us-
ing the light switches. evaluative reactions. In this and all subse-
quent analyses, when significant interac-
Gender Knowledge tions were obtained, the source of the effects
The gender knowledge test was admin- were examined using the Bonferroni method
istered as the final task. The experimenter with an alpha of.05. There was a significant
explained that the toy store lady wanted to interaction for sex of subject and gender-
display the boys' toys separately from the linked toy type, F(1,36) = 32.88, p < .0001.
girls' toys in her shop. Toys played with by This interaction was, however, qualified by
both boys and girls would be displayed in a three-way interaction involving age, sex of
a third location in the store. Children were subject, and gender-linked toys, F(1,36) =
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1242 Child Development
TABLE 1
YOUNGER OLDER
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1243
0--- GIRLS
5 o- -o BOYS
q
z
0 O,
4-
SI I
YOUNGER OLDER
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1244 Child Development
TABLE 2
I II
All toys:
Feminine behavior ............................................................. 69.6 32.5 61.7 22.0
(70.0) (30.9) (50.4) (35.4)
Masculine behavior ..................................... 9.3 57.7 9.7 102.7
(12.7) (45.0) (16.8) (55.9)
Cross-sex toys:
High ........................................ 24.8 3.3 44.0 1.2
(24.1) (7.8) (26.9) (1.9)
Medium ........................................ 49.5 63.2 44.7 36.9
(35.7) (55.6) (26.0) (40.8)
90
---- GIRLS
80 q o_--- BOYS
z
70- \
0
O
CC- 60-
w
o 50-
0
z 40- \
m 30-
LL..
o o
Cr
w 20-
10-
0
Masculine Feminine
GENDER- LINKED ACTIVITIES
FIG. 2.-Mean duration of gender-linked behavior as a function of sex of subject and gender-linked
activity.
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1245
50-
5 P
----* GIRL
o--o BOYS
S40-
z
0
S30- o /
0
< 20/
<20
High Moderate
CROSS-SEX ACTIVITIES
FIG. 3.-Mean duration of cross-sex behavior as a function of sex of su
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Zt Z
0
Cd 00 . - - P. 4C I ' .t
I I I I'l o I'l
Acl I1
0,-4 0 P- CI QC
O 40 * . 001 0 C-IO co in Q
?4 cl4-
00 -l
w00 0
z Q
0 *- *~-
* -(
00
C I
C c
z$ .
00
00 00
*C
6 dcd
P- . Q).W. C0
H -o
0 00 *CdCO
C3 C1 .
Ci2t b o
t~Cd Cd3
. . . 0 .
Z
0~ 0)
c3"~C "~ + + i
*c S ~- oo
o oz
c3 I 3 Cd Q) -4;jQ '
z x
S-4 z
0~ x L
O &3 ++ .s
.0
n n0
0 0- ~ o
- Q:
P-4 0 ~
n ~
-- ~ ~ d 0 Q )>~o H
"0 "0 "0 " 0 "0"
0
0)
00)
0I 0 002Sd0
0r o
0 0, 09 0 ~ E000
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1247
Younger children neither exhibited any ing of the peer videotape was no easy matter,
differential anticipatory evaluative self-
either. As one 7-year-old boy remarked at
reactions nor any linkage between antic-
the completion of the filming, "It's the most
ipatory self-reactions and gender-linkedawful thing I have ever done." Although
conduct. Thus, with increasing age, chil-
girls expressed much weaker self-evaluative
dren's gender-linked behavior came increas-
reactions to cross-sex behavior, some of their
ingly under self-regulatory control. comments were most revealing. In express-
ing her self-sanctions against playing with a
With expanded gender-related experi-
ences, children's cognitive understanding of
truck, one girl explained, "My mommy
would want me to play with this, but I don't
gender emerges, as do personal standards for
want to." Her personal standards had evi-
gender-related conduct. Children showed a
dently come under the sway of extrafamilial
developmental change in which social sanc-
influences.
tioning of gender-related behavior precedes
self-sanctioning of the same activities. Even The findings do not support the view
the youngest children in this study behavedthat children were striving to match their be-
toward others in a gender-stereotypic man- havior to their gender labeling. From as
ner, despite their limited gender-linked
young as 30 months children chose to play
with same-sex toys. Their behavior con-
knowledge. Consistent with the social cog-
nitive theory of gender self-regulation, the
formed to gender-linked stereotypes regard-
findings of this study show that children first
less of level of gender conception. Children
learn to discriminate and evaluate gender- were not first labeling play material in a gen-
linked conduct and later to guide their ownder-linked manner and then engaging in
conduct by self-evaluative reactions. The
gender-linked behavior. Gender-linked be-
youngest children disapproved of peers'havior was guided by factors other than
cross-sex conduct but did not apply evalua-
matching gender labeling with behavior.
tive standards to their own gender-related
These findings offer little support for either
behavior. Irrespective of children being able
cognitive-developmental theory or for gen-
der schema accounts of gendered develop-
to label objects as gender-linked, they were
aware of the social standards associated with
ment. Although this study supported the
gender-linked objects. Most children, by 3finding of Martin and Little (1990) linking
years of age, would have been exposed to gender stability to gender knowledge, nei-
the play material used in this study and ther gender knowledge nor gender stability
would have learned which ones were ac- predicted gender-linked behavior. Martin
ceptable for them and for others to play with
and Little (1990) found that gender stability
and which ones were not (Caldera, Huston, was related to both children's gender knowl-
& O'Brien, 1989). edge and gender-linked preferences. It
When only cross-sex material was avail-
should be noted, however, that the present
study measured gender-linked behavior, not
able, boys displayed stronger self-sanctions
verbalized preferences. Gender preferences
against cross-sex behavior than did girls.
are not always predictive of gender-linked
Some tried to have the stereotypic feminine
toys removed. For example, when it became
conduct (Huston, 1983). Children's gender
apparent that they were being left with knowledge was highly correlated with age.
"feminine" toys, one boy hastily announcedConsistent with previous research (Bussey
& Bandura, 1984; Signorella, 1989), gender
to the departing experimenter, "No, I'm fin-
knowledge was unrelated to gender behav-
ished with those toys," even though he had
ior. This finding is not surprising since most
completely shunned them. They were not at
children even at an early age are fully aware
all hesitant in expressing their displeasure
with the selections they were left with:of"Ithe gender-linked stereotypes but show
don't like baby dolls." During the sessionsubstantial variation in gender-linked be-
havior.
they tried to do anything but play with the
cross-sex toys. One boy flung the doll across The relation between children's antici-
the room and turned his back on it, getting patory self-evaluative reactions for gender-
related behavior and their actual behavior is
it at least out of sight if not out of mind. Some
sought to restructure their limited options consistent with predictions from social cog-
by sticking to the moderately sex-typed ma- nitive theory. Awareness or knowledge of
terial and transforming it into masculine the gender linkages of objects and activities
tools, as, for example, using beaters in the alone will not produce behavior in line with
cooking set as guns or drills. Getting boysthe to stereotypes unless one is motivated to
change diapers on the baby doll for the film- conform to them. What is required is a mech-
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1248 Child Developmrent
anism that links knowledge to action. The studies that chart the emergence and
present study provides supportive evidence changes in self-evaluative standards and
for a self-regulatory mechanism rooted in their impact on gender-linked behavior.
an internalized standard as an important
guiding and motivating link between gen- Despite the emphasis in recent years on
der knowledge and gender-linked conduct. gender egalitarianism, the children in this
These findings add to a growing literature study seem to be as stereotypically sex-
on the self-regulation of conduct by veri- typed as those of yesteryear. Where there
fying the operation of this mechanism in was a break away from the stereotypic pat-
children's gender development. tern, it was with girls rather than boys. A
number of previous studies have shown that
The findings taken as a whole reveal girls are less sex-typed than boys (Katz &
that from an early age children adopt tradi- Boswell, 1986) and that their sex-typed be-
tional patterns of gender-linked conduct. havior is more modifiable than that of boys
Neither gender constancy nor gender knowl- (Katz, 1986). It is hardly surprising that chil-
edge appear to guide this conduct. Rather, dren's gender-linked conduct continues to
children learn the social sanctions against conform to stereotypic gender-linked stan-
cross-sex behavior and social approval for sa- dards. Traditionally female-related activities
me-sex behavior and direct their own behav- and characteristics are still less valued than
ior accordingly. They, in turn, influence male-related ones (Connor & Serbin, 1978;
their peers by approving and disapproving Hall & Halberstadt, 1980; Zalk & Katz,
reactions to conform to the prevailing social 1978). There is little incentive for boys to
standards. Eventually, children adopt self- abandon the status and privilege accorded
evaluative standards for gender-linked be- the male role, unless females are portrayed
havior and regulate their own conduct as possessing the same status and benefits
through anticipatory self-sanctions. accorded males (Bandura, Ross, & Ross,
1963; Bussey & Bandura, 1984).
Given the influential role that self-
evaluative standards play in the self- Certain classes of behaviors and attri-
regulation of gender-linked conduct, the ap-butes, such as toy play and dress and hair
propriate next stage for research is to clarifystyles, convey highly salient and concrete
the processes by which children construct gender-related information that is easily re-
self-regulative standards from the diversealized even by very young children, so it is
sources of social influences that impingenot surprising that gender-linked knowledge
upon them. In this construction process they and conduct emerge in these aspects. Differ-
must select, weight, and integrate informa-ent clothing styles and activities remain gen-
tion from a variety of sources including par- der linked across the life span, but stereo-
ents, teachers, peers, and the electronic me-typic gender conceptions extend beyond
dia in forming their gender-linked standards these highly salient aspects to include a vast
(Bandura, 1986). It would be expected thatarray of human activities. Stereotypic gen-
as children's self-regulative functions de-
der-role socialization has reverberating ef-
velop, their gender-linked standards wouldfects into adulthood. A good case in point
have an increasing impact on their gender-are the psychosocial influences that shape
linked behavior. women's beliefs in their self-efficacy for dif-
ferent occupational pursuits (Bandura,
Gender-linked standards do not remain
1991c; Betz & Hackett, 1986; Matsui, Ikeda,
static. As children move increasingly into & Ohnishi, 1989). Women judge themselves
the larger community, they become aware of highly efficacious for occupations tradition-
the diversity of gender-linked practices. Not ally held by women but inefficacious to mas-
only is the range of their social experiences ter the demands of vocations dominated by
expanded, but broader social changes alter men, even though they have the ability for
the particular constellations of attributes that them. The instilled self-efficacy beliefs have
become linked to gender (Spence, 1985). In substantial impact on their career choice and
recent years, for example, long flowing locks development (Lent & Hackett, 1987).
and cooking skills have become compatible
with masculinity. The developmental course The marked sex segregation that occurs
that self-regulative standards take is thus an- from about 3 years of age onward contributes
other issue of considerable interest. The re- importantly to strong adherence to stereo-
lations obtained in the present study aretypic gender-linked standards (Maccoby,
based on cross-sectional data. They need to1990). However, children whose parents es-
be verified in experimental and longitudinal pouse and model gender egalitarianism,
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bussey and Bandura 1249
who are in educational systems that foster and secondary reinforcement theories of
such standards, and who interact with peers identificatory learning. Journal of Abnormal
who endorse them are more apt to develop and Social Psychology, 67, 527-534.
egalitarian gender-linked standards. Unlike
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cogni
moral standards, where there are incentives tive account of sex typing. Psychological Re-
for selective engagement of self-regulative view, 88, 354-364.
control (Bandura, 1986, 1991a), there are Betz,
no N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986). Applications
parallel incentives for disengaging stereo- of self-efficacy theory to understanding career
typic gender-linked standards. Pressure choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clini-
from parents alone is unlikely to achieve cal Psychology, 4, 279-289.
egalitarian standards and conduct in chil-Blakemore, J. E. O., LaRue, A. A., & Olejnik,
dren unless the peer group and other sig- A. B. (1979). Sex appropriate toy preference
nificant elements in the culture endorse and the ability to conceptualize toys as sex-
them (Weisner & Wilson-Mitchell, 1990). role related. Developmental Psychology, 15,
Because of the overwhelming sex segrega-339-340.
tion of children and strong pressures forBussey, con- K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Gender con-
formity from the peer group, stereotypic stancy, social power, and sex-linked model-
gender-linked standards may be particularly ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
stable and resistant to modification in the ab- chology, 47, 1242-1302.
sence of sweeping social changes. Caldera, Y. M., Huston, A. C., & O'Brien, M.
(1989). Social interactions and play patterns
Social cognitive theory accords an in-
fluential role to institutional structures and of parents and toddlers with feminine, mascu-
line, and neutral toys. Child Development,
sanctions in shaping gender roles. However,
structural influences on individual behavior 60, 70-76.
Carter, D. B., & Levy, G. D. (1988). Cognitive as-
are mediated, in large part, through self-
pects of children's early sex-role develop-
referent processes (Bandura, 1991b). This
ment: The influence of gender schemas on
causal structure requires integration of so-
preschoolers' memories and preferences for
ciocultural determinants with personal de-
sex-typed toys and activities. Child Develop-
terminants. Studies that relate changing so-
ment, 59, 782-793.
cietal valuation of gender-linked activities
Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1978). Children's
to children's construction of personal stan-
responses to stories with male and female
dards hold considerable promise in further-
characters. Sex Roles, 4, 637-645.
ing our understanding of the self-regulation
Edwards, V. J., & Spence, J. T. (1987). Gender-
of gender-role development.
related traits, stereotypes, and schemata.
References Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 146-154.
Fagot, B. I. (1985). Changes in thinking about
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought
and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-early sex role development. Developmental
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Review, 5, 83-98.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R.B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1989). The young
Fagot,
Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: child's gender schema: Environmental input,
Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp.
internal organization. Child Development, 60,
1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI. 663-672.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Social cognitive theory Fagot,ofB. I., Leinbach, M. D., & Hagan, R. (1986).
moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines Gender labeling and the adoption of sex-
& J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral typed behaviors. Developmental Psychology,
behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45- 22, 440-443.
103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1977). Teaching
Bandura, A. (1991b). Self-regulation of motivation
children to punish themselves and effects on
through anticipatory and self-regulatory subsequent compliance. Child Development,
mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Per- 48, 1296-1300.
spectives on motivation: Nebraska Sympo- Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1980). Masculin-
sium on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164).ity and femininity in children: Development
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. of the Children's Personal Attributes Ques-
Bandura, A. (1991c). Self-efficacy: The exercisetionnaire.
of Developmental Psychology, 16,
control. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford 270-280.
University, Stanford, CA. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In E. M. Hether-
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). A com-
ington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),
parative test of the status envy, social power,
Handbook of child psychology. Socialization,
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1250 Child Development
This content downloaded from 193.144.196.28 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:00:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms