See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8359224

Children's Perceptions of Gender Discrimination.

Article in Developmental Psychology · October 2004

DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.714 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
103 6,417

2 authors:

Christia Spears Brown Rebecca Bigler

University of Kentucky University of Texas at Austin
66 PUBLICATIONS 2,142 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 5,834 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

U.S. Children's Stereotypes and Prejudicial Attitudes toward Arab Muslims: Us Children's Stereotypes of Muslims View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rebecca Bigler on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Developmental Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association
2004, Vol. 40, No. 5, 714 –726 0012-1649/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.714

Children’s Perceptions of Gender Discrimination

Christia Spears Brown and Rebecca S. Bigler
University of Texas at Austin

Children (N 76; ages 5–10 years) participated in a study designed to examine perceptions of gender
discrimination. Children were read scenarios in which a teacher determined outcomes for 2 students (1
boy and 1 girl). Contextual information (i.e., teacher’s past behavior), the gender of the target of
discrimination (i.e., student), and the gender of the perpetrator (i.e., teacher) were manipulated. Results
indicated that older children were more likely than younger children to make attributions to discrimi-
nation when contextual information suggested that it was likely. Girls (but not boys) were more likely to
view girls than boys as victims of discrimination, and children with egalitarian gender attitudes were
more likely to perceive discrimination than were their peers.

Discrimination on the basis of group membership (e.g., gender, of discrimination is imperative for outlining the normative devel-
race, or religion) is an important social problem in the United States opment of children who are members of stigmatized groups and
and throughout the world. In the year 2000, for example, the U.S. who may, therefore, be the targets of discriminatory actions (Gar-
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights received cia Coll et al., 1996). It seems equally important to understand
approximately 5,000 complaints regarding instances of discrimi- perceptions of discrimination among children who are members of
nation. The majority of these complaints (approximately 70%) were privileged groups and who may, therefore, witness and benefit
filed on behalf of elementary and secondary school children. from discriminatory actions.
Undoubtedly, many more instances of discrimination affecting What is discrimination? Fishbein (1996, p. 7) defined discrim-
children occur every year but go unreported. Although existing ination as “harmful actions towards others because of their mem-
research has examined factors that affect adults’ perceptions of bership in a particular group.” Discriminatory actions can range
discrimination (e.g., Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998), little research has from mild (e.g., ignoring someone) to virulent (e.g., inflicting
examined children’s perceptions of discrimination. In this study, we physical harm). As racial and gender biases have become less
examined children’s judgments about scenarios involv-ing possible socially acceptable in this country, discriminatory actions have
instances of gender discrimination. We were espe-cially interested in become increasingly subtle and ambiguous, requiring individuals
whether children are sensitive to contextual information in making to make attributions about the motivations of others on the basis
attributions to discrimination and whether individual and of situational information (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986; Swim,
developmental differences among children are re-lated to their Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). It is especially important, therefore,
perceptions of discrimination. to examine whether, and if so how, children use contextual infor-
In addition to its obvious practical importance, understanding mation in making decisions about discriminatory behavior.
how and when children perceive discrimination is important for The earliest research examining children’s perceptions of dis-
developmental theory. Developmentalists have argued that chil- crimination centered on race and was conducted after the court-
dren’s perceptions of discrimination play an important role in ordered racial desegregation of schools in the United States. For
shaping many developmental processes and outcomes, including example, Radke and Sutherland (1972) asked European American
identity development and academic achievement (Bowman & children, “What are Negroes like?” They found that 12% of 11- to
Howard, 1985; Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990). That is, 12-year-olds, 49% of 13- to 14-year-olds, and 59% of 17- and 18-
researchers have argued that understanding children’s perceptions year-olds mentioned discrimination and that all respondents
described discrimination as negative. Other studies reported that
African American children viewed themselves as victims of racial
Christia Spears Brown and Rebecca S. Bigler, Department of Psychol- bias. Rosenberg (1979) found that 51% of African American
ogy, University of Texas at Austin. children who attended desegregated junior high schools, and 34%
Part of this project was presented as a poster at the 2002 Conference on who attended predominantly African American schools, reported
Human Development, Charlotte, NC. This research was supported by a that they had experienced teasing or exclusion because of their
grant to Christia Spears Brown from the Debra Beth Lobliner Fellowship. race. Patchen (1982) found that many African Americans in newly
We are extremely grateful to the director, John Combs, and the site leaders desegregated high schools complained about the discriminatory
of Extend-A-Care in Austin, TX, and to the students who participated in
actions of European American teachers. Those African American
the project and their parents. We also thank Enrique Barroso, Jensen
Sapido, Tiffany Seaman, Leah Lambert, and Allison Davis for help with students who perceived discrimination had slightly lower grades
data collection and Alex Brown for the illustrations. and more negative attitudes toward European Americans than did
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christia other African American students.
Spears Brown, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of More recently, researchers have investigated children’s broad
California, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail: [email protected] conceptualizations of discrimination. Researchers in the Nether-

714
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 715

lands have reported, for example, that most children are knowl- tors on children’s perceptions of discrimination were informed by
edgeable about the definition of discrimination by the age of 10 research within social psychology.
(Verkuyten, Kinket, & van der Weilen, 1997). Verkuyten et al. (1997) Social psychological research has found that both situational and
reported that name-calling was the most frequently cited example of individual-difference variables affect adults’ perceptions of
discrimination (cited by 67% of the children), followed by unequal discrimination (e.g., Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998; Mazur &
sharing of goods and social exclusion (cited by 10% and 8% of Percival, 1989; Swim et al., 1998). Research on situational vari-ables
children, respectively). Verkuyten and colleagues also found that indicates that individuals are more likely to attribute a negative
children failed to consider actions as discriminatory if they considered outcome to discrimination (rather than poor performance) when
the target to be responsible for the negative behavior or the situations are low, rather than high, in ambiguity (e.g., Dion, 1975;
perpetrator to have acted unintentionally. Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998). For example, participants who have
Other researchers have examined children’s understanding of knowledge that an evaluator may be biased against a particular social
the factors that produce discrimination and prejudice. Quintana group are more likely to make attributions to discrimination than are
and Vera (1999), for example, examined 7- and 12-year-old Mex- participants who have no such knowledge (e.g., Feldman Barrett &
ican American and African American children’s explanations for Swim, 1998). We reasoned that children are unlikely to be
ethnic prejudice. They found that children’s understanding of knowledgeable about teachers’ gender attitudes but are likely to have
prejudice becomes more complex with age. Seven-year-old chil- information about the past behavior of their classroom teachers (e.g.,
dren stated that prejudice occurs because of either (a) an individ- whether a teacher more often calls on boys than girls to perform
ual’s perceptual preferences (e.g., “They don’t like their color”) or specific tasks). Thus, in the present study, we manipulated situational
(b) an individual’s disliking of a literal, nonsocial aspect of a information by providing chil-dren with information about the past
behavior of an elementary school teacher (i.e., whether the individual
person’s ethnicity (e.g., “They may not like Mexico”). By 12
had a history of gender fairness or gender bias). We predicted that
years of age, children state that prejudice occurs because of either
children who were given situational information suggesting that
(a) an isolated, idiosyncratic social action related to nonperceptual
discrimination was likely (i.e., a teacher with a history of bias toward
char-acteristics of ethnicity (e.g., “Their mom might tell them not
one gender) would make more attributions to discrimination than
to play with African Americans”) or (b) the pervasive experiential
would chil-dren who were either given no situational information or
influences of our society (e.g., “If one [Mexican] did something,
given situational information suggesting that discrimination was
it’s like all the Mexicans in the world did everything bad”).
unlikely (i.e., a teacher with a history of gender fairness).
Although existing studies such as these indicate that children
are cognizant of discrimination, especially racial discrimination,
In addition to situational characteristics, certain individual, or
little work has systemically addressed the question of how and
personal, characteristics affect adults’ perceptions of discrimina-tion.
when children detect gender discrimination. In fact, we were
For example, individuals’ attitudes toward social groups predict the
unable to locate any work aimed specifically at examining
likelihood that stigmatized group members will label an event as
children’s per-ceptions of gender discrimination. Research discriminatory (e.g., Mazur & Percival, 1989; Swim & Cohen, 1996).
suggests, however, that children are highly likely to encounter Specifically, research has found that women who hold traditional
discrimination based on gender. Gender discrimination may be attitudes about gender roles are less likely to label an event as sexist
most common—and overt—in situations involving peers. than are women who hold more egalitarian attitudes (Jensen & Gutek,
Children show high rates of gender bias in their peer preferences, 1982; Swim & Cohen, 1996). Similarly, children’s attitudes toward
interactions, and evaluations (Leaper, 1994; Maccoby, 1998; gender may predict their perceptions of discrimination. Children’s
Nesdale & McLaughlin, 1987; Powlishta, 1995). For example, a gender attitudes have been linked to a large number of cognitive
recent study by Kowalski and Kanitkar (2003) documented high processes, including decision making and memory (e.g., Liben &
rates of gender bias and dis-crimination among kindergartners, Signorella, 1980). In the present study, we examined children’s
including many instances in which children were prevented from, beliefs about whether gender should con-strain individuals’ activities,
or ridiculed for, engaging in cross-sex-typed play by their peers. a form of sex typing (see Liben & Bigler, 2002). We expected
Research also suggests that children are likely to encounter gender children’s sex-typed beliefs about activities to relate to their
discrimination at the hands of their parents (e.g., see Leaper, perceptions of discrimination involving schoolteachers’ selection of
2000; Ruble & Martin, 1998) and teachers (e.g., Good, Sikes, & children to perform school-related activities and roles. Imagine, for
Brophy, 1973; Jones & Wheatley, 1990). Adults’ discriminatory example, a child who believes that only boys should play soccer. Such
behaviors are more likely than those of children’s peers, however, a child is likely to believe that a coach who selects only boys for a
to be subtle and covert (see Meece, 1987). soccer team is acting in a fair or reasonable manner. In contrast, a
Given the lack of previous research, it is unclear whether chil- child who believes that both boys and girls should play soccer is
dren perceive particular events as discriminatory and, if they do, likely to believe that a coach who selects only boys is acting in a
whether certain situational cues must be present before children biased or unreasonable manner. Thus, children with more egalitarian
attribute adults’ differential behavior toward boys and girls to gender attitudes were expected to perceive gender discrimination
gender discrimination. In this study, we examined children’s judg- more often than were children with less egalitarian attitudes.
ments about whether a student had been the victim of a teacher’s
gender discrimination, varying the contextual information (e.g., In addition to gender attitudes, we expected gender per se to
male vs. female victim) that was present. Our specific predictions influence children’s perceptions of discrimination in several ways,
concerning the effects of situational and individual-difference fac- on the basis of the premise that elementary-school-age children
716 BROWN AND BIGLER

show at least some awareness of the lower status of females relative to Bigler, & Liben, 1993). Although we expected cognitive skill
males (Levy, Sadovsky, & Troseth, 2000; Liben, Bigler, level (rather than age per se) to affect responding, we also
& Krogh, 2001). First, we expected the gender of the participant to examined changes in children’s perceptions of discrimination
influence responding. Research suggests that girls, perhaps be-cause across the elementary school years.
of their experience in a lower status group, view gender-based
exclusion as more wrong than do boys (Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothin, Method
& Stangor, 2002; Killen & Stangor, 2001). We pre-dicted, therefore,
that girls would make more attributions to dis-crimination than would Participants
boys. Second, we expected both the gender of the authority figures
Participants were 76 children (37 girls and 39 boys) divided into two
(i.e., teachers) and the gender of the targets of discrimination (i.e.,
age groups: 5–7-year-olds and 8 –10-year-olds (see Table 1 for age means
students) presented in the scenarios to affect children’s judgments. If
and standard deviations). The participants were primarily (89%) European
children believe that other individuals view males as more important American (68 European American, 3 Hispanic, 3 African American, 1
than females, children should view girls as more likely than boys to Asian, 1 African American/European American). Participants were re-
be the victims of gender discrim-ination (at the hands of both male cruited from the after-school programs of three elementary schools in a
and female teachers). Finally, although no previous research has large southwestern city that serve families from diverse socioeconomic
addressed this issue, it is also possible that children will view men backgrounds. The sample was reflective of the schools’ racial and ethnic
(because they are higher in status and thus the beneficiaries of gender populations.
bias) as more likely than women to engage in gender discriminatory
behavior. Overview of Procedure
Although we drew on social psychological data to inform many
All measures were given to children individually by a same-gender
of our predictions, children’s perceptions of discrimina-tion are
experimenter. Children were first given tasks designed to assess classifi-
likely to be qualitatively different from those of adults. Just as
cation ability. Children then were read six scenarios and, following each
children’s understanding of prejudice as a social phe-nomenon is scenario, were asked about their attributions concerning the outcome
affected by developing cognitive skills (Quintana, 2001), it is depicted. Upon completion of the attribution questions, children’s gender
likely that children’s tendency to perceive gender discrimination attitudes were assessed. The gender attitudes measure was always given
is also affected by cognitive development. One cognitive skill that following the discrimination tasks (i.e., scenarios) because this measure
may relate to the perception of discrimina-tion is the ability to explicitly identifies gender as the variable to be used in the task and thus,
simultaneously classify people along mul-tiple dimensions if given first, might have primed children to attend to gender in the
(Inhelder & Piaget, 1964). Making an attribu-tion to discrimination task. Children were then debriefed and thanked for their
discrimination requires that the child be able to assess several participation.
characteristics of the target simultaneously. For exam-ple, to
perceive discrimination, a child must be able to simul-taneously Attributions to Discrimination
understand that an individual is a good math student (and thus
Materials. After completion of the classification skill measure, a same-
deserving of a good math grade) but also a girl (and thus gender experimenter read six scenarios to individual children. Each sce-
belonging to a social group associated with poor math nario presented a schoolteacher and a male and a female student in his or
performance). A child who lacks the ability to characterize her class. A routine, gender-neutral classroom activity was introduced, and
individuals as a member of both a contextual group (e.g., student) the teacher evaluated the male and female students. Scenarios depicted
and a stigmatized social group (e.g., girl) is unlikely to perceive students drawing a picture for an art contest, writing an essay for an essay
the target as the victim of discrimination. contest, competing in a race, trying out for a soccer team, vying to be class
Relatedly, children’s understanding of the hierarchical nature of
categories may also affect their perceptions of discrimination.
Young children who lack an understanding of the hierarchical
Table 1
nature of categories may fail to place individuals within social
Sample Sizes, Mean Ages (Years, Months), and Standard
groups in a fully consistent and integrated manner. As a conse-
Deviations (Months) Across Experimental Conditions
quence, although they may be knowledgeable and even endorse
negative stereotypes about a particular social group, they may fail Target gender
to view these stereotypic beliefs as relevant to a particular
Girls Boys Combined
member of that social group (see Spencer, 1985) and thus may not
under-stand why others might treat that person in a stereotype- Participant gender n M SD n M SD n M SD
consistent manner. Thus, we predicted that children with more
advanced classification skills would make a greater number of Girls
attributions to discrimination than would their peers with less 5–7-year-olds 10 6, 6 7 9 6, 6 9 19 6, 6 8
advanced classifi-cation skills. 8–10-year-olds 11 9, 1 4 7 8, 9 9 18 9, 0 5
Combined 21 8, 0 20 16 7, 6 17 36 7, 9 18
These questions outlined above were investigated in children Boys
between the ages of 5 and 10 years. It is during this age period that 5–7-year-olds 10 6, 5 10 12 6, 6 12 22 6, 6 11
children acquire the cognitive skills hypothesized to be associated 8–10-year-olds 9 9, 5 3 8 9, 5 2 17 9, 6 3
with adultlike perceptions of discrimination and also show con- Combined 19 7, 9 20 20 7, 8 20 39 7, 9 20
siderable variability in their gender attitudes (e.g., Signorella, Total 40 7, 10 20 36 7, 8 18 76 7, 9 19
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 717

leader, and breaking a jar while playing (see the Appendix for complete (i.e., “both boys and girls”) given to stereotyped activities was computed,
texts). and thus scores ranged from 0 to 20.
For each scenario, the situational information regarding the likelihood of Classification skill. Classification skill was assessed using procedures
discrimination was manipulated as a within-subjects variable. Specifically, each adapted from Jones and Bigler (1996), following Inhelder and Piaget
child heard two scenarios each in which the situational information suggested (1964), and included tasks designed to measure (a) consistent sorting, (b)
that discrimination was (a) likely (e.g., “Mr. Franks almost always gives boys reclassification, or re-sorting, (c) multiple classification, and (d) class
higher grades than girls on their stories.”), (b) unlikely (e.g., “Mr. Franks inclusion skill. Specifically, children were first asked to sort a set of 12
almost always grades boys’ and girls’ stories about the same.”), and (c) pictures (men and women reading and talking on the phone) into two
ambiguous (i.e., no information about the teacher’s past behavior was given). groups (consistent sorting task). Children were then asked to sort the cards
In addition, the gender of the authority figure was manipulated as a within- along a second, new dimension (re-sorting task). Next, children were
subject variable. Of the six scenarios, each child heard three scenarios in which shown a 2 2 matrix and, following a demonstration sort by the experi-
the authority figure was a man and three scenarios in which the authority figure menter (using bears and elephants that were gray or brown), were asked to
was a woman. Finally, the gender of the target of discrimination was sort their original set of cards into the appropriate cells of the matrix.
manipulated as a between-subjects variable. Half of the participants heard Finally, children were asked a series of seven questions designed to tap
scenarios in which girls (rather than boys) received the desirable outcome (e.g., their understanding of hierarchical relations among categories (e.g., when
received the best grade on an essay), and half of the children heard scenarios in shown 2 gray bears and 4 gray elephants, children were asked, “Are there
which boys (rather than girls) received the desirable outcome. Thus, for half of more bears or more animals?”). One point was given for each correct
the participants, discrimination favored girls, and for the other half of the response, and thus classification scores could range from 0 to 10, with
participants, discrimination favored boys. The ns and ages associated with the higher scores indicating more advanced skill.
cells are presented in Table 1. The order of the scenarios, the situational
likelihood of each scenario, and the authority figure’s gender within each
Results
scenario were all counterbalanced. Colorful pictures accompanied each
scenario and were shown to the children as the story was read. Children were Overview
urged to pay attention to each scenario and told that they would be asked
several questions about each scenario once it had been read. The primary question of interest was whether children perceived
discrimination differentially as a function of participant character-
Procedure. After each scenario was read, children were first asked, in istics (i.e., gender and age) and contextual information presented in
an open-ended format, why the two children experienced different out- the scenarios (i.e., likelihood of discrimination, gender of authority
comes (see the Appendix). An open-ended question was asked first so that figure, and gender of target child). Preliminary analyses of re-
children had the opportunity to make a spontaneous attribution, without sponding were conducted to examine possible effects on respond-ing
any prompting or suggestions by the experimenter. Their answers were of (a) the order of scenario presentation and (b) the individual
recorded. The total number of times children attributed the teacher’s scenarios. The order in which children heard the scenarios did not
behavior solely to the gender of the student was computed, and thus scores
ranged from 0 to 6. Because some children may have believed discrimi- appear to affect responding.1Responding did, however, vary across
nation to be a secondary (rather than primary) cause of the differential scenarios such that children made more attributions to discrimina-tion
outcome, and because we were interested in children’s judgments about for the footrace scenario than for the other scenarios, probably
discrimination relative to other potential causes of the differential out- because the information about the students’ performance was more
comes, we included a second measure of the perception of discrimination. objective and well-defined than in the other scenarios. The re-
Specifically, after each open-ended question, children were read a list of sponding variable did not, however, interact with any other vari-able,
four possible reasons for the different child outcomes. The possible and hence responding was pooled across scenarios.2
reasons were (a) lower ability of one student (e.g., Jacob got a better grade
Initial analyses also indicated that the gender of the authority
because his story was better), (b) lower effort by one student (e.g., Jacob
figure did not affect responding alone or in combination with any
got a better grade because he tried harder), (c) general unfairness of the
competition (e.g., Jacob got a better grade because the assignment wasn’t
fair), and (d) the students’ gender (e.g., Jacob got a better grade because
he is a boy), with the order of presentation being counterbalanced (see the 1 We assessed whether exposure to a likely discrimination scenario
primed children to perceive discrimination in a subsequent, ambiguous
Appendix for the full set of experimenter-provided attributions). Children
scenario. Specifically, we selected children who heard an ambiguous
rated the veracity of each statement on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all
scenario as the second scenario (n 36) and compared the open-ended
true) to 4 (very true). For younger participants, the scale was accompanied
responses to that ambiguous scenario of children who had heard a likely
by a graphic representation of responses (i.e., cups with increasing levels
discrimination scenario as the initial scenario (n 19) and children who had
of liquid), and the experimenter gave several practice items to ensure that heard an unlikely discrimination scenario as the initial scenario (n 17).
the scale was understood. Children’s mean ratings of the veracity of each There were no significant differences in responding (Ms 0.26 and 0.24,
attribution type were computed. respectively).
2 To test for scenario effects, we examined children’s open-ended attri-
butions to discrimination, as well as their ratings of the veracity of the
Individual and Developmental Difference Measures experimenter-provided attributions, for each scenario by conducting a 2
Gender attitudes. Children’s gender attitudes were assessed using the (age group) 2 (gender of participant) 2 (gender of target) 6 (scenario)
Activity subscale of a sex-typing measure (the Children’s Occupation, Activity, analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the last variable treated as a within-
and Trait–Attitude Measure [COAT-AM]) developed by Liben and Bigler subject variable. Overall, children made more open-ended attri-butions to
(2002). Specifically, children were asked “who should” perform each of 25 discrimination in the scenario involving the footrace (M 0.45) than in the
activities (10 stereotypically female, 10 stereotypically male, and 5 neutral). other scenarios (average M 0.23). A similar pattern of findings occurred
Children responded using the options “only boys,” “only girls,” or “both boys for the ratings of the accuracy of discrimination (footrace scenario, M
and girls.” The number of nonstereotyped responses 3.03; other scenarios, M 2.6).
718 BROWN AND BIGLER

Table 2
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Children’s Open-Ended Attributions to Discrimination

Situational information
Variable n Likely Ambiguous Unlikely Combined

Age
5–7-year-olds 41 0.93 (0.79) 0.24 (0.49) 0.22 (0.53) 1.39 (1.36)
8–10-year-olds 35 1.43 (0.81) 0.26 (0.51) 0.17 (0.38) 1.86 (1.11)
Combined 76 1.16 (0.83) 0.25 (0.49) 0.19 (0.46) 1.61 (1.27)
Target gender
Female target
Girls 21 1.48 (0.75) 0.29 (0.56) 0.52 (0.68) 2.29 (1.38)
Boys 16 1.21 (0.79) 0.16 (0.37) 0.11 (0.32) 1.47 (1.12)
Combined 37 1.35 (0.77) 0.23 (0.48) 0.33 (0.57) 1.90 (1.32)
Male target
Girls 19 0.88 (0.81) 0.19 (0.40) 0.00 (0.00) 1.06 (1.06)
Boys 20 1.00 (0.92) 0.35 (0.58) 0.10 (0.31) 1.45 (1.19)
Combined 39 0.94 (0.86) 0.28 (0.51) 0.06 (0.23) 1.28 (1.14)

Note. Scores are the number of open-ended attributions to discrimination.

other variables. To minimize complexity, we dropped this variable to discrimination. In contrast, when discrimination was either
from subsequent analyses. Thus, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) ambiguous or unlikely, only a minority of children made one or
included participant variables (i.e., gender and age) and gender of more attributions to discrimination (22% and 17%, respectively).
the target child as between-subjects variables and likelihood of Children’s open-ended attributions to discrimination were ex-
discrimination as a within-subject variable. The sample was di- amined using a 2 (target gender: boy or girl) 2 (participant gender:
vided approximately evenly across conditions (see Table 1). Be- boy or girl) 2 (participant age group: 5–7 years or 8 –10 years) 3
cause the Mauchley sphericity test was significant (i.e., the homo- (likelihood: likely, ambiguous, or unlikely) ANOVA in which the
geneity of variance assumption was violated), the Greenhouse– last factor was treated as a within-subject variable. The total
Geisser procedure was used to adjust the degrees of freedom for possible number of attributions to discrimination per situa-tional
the F tests involving the within-subject factor. All post hoc anal- information condition was 2. The main effect for situational
yses were conducted using Tukey’s honestly significant difference likelihood was significant, F(2, 117) 78.14, p .01. Means are
test. Below we describe analyses and findings for children’s open- presented in Table 2. Post hoc analyses indicated that children
ended responses to the scenarios, followed by analyses and find- made significantly more attributions to discrimination when the
ings for children’s ratings of the veracity of the experimenter- situational information suggested that discrimination was likely
provided explanations for the scenario outcomes. than when it was either ambiguous or unlikely (both at p .01).
Children’s attributions to unlikely and ambiguous discrimination
Attributions to Discrimination did not differ from one another. On the basis of the partial eta
Open-ended responses. Each open-ended response was first squared statistic (Cohen, 1977),4 situational likelihood accounted
categorized as either an attribution to discrimination or not. Only for 54% of the variance of attributions to discrimination (h2p
those responses in which a child reported that the target child’s gender .54). According to Cohen’s (1977) classifications of h2p, this indi-
was the sole cause of the differential treatment by the teacher were cates a large effect size.
classified as attributions to discrimination (e.g., “The teacher picked The interaction between situational likelihood and age was also
him because he was a boy”).3 Simple labeling of the target’s gender significant, F(2, 117) 5.91, p .01. Analyses of simple effects
(e.g., “She’s a girl”) was rare (2 instances), and these responses were
not coded as an attribution to discrimination. Other examples of
responses that were not classified as attributions to discrimination 3 Such responses indicate that gender was the basis on which the teacher
included those in which children endorsed a gender stereotype (e.g., determined the students’ outcomes, and as such, the teacher’s behavior
“Girls are better at art”) or reported that some gender-unrelated constitutes a form of discrimination. It is possible, however, that children
viewed the teacher’s behavior as justifiable (rather than unfair), perhaps
characteristic of the target was responsible (e.g., “The teacher thought
based on a view of one gender’s superiority to the other gender. This
her picture was better”). The open-ended responses were coded by possibility was explored further in the analyses of children’s rating of the
Christia Spears Brown, and a proportion of the responses (40%) was experimenter-provided responses.
then independently coded by a research assistant. Cohen’s kappa 4 The partial eta squared statistic was selected as the measure of effect size, as opposed to the eta squared or omega squared
coefficients for attributions to discrimination were .94, .96, and .96 statistic, because it allows for the comparison of effect sizes across the two ANOVAs (i.e., for the open-ended responses and

for the likely, ambiguous, and unlikely discrimination scenarios, experimenter-provided responses), which have a differing number of factors, and is most appropriate for repeated measures

ANOVAs (Cohen, 1977).

respectively.
Descriptive analyses indicated that when discrimination was
likely, the majority of children (72%) made at least one attribution
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 719

indicated that both 5- to 7-year-old children, F(2, 67) 16.63, p effort as a more accurate explanation for differential outcomes
.01, and 8- to 10-year-old children, F(2, 67) 44.30, p .01, based than either unfairness or discrimination (both at p .05). Chil-
their attributions to discrimination on the situational likeli-hood of dren’s ratings of the other attribution types did not differ from one
the discrimination. Both groups of children made more another. On the basis of the partial eta squared statistic, attribution
attributions to discrimination when it was likely than when it was type accounted for 6% of the variance in children’s ratings, indi-
unlikely or ambiguous (both at p .01 based on post hoc analy-ses). cating a medium effect size.
However, examination of the respective F values indicates that The interaction between attribution type and situational likeli-
this pattern of results was more pronounced in the older children hood was also significant, F(5, 327) 12.89, p .01. Analyses of
than in the younger children. On the basis of the partial eta simple effects indicated that when children were told that the
squared statistic, the Situational Likelihood Age interaction discrimination was likely, F(3, 62) 6.56, p .01, they rated
accounted for 4% of the variance in attributions to discrimination, discrimination as a more accurate explanation for the differential
indicating a small effect size. outcomes than either ability, effort, or unfairness (post hoc anal-
The main effect for target gender was also significant, F(1, yses indicated that discrimination differed from ability, effort, and
68) 4.18, p .05, with children making more attributions to unfairness at the p .01 level). In contrast, when children were told
discrimination when the target was female than when the target that the discrimination was unlikely, F(3, 62) 8.63, p .01, they
was male. The means are presented in Table 2. This effect was rated discrimination as a less accurate explanation for the
subsumed, however, by a significant interaction between target differential outcome than ability, effort, and unfairness (post hoc
gender and participant gender, F(1, 64) 4.25, p .05. Analyses of analyses indicated that discrimination differed from ability, effort,
simple effects indicated that girls made significantly more and unfairness at the p .01 level). When the situational infor-
discrimination attributions for female targets than for male targets, mation was ambiguous, F(3, 62) 3.36, p .05, children rated
F(1, 68) 9.33, p .01, whereas boys showed no differentiation discrimination as a less accurate explanation for the differential
between targets. On the basis of the partial eta squared statistic, outcome than ability and effort but not unfairness (post hoc anal-
the Target Gender Participant Gender interaction accounted for yses indicated that discrimination differed from ability and effort
6% of the variance in attributions to discrimination, indicating a at the p .01 level). On the basis of the partial eta squared statistic,
me-dium effect size. the Attribution Type Situational Likelihood interaction accounted
Ratings of experimenter-provided explanations. To examine for 17% of the variance of children’s ratings, indicating a large
children’s ratings of the veracity of the possible reasons for the effect size.
negative outcome, we examined children’s responses to the dif- The main effect and the two-way interaction were, however,
ferent types of attributions using a 2 (target gender: boy or girl) 2 subsumed by the three-way interaction of attribution type, situa-
(participant gender: boy or girl) 2 (participant age group: 5–7 tional likelihood, and age, F(5, 327) 2.41, p .05. Analyses of
years or 8 –10 years) 3 (likelihood: likely, ambiguous, or un- simple effects indicated that when children were told that discrim-
likely) 4 (attribution type: ability, effort, unfairness, or discrim- ination was likely (see Figure 1), 8- to 10-year-old children rated
ination) ANOVA in which the last two factors were treated as discrimination as a more accurate explanation for the differential
within-subject variables. The means are presented in Table 3. The outcomes, F(3, 62) 6.35, p .01, than ability, effort, and unfairness
main effect for attribution type was significant, F(2, 145) 4.06, p . (post hoc analyses indicated that older children’s ratings of
05. Post hoc analyses indicated that, overall, children rated discrimination differed from their ratings of ability, effort, and

Table 3
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Children’s Ratings of the Experimenter-Provided
Attributions

Type of attribution
Situational
information Ability Effort Unfairness Discrimination
Likely
5–7-year-olds 1.01 (0.49) 1.14 (0.44) 0.91 (0.41) 1.06 (0.51)
8–10-year-olds 0.78a (0.44) 0.79a (0.41) 0.79a (0.39) 1.18b (0.48)
Total 0.91a (0.48) 0.96a (0.46) 0.85a (0.41) 1.14b (0.49)
Ambiguous
5–7-year-olds 1.05a (0.53) 1.11a (0.54) 0.85b (0.48) 0.88b (0.52)
8–10-year-olds 0.59 (0.41) 0.74 (0.49) 0.59 (0.44) 0.53 (0.44)
Total 0.89a (0.50) 0.93a (0.54) 0.73b (0.48) 0.73b (0.51)
Unlikely
5–7-year-olds 1.28a (0.66) 1.32a (0.68) 1.15b (0.68) 0.97c (0.58)
8–10-year-olds 1.04a (0.60) 1.03a (0.61) 0.83b (0.52) 0.68c (0.43)
Total 1.16a (0.64) 1.17a (0.66) 1.00b (0.63) 0.84c (0.53)
Combined 0.98a,b (0.04) 1.03a (0.05) 0.86b (0.04) 0.89b (0.04)

Note. Scores range from 0 to 3, with higher numbers indicating the perception of greater accuracy. Subscript
letters indicate significant ( p .05) mean differences across attribution types.
720 BROWN AND BIGLER

Figure 1. Mean ratings of the accuracy of the experimenter-provided attributions as a function of age when
discrimination is likely.

unfairness at the p .01 level). Five- to seven-year-old children’s F(3, 62) 4.76, p .01, rated discrimination as a less accurate
attributions did not differ from one another. When children were explanation for the differential outcomes than ability, effort, and
told that the discrimination was unlikely (see Figure 2), both unfairness (post hoc analyses indicated that both older and younger
younger children, F(3, 62) 4.05, p .01, and older children, children’s ratings of discrimination differed from their ratings of

Figure 2. Mean ratings of the accuracy of the experimenter-provided attributions as a function of age when
discrimination is unlikely.
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 721

ability, effort, and unfairness at, at least, the p .01 level). When Table 4
the situational information was ambiguous (see Figure 3), younger Zero-Order (and Partial) Correlations Between Children’s
children rated discrimination as a less accurate explanation for the Open-Ended Attributions and Ratings of the Experimenter-
differential outcomes, F(3, 62) 2.97, p .05, than ability and effort, Provided Attributions by Situational Information
but not unfairness (post hoc analyses indicated that younger
Experimenter-provided attributions
children’s ratings of discrimination differed from their ratings of
ability and effort at the p .01 level). Older chil-dren’s attributions Open-ended attributions Likely Ambiguous Unlikely
did not differ from one another. On the basis of the partial eta Likely .39*** (.39*) .17 ( .04) .08 (.03)
squared statistic, the three-way interaction accounted for 4% of Ambiguous .02 ( .03) .16 (.20†) .09 ( .08)
the variance in children’s ratings, indicat-ing a small effect size. Unlikely .13 (.15) .04 ( .02) .29** (.25*)
Significant effects that did not involve attribution type (i.e.,
collapsed across reasons) were uninfor-mative and thus are not Note. Partial correlations control for age in months. For all zero-order
correlations, n 76; for partial correlations, n 71. † p .08. * p .05. ** p .01.
described (these findings can be ob-tained from the authors upon *** p .001.
request).

Relations Between Responding to Open-Ended Questions Individual and Developmental Difference Measures
and Rating Tasks Children’s gender attitudes. The mean score on the COAT-AM
was 13.05 (SD 6.15), indicating a moderate level of gender stereo-
To assess whether children’s open-ended attributions to discrim- typing. Children’s gender attitudes were unrelated to age and
ination were related to their ratings of the experimenter-provided classification skill (rs .16 and .13, respectively, ps .05). To assess
attributions, we computed the correlations that are reported in Table 4. whether children’s gender attitudes were related to their open-
As can be seen in the table, when discrimination was either likely or ended attributions to discrimination, we conducted a hierar-chical
unlikely, children who made more open-ended attributions to multiple regression analysis on children’s responses to the likely
discrimination also rated discrimination as a more accurate discrimination scenarios. (Too few children made attribu-tions to
explanation for the differential outcome. When discrim-ination was discrimination for the unlikely and ambiguous scenarios to test the
ambiguous, children’s open-ended attributions to dis-crimination and effects of individual-difference variables.) Age in months and the
ratings of discrimination were not significantly correlated with one child’s gender (dummy coded) were entered into the model in the
another. Partial correlations, controlling for age, indicated similar, but first block, followed by gender attitudes in the second block, and
somewhat weaker, relations. the Gender Attitudes Age interaction in the third block. Age

Figure 3. Mean ratings of the accuracy of the experimenter-provided attributions as a function of age when
discrimination is ambiguous.
722 BROWN AND BIGLER

significantly predicted children’s attributions to discrimination, b . are more likely to make attributions to discrimination than are
73, p .01. Older children made a greater number of attributions to participants who have no such knowledge (e.g., Feldman Barrett
discrimination than did younger children. In addi-tion, gender & Swim, 1998; Swim et al., 1998).
attitudes predicted children’s attributions to discrim-ination, b As is the case among adults, children were no more likely to
1.05, p .06, although at a level just missing conventional levels of make an open-ended attribution to discrimination when the con-
significance. Children with more egalitarian attitudes made a textual information was ambiguous than when it suggested that
greater number of attributions to discrimination than did children discrimination was unlikely. In addition, when presented with
with less egalitarian attitudes. Neither the child’s gender nor the ambiguous information, neither younger nor older children rated
Gender Attitudes Age interaction predicted attributions to discrimination as a more accurate reason for the differential stu-
discrimination. dent outcomes than effort and ability. Thus, it appears that
An identical regression model was used to assess whether gen-der children (like adults) are reluctant to attribute outcomes to
attitudes predicted children’s ratings of the experimenter-provided discrimination unless bias is very apparent. This finding is
attributions when discrimination was likely. Results in-dicated that important because discriminatory actions (at least those performed
neither age, child’s gender, nor gender attitudes significantly by adults) are unlikely to be accompanied by unambiguous
predicted children’s ratings of the veracity of discrim-ination as the information (e.g., individuals rarely have knowledge about an
reason for the students’ outcomes. The Gender Attitudes Age evaluator’s past biased behavior). Thus, children are likely to
interaction was, however, marginally significant, b 1.32, p .06. attribute negative feedback from adults, including teachers, to
Inspection of the data indicated that among older (but not younger) their own performance (e.g., low ability or effort).
children, those with more egalitarian attitudes perceived Some theorists have suggested that individuals’ reluctance to
discrimination as a more accurate explanation for the outcomes than perceive discrimination in ambiguous situations is due to the
did those with less egalitarian attitudes. psychological costs associated with making an attribution to dis-
Classification skill. The mean classification skill score was 6.73 crimination, such as a perceived lack of control over outcomes and a
(SD 2.38). Children’s classification ability was signifi-cantly diminished belief in a fair and just world (Major, Quinton, McCoy, &
correlated with age (r .52, p .01). To assess whether classification Schmader, 2000). Although failing to perceive discrim-ination in
ability predicted children’s open-ended attributions to ambiguous situations may have benefits (e.g., maintain-ing one’s
discrimination (independently of age), we conducted hierarchi-cal belief in a just world), the tendency to make attributions based on
multiple regression analyses. Age in months was entered into the one’s ability or effort (i.e., internal attributions), instead of
model in the first block, followed by the classification skill discrimination (i.e., external attribution), can have important negative
measure in the second block, and the Classification Skill Age consequences as well. For example, Weiner’s attribution theory (e.g.,
interaction in the third block. Although age (as before) signifi- Weiner, 2000) suggests that attributing negative out-comes to internal
cantly predicted children’s attributions to discrimination when causes can lead to reductions in motivation, self-esteem, and future
discrimination was likely, b .36, p .01, neither classification expectancies for success. Indeed, social psychological research
ability nor the interaction term accounted for a significant amount examining the targets of discrimination finds that perceiving
of additional variance. Regression analyses of children’s ratings discrimination when it is likely to have occurred is associated with
of the experimenter-provided attributions using the same predictor enhanced motivation and self-esteem (e.g., Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, &
variables indicated no significant findings. Major, 1991; Dion, Earn, & Yee, 1978). Future research should
examine whether children who are the targets of discrimination
themselves make internal (e.g., abil-ity) versus external (e.g.,
Discussion
discrimination) attributions for negative outcomes and whether such
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether children attributions affect their academic self-concept and motivation.
are sensitive to contextual information in making attribu-tions to
discrimination and whether individual and developmental differences Although children, at the group level, made use of situational
among children are related to their perceptions of gender information, there were important developmental trends in re-
discrimination. The findings suggest that children are sen-sitive to sponding. Specifically, older children’s attributions to discrimina-tion
contextual information in making judgments about gender varied more dramatically as a function of situational informa-tion than
discrimination. As hypothesized, children made more open-ended did younger children’s attributions. Even in those cases in which
attributions to discrimination (and rated it as a more accurate evidence strongly suggested that discrimination had occurred (e.g.,
explanation for the differential outcomes) when situational infor- “Mr. Parks almost always picks boys. . . ”), only 27% of 5- to 7-
mation suggested that discrimination was likely than when situa-tional year-old children consistently made spontaneous
information suggested that discrimination was unlikely or ambiguous.
Specifically, when children were given information suggesting that attributions to discrimination. In addition to making a
the evaluator was biased (e.g., “Mr. Franks almost always gives boys greater number of open-ended attributions to
higher grades than girls on their stories.”), they made more discrimination, older (but not younger) children rated
attributions to discrimination than when given infor-mation
discrimination as a more accurate expla-nation for the
suggesting that the evaluator was unbiased or than when presented
with no pertinent information. This finding is consistent with the adult differential student outcomes than other possible reasons
literature, which has shown that adults who are told that an evaluator provided by the experimenter. Faced with strong evidence
may be biased against a particular social group of discrimination, young children were just as likely to say
that the target was at fault for producing the outcome
(e.g., by failing to make a sufficient effort) as they were to
claim that the teacher was discriminatory. Thus, it appears
that although children as young as
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 723

5 are aware of discrimination as a social possibility, they make gender stereotyped than when it is gender neutral, a prediction
relatively poor use of situational cues and are unlikely to label that could be empirically tested in future research.
even overtly biased behavior as gender discrimination. Contrary to our hypotheses, the developmental difference mea-
Results also indicated that girls (but not boys) made more open- sure (i.e., classification skill) did not predict attributions to dis-
ended attributions to discrimination when the target of the crimination independent of age. Thus, although 8- to 10-year-old
discrimination was female than when the target was male. This children made more context-appropriate attributions to discrimi-
finding is consistent with research examining children’s nation than 5- to 7-year-old children, this increased sensitivity to
judgments about peer exclusion (Theimer, Killen, & Stangor, contextual information did not appear to be related to children’s
2001). Specif-ically, girls rate peer exclusion of girls to be more developing classification ability. It is possible that children’s per-
negative than peer exclusion of boys. Several researchers have ceptions of discrimination are moderated by the development of
hypothesized that increased experiences with peer exclusion make other types of cognitive skills (such as social-perspective taking)
girls more sensi-tive than boys to this issue (Killen & Stangor, and/or the acquisition of various types of knowledge about
2001; Theimer et al., 2001). It seems possible, however, that girls’ gender. For example, children’s knowledge of past gender
experiences also lead them to develop a broad awareness of the inequalities within and across societies may increase with age,
lower social status of females relative to males. Girls’ awareness perhaps as a function of schooling, and may contribute to their
of the lower status of the female role may, in turn, lead them to understanding and perceptions of discrimination.
develop a higher sensitivity for, and expectation of, discriminatory As with all research, there are limitations to the present study. Most
treatment of females than of males (though these findings may not significantly, we developed new measures of children’s perceptions of
generalize to all racial and ethnic groups; see Killen et al., 2002). discrimination and used only one of many possible experimental
For reasons that we were unable to intuit, this finding did not designs. Additional research using alternative de-signs (e.g., sex-
generalize to the children’s ratings of the veracity of typed rather than neutral activities; between-subjects rather than
discrimination when presented by the experimenter. within-subject manipulations of contextual information) will be
Although the gender of the target child affected girls’ open- important for ruling out possible methodolog-ical artifacts. In
ended attributions to discrimination, the gender of the evaluator addition, the sample of children included in this study was largely
did not affect children’s judgments about discrimination. Children racially and ethnically homogenous (i.e., the majority were European
rated male teachers and female teachers as equally likely to be American). It will be important for future research to examine
discriminatory. This finding is inconsistent with adult social psy- perceptions of discrimination among children of racial and ethnic
chological research indicating that men are more likely to be minority groups.
considered prejudiced, and more likely to be labeled as discrimi- As in any new area of research, there are a host of additional
nators, than women (Baron, Burgess, & Kao, 1991). To provide a questions that need to be addressed. For example, we examined
better understanding of how and why children’s and adults’ attri- children’s perceptions of gender discrimination in situations that were
butions to discrimination are (or are not) affected by evaluators’ hypothetical and involved other individuals (rather than the self) as
gender, future research should explore individuals’ understanding the target of discrimination. Future research should explore at what
of the motivations that drive gender stereotyping and age and under which circumstances children perceive themselves to be
discrimination. the target of gender discrimination. In addition, there are a number of
As hypothesized, children’s gender attitudes were related to their additional parameters that might guide children’s perceptions of
perceptions of discrimination, although the relations were not discrimination that need to be examined (e.g., the availability of
particularly strong. Children who endorsed more egalitarian gen-der objective criteria for performance judg-ments and comparison data).
attitudes were more likely to report that the target student’s gender Nonetheless, this study represents an important first step in
was the cause of the teacher’s behavior than were children with less understanding the processes involved in children’s perceptions of
egalitarian attitudes. Though not significant, there was also a trend for discrimination. Continued research is likely to be useful for creating
children with more egalitarian attitudes, compared with children with social and educational policies and for designing intervention
less egalitarian attitudes, to rate the student’s gender as a more strategies to prevent and remedy per-ceptions of discrimination
accurate reason for the teacher’s behavior than the student’s effort or among children.
ability. The stronger relation between atti-tudes and responding within
the open-ended attribution than within the rating task may reflect the
References
tendency of open-ended responses to tap the salience of gender
inequality. That is, it seems possible that differential treatment of boys Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C. F. (1991). Detecting and labeling
and girls is more salient among children with more rather than less prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and
egalitarian attitudes, leading them to more readily recognize and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115–123.
report examples of gender inequality. Furthermore, it is important to Bowman, P., & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation,
note that the scenarios used here concerned gender-neutral (rather and academic achievement: A study of Black youths in three-generation
families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 134
than strongly sex-typed) activities and, as a result, may have led to a
–141.
conservative test of the relation between sex typing and the perception
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
of discrimination. That is, children who endorse egalitarian rather New York: Academic Press.
than traditional gender role beliefs should show more discrepant Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The
patterns of responding when the content of the scenarios is highly affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 60, 218 –228.
724 BROWN AND BIGLER

Dion, K. L. (1975). Women’s reactions to discrimination from members Major, B., Quinton, W. J., McCoy, S. K., & Schmader, T. (2000). Reduc-
of the same and opposite sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, ing prejudice: The target’s perspective. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing
294 –306. prejudice and discrimination (pp. 211–237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dion, K. L., Earn, B. M., & Yee, P. H. (1978). The experience of being a Mazur, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The
victim of prejudice: An experimental approach. International Journal relationship among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual
of Psychology, 13, 197–214. harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 38, 167–185.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and Meece, J. L. (1987). The influence of school experiences on the develop-
racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F. Dovidio ment of gender schemata. In L. S. Liben & M. L. Signorella (Eds.),
& S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 1– Children’s gender schemata (New Directions for Child Development
34). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. No. 38, pp. 89 –105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and Nesdale, A. R., & McLaughlin, K. (1987). Effects of sex stereotypes on
discrimination. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s young children’s memories, predictions, and liking. British Journal of
perspective (pp. 12–37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Developmental Psychology, 5, 231–241.
Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, Patchen, M. (1982). Black–White contact in schools: Its social and aca-
cultural, and developmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. demic effects. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Garcia Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Powlishta, K. (1995). Intergroup processes in childhood: Social categori-
Vazquez Garcia, H., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). An integrative model for zation and sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 31, 781–
the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child 788.
Development, 67, 1891–1914. Quintana, S. M. (2001, April). Development of children’s understanding
Good, T. L., Sikes, J. N., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Effects of teacher sex of ethnicity and race. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal of Educational Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Psychol-ogy, 65, 74 – 87. Quintana, S. M., & Vera, E. M. (1999). Mexican American children’s
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. ethnic identity, understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic
New York: Norton. socialization. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 387– 404.
Jensen, L., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of respon- Radke, M. J., & Sutherland, J. (1972). Children’s concepts and attitudes
sibility for sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121–136. about minority and majority American groups. In A. R. Brown (Ed.),
Jones, L. C., & Bigler, R. S. (1996, March). Cognitive-developmental Prejudice in children (pp. 138 –156). Springfield, IL: Thomas Books.
mechanisms in the revision of gender stereotypic beliefs. Poster pre- Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
sented at the biennial meeting of the Conference on Human Develop- Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon
ment, Birmingham, AL.
(Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher–
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp.
student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in
933–1016). New York: Wiley.
Science Teaching, 27, 861– 874.
Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). Developmental
Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How
differences in children’s gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic
children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Mono-
review. Developmental Review, 13, 147–183.
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(4, Serial
Spencer, M. B. (1985). Cultural cognition and social cognition as identity
No. 271).
correlates of Black children’s personal-social development. In M. B.
Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children’s social reasoning about inclu-
Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Alen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social
sion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child
and affective development of Black children (pp. 215–230). Hillsdale,
Development, 72, 174 –186.
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kowalski, K., & Kanitkar, K. (2003, April). Ethnicity and gender in the
kindergarten classroom: A naturalistic study. Poster presented at the Spencer, M. B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL. among racial and ethnic minority children in America. Child
Development, 61, 290 –310.
Leaper, C. (Ed.). (1994). Childhood gender segregation: Causes and
consequences (New Directions for Child Development No. 65). San Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality
Leaper, C. (2000). The social construction and socialization of gender and Social Psychology, 68, 199 –214.
during development. In P. H. Miller & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), Toward Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1996). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A
a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 127–152). New York: comparison between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism
Routledge. scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.
Levy, G. D., Sadovsky, A. L., & Troseth, G. L. (2000). Aspects of young Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing everyday
children’s perceptions of gender-typed occupations. Sex Roles, 42, 993– prejudice and discrimination. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice:
1006. The target’s perspective (pp. 37– 61). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender Theimer, C. E., Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Young children’s
differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs evaluations of exclusion in gender-stereotypic contexts. Developmental
and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devel- Psychology, 37, 18 –27.
opment, 67(2, Serial No. 269). U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2000). Office for
Liben, L. S., Bigler, R. S., & Krogh, H. R. (2001). Pink and blue collar jobs: Civil Rights fiscal year 2000 annual report to Congress: Guaranteeing
Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in relation to sex of equal access to high-standards education. Washington, DC: Author.
worker. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 346 –363. Verkuyten, M., Kinket, B., & van der Weilen, C. (1997). Preadolescents’
Liben, L. S., & Signorella, M. L. (1980). Gender-related schemata and understanding of ethnic discrimination. The Journal of Genetic
constructive memory in children. Child Development, 51, 11–18. Psychol-ogy, 158, 97–112.
Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.
 PERCEPTION OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION 725

Appendix

Scenarios, Open-Ended Questions, and Experimenter-Provided Attributions

All scenarios depict the condition with the male perpetrator and the He picked Phillip as the Class Leader and told Laura that she could be a
female target. The italicized sentences provide information about the helper.
likelihood of discrimination. When the scenarios involved ambiguous
discrimination, the italicized sentences were omitted. Open-ended question:
Why was Phillip picked as class leader and Laura was picked as the
Scenario 1 helper?
Experimenter-provided attributions:
Mr. Allen is an art teacher. Each year, Mr. Allen had an art contest. Mr.
Allen wanted to pick someone with an original drawing. Mr. Allen almost Phillip was picked as class leader because he is a better leader. Phillip
was picked as class leader because he tried harder to be a good
always judges boys’ drawings to be better than girls’ drawings [or Mr.
leader.
Allen usually judges boys’ and girls’ drawings to be equally good].
Michael and Jacqueline entered Mr. Allen’s annual art contest. They both Phillip was picked as class leader because the choosing wasn’t fair.
consider themselves to be good artists. Michael loves to paint, and Jac- Phillip was picked as class leader because he is a boy.
queline enjoys watercolors. Both Michael and Jacqueline worked equally
hard for two weeks on their projects. Mr. Allen decided to give Michael Scenario 4
1st prize and Jacqueline 2rd prize.
Mr. Jackson teaches gym class, and on “Field Day,” Mr. Jackson judged
Open-ended question: the track events. He was supposed to judge who ran the fastest. Mr.
Why did Michael win 1st prize and Jackie win 2nd prize? Jackson almost always thinks that boys run faster than girls [or Mr.
Experimenter-provided attributions: Jackson usually thinks boys and girls run equally fast]. Julie and Robert
Michael won 1st prize because his drawing was better. were both signed up to run the 50-yard sprint. They were both nervous
Michael won 1st prize because he tried harder on his drawing. about winning. When Mr. Jackson said “Go!” Julie and Robert ran as hard
Michael won 1st prize because the contest wasn’t fair. as they could run. They crossed the finish line at almost the exact same
Michael won 1st prize because he is a boy. second. Mr. Jackson said that it was Robert who was the winner and gave
him the blue ribbon. Julie got a yellow ribbon for second place.
Scenario 2
Mr. Franks teaches English. Mr. Franks told his class that their home- Open-ended question:
work assignment was to write a story about what they did over their Why did Robert get the first-place blue ribbon and Julie get the
summer vacation. He wanted to grade the papers on creativity. Mr. Franks second-place yellow ribbon?
almost always gives boys higher grades than girls on their stories [or Mr. Experimenter-provided attributions:
Franks almost always grades boys’ and girls’ stories about the same]. Robert was chosen as the winner because he ran faster.
Mariah and Jacob were excited to write their stories because they had such Robert was chosen as the winner because he tried harder in the race.
interesting summer trips to write about. Both Mariah and Jacob were
Robert was chosen as the winner because the race wasn’t fair.
careful about turning their papers in to Mr. Franks on time. Two days
Robert was chosen as the winner because he is a boy.
later, the class got their stories back with their grades written on them in
red ink. Mariah got a C on her paper, while Jacob got an A on his paper.
Scenario 5
Open-ended question:
Why did Jacob get an A and Mariah get a C on the paper? Mr. Brown teaches sixth grade. He had a favorite jar on his desk. Some
Experimenter-provided attributions: kids were playing in the classroom and accidentally broke Mr. Brown’s
Jacob got a better grade because his story was better. jar. He didn’t see who broke it. He was upset, though, and wanted to know
Jacob got a better grade because he tried harder on his paper. who had done it. Mr. Brown usually blames girls more than boys [or Mr.
Jacob got a better grade because the assignment wasn’t fair. Brown usually blames girls and boys for things equally often]. Susan and
Bill were both near the jar when it was broken. Mr. Brown decided that
Jacob got a better grade because he is a boy.
Susan would have to sit in the corner, but Bill could rejoin the class.
Scenario 3
Mr. Mason teaches third grade. He wanted to pick a Class Leader to help Open-ended question:
him do some extra things in the classroom. He wanted to pick someone who Why was Susan punished for breaking the jar but Bill was not
was responsible, a good student, and a good leader. Mr. Mason almost always punished?
picks boys to be the class leader [or Mr. Mason usually picks boys and girls to Experimenter-provided attributions:
be class leader an equal number of times]. Although several students were Bill did not get in trouble because he did not break the jar.
qualified, Laura and Phillip really stood out. They both had A’s in Mr. Mason’s Bill did not get in trouble because he tried harder to be careful.
class and were both very responsible. But since there could only be one Class Bill did not get in trouble because the punishment wasn’t fair.
Leader, Mr. Mason had to choose between them. Bill did not get in trouble because he is a boy.

(Appendix continues)
726 BROWN AND BIGLER

Scenario 6 Experimenter-provided attributions

Adam was chosen for the team because he is a better soccer player.
Mr. Parks is the soccer coach. There was a spot for one more player on Adam was chosen for the team because he tried harder at soccer.
the soccer team. He wanted to pick the best player. Mr. Parks almost Adam was chosen for the team because the choosing wasn’t fair.
always picks boys for the team instead of girls [or Mr. Parks usually picks
Adam was chosen for the team because he is a boy.
boys and girls for the team equally often]. Adam and Tessa both wanted to
play soccer. Both Adam and Tessa liked soccer and played it at home a
lot. But because there was only one opening this time, Mr. Parks picked
Adam to play on the team.
Received February 20, 2003
Open-ended question: Revision received January 13, 2004
Why was Adam chosen for the soccer team instead of Tessa? Accepted February 26, 2004

New Editors Appointed, 2006 –2011

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of seven new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2006. As of January 1,
2005, manuscripts should be directed as follows:

• Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (www.apa.org/journals/pha.html), Nancy K.

Mello, PhD, McLean Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 115
Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02478-9106.

• Journal of Abnormal Psychology (www.apa.org/journals/abn.html), David Watson, PhD, De-

partment of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407.

• Journal of Comparative Psychology (www.apa.org/journals/com.html), Gordon M. Burghardt,

PhD, Department of Psychology or Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.

• Journal of Counseling Psychology (www.apa.org/journals/cou.html), Brent S. Mallinckrodt,

PhD, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 16 Hill Hall, University
of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.

• Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (www.apa.org/

journals/xhp.html), Glyn W. Humphreys, PhD, Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, School of
Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom.

• Joural of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition section
(www.apa.org/journals/psp.html), Charles M. Judd, PhD, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0345.

• Rehabilitation Psychology (www.apa.org/journals/rep.html), Timothy R. Elliott, PhD, Depart-

ment of Psychology, 415 Campbell Hall, 1300 University Boulevard, University of Alabama,
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170.

Electronic submission: As of January 1, 2005, authors are expected to submit manuscripts

electronically through the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal (see the Web site listed above
with each journal title).

Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of the 2005 volumes
uncertain. Current editors, Warren K. Bickel, PhD, Timothy B. Baker, PhD, Meredith J. West,
PhD, Jo-Ida C. Hansen, PhD, David A. Rosenbaum, PhD, Patricia G. Devine, PhD, and Bruce
Caplan, PhD, respectively, will receive and consider manuscripts through December 31, 2004.
Should 2005 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will be redirected to the new
editors for consideration in 2006 volumes.