Special Section: Gender Typicality and Development

International Journal of
Behavioral Development
Gender identity in childhood: a review ª The Author(s) 2019
1–16

Article reuse guidelines:

of the literature sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0165025418811129
journals.sagepub.com/home/jbd

David G. Perry,1 Rachel E. Pauletti,2 and Patrick J. Cooper2

Abstract
We review theory and research on the assessment, development, and consequences of individual differences in gender identity, as studied
among ordinary school children. Gender identity encompasses children’s appraisals of compatibility with, and motivation to fit in with,
gender collectives; it is a multidimensional construct. Five dimensions of gender identity are considered in depth: felt same-gender
typicality, felt other-gender typicality, gender contentedness, felt pressure for gender conformity, and intergroup bias. A host of
cognitive, affective, social, and defensive processes contribute to these forms of gender identity, all of which in turn affect children’s
psychosocial adjustment. Felt same-gender typicality promotes self-esteem and protects children from harmful effects of stressors, but it is
associated with negative attitudes toward other-gender peers and activities unless children feel at least somewhat similar to the other
gender as well. Felt other-gender typicality distresses children who do not also feel same-gender–typical. The other three gender identity
variables encourage self-serving behavior (e.g., dominance) if children view it as appropriate for their gender. Children who feel gender-
atypical or discontent with their gender suffer considerable distress if they feel pressure for gender conformity. Gender contentedness
may be a particularly powerful contributor to children’s adoption of gender-typed behavior.

Keywords
Gender identity, middle childhood, gender differences

Introduction
Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in children’s
gender identity and the role it plays in children’s mental health and
behavior. Gender identity may be defined as a set of cognitions
encompassing a person’s appraisals of compatibility with, and
motivation to fit in with, a gender collective. It is a multidimen-
sional construct. One dimension of gender identity of central impor-
tance to theory and research is felt same-gender typicality, or
people’s self-perceived similarity to their gender collective. Con-
cern with this aspect of gender identity reflects a longstanding
interest in the implications of people’s felt masculinity or femininity
for their mental health and social behavior. These latter terms are
rarely used today, owing to ambiguities in meaning, but the notion
that felt compatibility with one’s gender is important remains alive.
A major purpose of our review is to evaluate recent developments
in the study of children’s felt same-gender typicality.
However, conceptualizations of gender identity have expanded
recently to include additional dimensions, such as people’s felt
similarity to the other gender, satisfaction with their birth gender,
felt pressure for gender conformity, and derogation of the other
gender. These additional aspects of gender identity are important
in their own right, but they also interact with felt same-gender
typicality to affect children’s welfare. For example, children who
feel dissimilar to same-gender peers face adjustment difficulties
primarily if they also feel strong pressure for gender conformity
or feel similar to the other gender. Thus, it is important to study
different aspects of gender identity in conjunction with one another.
This article reviews theory and research on the conceptualiza-
tion, assessment, development, and consequences of these several
dimensions of gender identity, as studied in ordinary populations of
preadolescent school children. Our review draws heavily on a body
of work by the first author and his colleagues over the last decade
and a half but includes work by others where relevant. Our focus is
on individual differences in gender identity among children of each
sex. Preadolescence is a period when children undergo many per-
sonal and social experiences that are likely to affect their gender
identity in lasting ways. Indeed, during the school years children
tend to stabilize their positions (relative to their peers’) on the
dimensions of gender identity we consider. In turn, their patterns
of gender identity are important influences on their subsequent
well-being and social behavior.
Our review has four sections. First, we discuss the conceptuali-
zation and assessment of gender identity. Second, we summarize
evidence on how gender identity develops. Third, we discuss the
consequences of gender identity for children’s personal and social
well-being as well as for their acquisition of gender-typed beha-
viors. Finally, we offer our conclusions.
Conceptualization and Assessment of
Gender Identity
The view that gender identity (as well as other collective identities,
e.g., ethnic identity) is multidimensional is now well accepted
(Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Egan & Perry,
1
Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Lynn University, USA
Corresponding author:
David G. Perry, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL 33431, USA.
Email: perrydg@fau.edu
2 International Journal of Behavioral Development
2001; Martin, Andrews, Englund, Zosuls, & Ruble, 2017; Perry &
Pauletti, 2011; Tobin et al., 2010). Here we describe eight dimen-
sions of gender identity, but our following literature review focuses
principally on only five of them.
Dimensions of Gender Identity
1. Gender self-categorization. Gender self-categorization
refers to labeling the self as either a boy or a girl. For most children,
this entails a simple binary decision consistent with their anatomy.
This is the earliest-developing form of gender identity and is some-
times called basic gender identity. Nearly all children label them-
selves correctly by age 3 years, and by age 6 years most have
conserved gender, or realize that their gender remains invariant
despite superficial changes in clothing, hair length, and so forth
(Diamond & Butterworth, 2008; Kohlberg, 1969; Ruble, Martin,
& Berenbaum, 2006). Because this aspect of gender identity usually
is fully developed by age 6 years, it is rarely studied past that age.
The remaining dimensions of gender identity capture individual
differences among children of a given gender, are studied among
older children, and are the focus of our review.
2. Felt same-gender typicality and 3. felt other-gender typi-
cality. Felt same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality
refer, respectively, to children’s self-perceived similarity to peers of
their own gender and to peers of the other gender. Historically,
these two aspects of gender identity were construed to be polar
opposites (i.e., as perfectly negatively correlated), but arguments
by Bem (1981), Constantinople (1973), and Spence, Helmreich,
and Stapp (1975) inspired researchers to assess them separately.
This permitted evaluation of new hypotheses, such as Bem’s
belief that perceiving the self to be similar to both genders—
psychological androgyny—is healthier than perceiving the self
as similar only to one. Prior theorists had assumed that identifying
more strongly with one’s own gender (and therefore less with the
other) was superior.
To assess children’s felt same-gender typicality or their felt
other-gender typicality, children rate their similarity to same-
gender or other-gender peers on several dimensions (e.g., person-
ality, interests, competencies) as well as on overall similarity (Egan
& Perry, 2001; Martin et al., 2017; Pauletti, Menon, Cooper, Aults,
& Perry, 2017). Contrary to earlier beliefs, children’s felt same-
gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality are only moder-
ately negatively correlated, about 0.40 (Martin et al., 2017;
Menon, 2006; Pauletti et al., 2017).
This assessment strategy departs from the common practice of
inferring children’s felt female typicality and felt male typicality
from self-ratings on communal and agentic personality traits,
respectively (e.g., Bem, 1981). This is for several reasons. First,
children differ in their conceptions of the typical male or female
(Edelbrock & Sugawara, 1978; Martin, 2000; Schmader & Block,
2015; Spence, 1985), and some children may not perceive these
personality traits (or other researcher-supplied exemplars of
female- and male-typicality) as relevant to their gender typicality
(Egan & Perry, 2001; Spence & Hall, 1996). Second, because chil-
dren’s gender-typed attributes in one domain (e.g., personality
traits) are weakly correlated with their gender-typed attributes in
other domains (e.g., activity preferences, sexual orientation; Ruble
et al., 2006; Spence & Hall, 1996; Spence & Helmreich, 1980), it is
hazardous to infer felt gender typicality from self-perceptions in
any single domain. Third, in several theories (e.g., Tobin et al.,
2010), gender identity and self-perception of specific gender-
typed attributes are distinct constructs and therefore require inde-
pendent assessment.
4. Gender contentedness. Gender contentedness refers to chil-
dren’s satisfaction with their gender assignment (e.g., being born
female rather than male; Egan & Perry, 2001). It is not merely
children’s evaluation of their own gender but rather involves
children comparing the advantages and disadvantages of being
male versus female (e.g., rating whether they sometimes wish
they were the other gender). It correlates about 0.30 with felt
same-gender typicality and about 0.50 with felt other-gender
typicality (Pauletti et al., 2017). Very low scores indicate some
degree of gender dysphoria.
5. Felt pressure for gender differentiation. Felt pressure for
gender differentiation captures children’s motivation to avoid
cross-gender behavior. It is measured as children’s anticipation of
negative consequences (e.g., ridicule, criticism, shaming) from par-
ents, peers, and the self for cross-gender behavior (Egan & Perry,
2001). It typically is uncorrelated with felt same-gender typicality,
negatively correlated with felt other-gender typicality (around
0.40), and positively correlated with gender contentedness
(around 0.20).
Felt pressure for gender differentiation is a dimension of gender
identity that resembles Bem’s (1981, 1985) construct of a gender
schema—a pernicious predisposition to perceive the world through
a gendered lens, to view the genders as polar opposites, to classify
behavioral options in terms of gender appropriateness, and to adopt
same-gender-stereotyped attributes and eschew other-gender ones.
Bem believed that such a schema develops in people who interna-
lize societal sanctions against cross-gender behavior, and she saw it
as harmful because it may lead people to rule out potentially satis-
fying cross-gender options. Bem did not develop a direct measure
of this schema, but she believed it could be inferred from a pattern
of gender identity characterized by high felt same-gender typicality
and low felt other-gender typicality. Children with this pattern of
gender identity do report higher felt pressure for gender differentia-
tion than children with other combinations of scores on the two felt
typicality measures (Pauletti et al., 2017), but this association is not
strong enough to conclude that a gender schema can be inferred
from this pattern of felt typicality scores. To assess felt pressure for
gender conformity, it should be measured directly and separately
from other dimensions of gender identity.
6. Intergroup bias. Intergroup bias is the tendency to see one’s
own gender (the in-group) more favorably than the other (e.g., as
friendlier and smarter, less boring and lazy; Egan & Perry, 2001). It
is part of a cluster of correlated intergroup cognitions that also
includes tendencies to exaggerate differences between the genders
and to homogenize the other gender (Bigler & Liben, 2007; Pow-
lishta, 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It sometimes is modestly
correlated with gender contentedness and felt pressure for gender
conformity.
7. Gender centrality. Gender centrality is the importance a
child attaches to gender as an aspect of her or his identity. To
measure this, children may be asked to rank the importance of being
a girl or a boy relative to their other identities (e.g., student, athlete,
son/daughter; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Lurye, Zosuls, & Ruble,
2008; Rogers & Meltzoff, 2014; Ruble et al., 2006). It is unrelated
to other gender identity measures for girls but for boys is modestly
negatively correlated with felt other-gender typicality and moder-
ately positively correlated with gender contentedness as well as
with felt pressure for gender conformity (Pauletti et al., 2017).
Perry et al.
8. Gender frustration. Gender frustration refers to feelings of
injustice and dismay that certain activities are off limits because
they are considered (by self or others) to be more appropriate for the
other gender than for one’s own. Such frustration tends to be stron-
ger among children who may be experiencing some degree of
cross-gender identity, that is, children with low felt same-gender
typicality, high felt other-gender typicality, or low gender content-
edness (Pauletti et al., 2017).
Comment on Gender Identity Measures
A few comments on these measures of children’s gender identity
are in order:
 These measures tap consciously accessible (explicit) aspects of
gender identity. There has been some effort to assess children’s
unconscious (implicit) gender identity (Cvencek, Meltzoff, &
Greenwald, 2011), but such work is new and limited. Thus, our
review focuses on explicit aspects of children’s gender
identity.
 Children’s gender identity is influenced by the child’s immedi-
ate context (e.g., being the only girl in a large group, being
teased for gender nonconformity; Bigler, 1995; Deaux & Major,
1987; Mehta, 2015). Such temporary influences are not a main
focus of our review, though later we suggest that how children
process such temporary fluctuations in their gender identity
may be affected by more stable components of their gender
identity.
 We do not consider sexual orientation (sexual identity) to be an
aspect of gender identity. Instead, we regard sexual orientation
to be self-perception of a specific gender-typed attribute that
may result from, or contribute to, one or more forms of gender
identity (e.g., gender contentedness).
 Although extreme scores on certain gender identity measures
may have clinical relevance, the measures we discuss here have
not been developed for diagnostic purposes but rather for
research designed to understand how gender identity operates
among ordinary school children. Nonetheless, the research we
review does have implications for practical application, as we
suggest later.
 It should be clear that gender identity refers to self-reported
cognitive constructions, not objective assessments, of chil-
dren’s gendered qualities. Observable gendered qualities
sometimes influence, or are influenced by, children’s gender
identity, but they are not necessarily correlated with gender
identity.
 A child’s gender identity is distinct from the gender stereotypes
the child harbors (Tobin et al., 2010). Gender stereotypes are
beliefs about how the sexes differ (descriptive stereotypes) or
should differ (prescriptive stereotypes). Such beliefs sometimes
interact with gender identity to affect children’s well-being and
behavior, but they are not systematically correlated with gender
identity.
 Although we described eight dimensions of gender identity,
our review focuses on only five. Gender self-categorization
is excluded because of scant individual differences among
school children. Gender centrality and gender frustration are
also excluded because they have received scant research
attention, making it difficult to draw conclusions about
them.
3
Development of Gender Identity
Overview
When discussing their development, it is useful to divide the dimen-
sions of gender identity into two categories—those that rest on
children’s perceptions of differences between the genders and those
that rest on children’s perceptions of differences among children of
a given gender. These may be called, respectively, between-gender
and within-gender forms of gender identity. Here we elaborate this
distinction and discuss some issues relevant to the development of
each type.
Three forms of gender identity rest on children’s perceptions of
differences between the genders—gender contentedness, felt pres-
sure for gender differentiation, and intergroup bias. These between-
gender forms of gender identity are seen as early as the preschool
years and may be outgrowths of the intergroup cognitions noted
earlier (exaggeration of differences between the genders, preferen-
tial treatment of the in-group, devaluation and homogenization of
the out-group). These cognitions and the forms of identity they
inspire are fairly normative for preschoolers (Harris, 1995; Ruble
et al., 2006) and may serve an evolutionary function by orienting
children to the same-sex peer group as the collective after which
they must pattern their behavior for eventual reproductive success
(and related gender-differentiated behaviors; Harris, 1995). That is,
they may promote the marked sex-segregation that characterizes
children’s social groups over the next decade and facilitates their
acquisition of gender-typed behaviors (Maccoby, 1998; Ruble
et al., 2006). Intergroup bias and felt pressure for gender differen-
tiation tend to decline over the school years. However, gender
contentedness tends to remain high (Egan & Perry, 2001; Rogers
& Meltzoff, 2014).
Although all three between-gender forms of gender identity may
have common roots in intergroup cognitions and fulfill similar early
functions, other factors also contribute to the development of each,
as described below. The result is that different children develop
different patterns of these forms of gender identity, leading to the
modest correlations among them.
Felt same-gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality rest
on children’s perceptions of differences among children of a given
gender and thus may be considered within-gender forms of gender
identity. Preschoolers sometimes gauge (and comment on) their
similarity to persons of a given gender, perhaps noticing an obvious
commonality, but it is probably not until children move into the
school years that they possess the cognitive abilities (e.g., social
comparison, comparison to a prototype) necessary to appraise their
overall similarity to a gender collective (Carver, Yunger, & Perry,
2003; Egan & Perry, 2001). Felt same-gender typicality tends to
increase through preadolescence, but felt other-gender typicality
follows no clear age trend (Pauletti et al., 2017).
Thus, during the early elementary school years, for most chil-
dren gender identity development involves a rebalancing of their
gender identity portfolio—letting go of immature between-gender
forms of gender identity (especially felt pressure for gender differ-
entiation and intergroup bias) and adding the ability to formulate
within-gender forms of gender identity. Nonetheless, throughout
the school years considerable individual differences exist among
children of each gender on all dimensions of gender identity.
Below we discuss the development of each form of gender
identity. We start by summarizing what leads some children to
persist in, or even to initiate, between-gender forms of gender
4 International Journal of Behavioral Development
identity post-preschool. We then turn to influences on within-
gender types of gender identity. Throughout this article, all effects
described as longitudinal, or as occurring over time, control for
initial level of the dependent variable.
Development of Between-Gender Forms of Gender
Identity
By late elementary school, fairly stable individual differences in
each between-gender form of gender identity have developed. A
few words about the development of each of these forms of gender
identity are in order.
Gender contentedness. Most children are fairly content with
their birth gender, but some express dissatisfaction. This is more
common for girls (Carver et al., 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001). Indeed,
today girls are more likely than boys to be referred to a clinic for
gender dysphoria, reversing a previous trend showing this to be
more common for boys (Aitken et al., 2015). Reasons for the
greater female discontent are unclear but may include the greater
status and other advantages enjoyed by males as well as boys’
greater reluctance to acknowledge gender discontent. For boys,
cross-sex interests tend to undermine popularity with peers and to
invite victimization; for girls, cross-gender interests are more likely
to enhance popularity (Braun & Davidson, 2017; Pauletti, Cooper,
& Perry, 2014).
Gender contentedness may be undermined by the desire to pos-
sess one or more cross-gender attributes, especially if perceived as
off-limits for one’s own gender. Such other-gender desiderata may
include personality traits, activity interests, nonverbal stylistic
attributes, playmate preferences, relationships styles, physical
attributes, sexual orientation, and still other qualities. Gender-
discontent children do often have cross-gender interests and traits
(Carver et al., 2003; Carver, Egan, & Perry, 2004; Egan & Perry,
2001; Hines, 2015; Menon, 2006; Steensma, Biemond, de Boer, &
Cohen-Kettenis, 2011). Further, as early as elementary school some
children question their heterosexuality (i.e., do not anticipate a
heterosexual future) and grow increasingly dissatisfied with their
gender over time (Carver et al., 2004). Gender contentedness may
also be undermined by repugnance toward one’s anatomy or certain
behaviors expected of one’s gender.
Attachment security—a child’s belief that a parent (or friend) is
available for help if needed for relief from distress or for support of
exploration—is associated with gender contentedness. Attachment
security is a cognitive and emotional resource that helps children
not only cope with stress but also to develop self-worth, self-
confidence, and communal relations with age-appropriate interac-
tion partners (e.g., same-gender peers; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986).
Insecure attachment (e.g., avoidance of intimacy or fear of rejec-
tion) is associated with gender discontent, especially if the attach-
ment is gender-atypical in nature (avoidant for girls, anxious for
boys; Cooper et al., 2013; Menon, 2011, 2017; Pauletti, Cooper,
Aults, Hodges, & Perry, 2016). Indeed, boys referred to clinics for
gender dysphoria often display an anxious, clingy attachment to
their mother (Zucker, Bradley, & Sullivan, 1996). Possibly, attach-
ment insecurity encourages children who perceive a salient cross-
gender attribute in themselves to conclude that an other-gender
identity would suit them better than a same-gender one.
Cognitive inflexibility may also contribute to gender dissatisfac-
tion. Rigidity of thought is a characteristic of autistic children, and
autistic children show an elevated rate of gender dysphoria (de
Vries, Noens, Cohen-Kettenis, Berckelaer-Onnes, & Doreleijers,
2010). Similar to attachment insecurity, cognitive rigidity may lead
children who perceive themselves to possess a salient cross-gender
attribute to speculate that they might be happier were they the other
gender (Hines, 2015).
Gender contentedness is also associated with several biological
factors (e.g., genes, prenatal and pubertal hormones, brain devel-
opment, temperament). Such factors may influence children’s
desires for, or possession of, gender-typed qualities that affect
gender contentedness, or they may influence gender contented-
ness more directly (Hines, 2015; Ruble et al., 2006; Steensma
et al., 2011).
All of the foregoing factors may contribute to variations in
children’s gender contentedness. Moreover, no single factor
appears to be either necessary or sufficient to cause gender dis-
content. Thus, there likely exist multiple routes to gender dissa-
tisfaction (as well as to the other forms of gender identity,
considered later).
Links between early expressions of gender dissatisfaction (e.g.,
a child’s occasional interest in cross-dressing) and subsequent seri-
ous gender dysphoria are not well understood (Hines, 2015). Young
children who wish they were the other gender usually outgrow this
wish by age 10 or 11 years (Steensma et al., 2011). One challenge
for future research is to identify moderator variables that predict
which children persist in this wish into adolescence. Another
question is whether all cases of serious gender dysphoria in ado-
lescence and adulthood are preceded by a clear wish to be the
other gender in childhood; perhaps some cases are preceded by
milder forms of gender dissatisfaction in earlier years. Given that
serious gender dysphoria in later years leads some people to con-
sider a profound, usually irreversible, life-altering decision—
changing their gender—it is unfortunate that so little is known
about its origins in childhood.
Felt pressure for gender differentiation. Like gender content-
edness, felt pressure for gender conformity is stronger for boys than
girls (Egan & Perry, 2001). This may reflect the greater stigma for
gender-atypical behavior boys experience (Ruble et al., 2006), but
no study has assessed the pressures children actually experience
(from parents, peers, media, etc.) and related them to children’s felt
pressure for gender conformity. This is unfortunate given that a
cornerstone principle of several theories is that children who expe-
rience strong social pressure for gender conformity eventually
internalize the prescriptive and proscriptive messages and self-
regulate accordingly (Bem, 1981; Bussey & Bandura, 1999;
Mischel, 1970; Perry & Bussey, 1984). Children do increasingly
resemble their friends’ level of felt pressure over time, however,
suggesting that socialization of felt pressure does occur, perhaps via
peer-group discussions and modeling (Kornienko, Santos, Martin,
& Granger, 2016).
Insecure maternal attachment (either avoidant or anxious) is
associated with felt pressure for gender differentiation, for both
girls and boys (Cooper et al., 2013; Pauletti et al., 2016). Moreover,
for boys an anxious style of relating to close friends predicts
increased felt pressure for gender conformity over time (Jackson,
2013). Other sources of insecurity contribute to felt pressure too.
Victimization by peers, internalizing difficulties, and low self-
efficacy for dominance or sports all portend increased felt pressure
for gender differentiation (Jackson, 2013; Yunger, Carver, & Perry,
2004). Three explanations for the contribution of insecurity to felt
pressure for gender conformity are noteworthy.
Perry et al.
First, because stress and insecurity retard normative develop-
mental transitions (Fischer, 1980; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986), they
may lock children into—or cause them to regress to—primitive
modes of thinking that encourage felt pressure for gender confor-
mity, such as intergroup cognitions or an entity theory of gender
(the belief that gender differences are biological and immutable).
Second, insecurity spawns fear-based avoidance motives rather
than reward-based approach motives (Higgins, 2012), and fear of
punishment for other-gender behavior represents an avoidance
motive. Third, a large social-psychology literature indicates that
when people feel anxious, helpless, or powerless, they tend to cate-
gorize people into we versus they, endorse social constraints and
punishments that maintain the distinction between the in-group and
the out-group, denigrate the out-group and inhibit behaviors typical
of it, and derive psychological benefits (e.g., self-esteem) from
engaging in these defensive maneuvers (Greenberg, Solomon, &
Arndt, 2008; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Koole, & Solomon, 2010).
Perhaps insecure children adopt gender-differentiating self-guides
because they provide solace. That is, gender self-guides may offer
them a clear and reassuring roadmap for navigating a world they
otherwise would experience as frightening and unpredictable (Yun-
ger et al., 2004).
Intergroup bias. Girls are more likely than boys to express in-
group favoritism—to attribute more positive and fewer negative
qualities to their own gender collective than to the other (Carver
et al., 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001). The reasons for this are unclear,
though it may reflect girls’ tendencies to experience boys as bossy,
rough, and aversive (Maccoby, 1998).
Little is known about the causes of individual differences in
intergroup bias. However, children increasingly resemble their
friends’ intergroup bias over time, raising the possibility of peer
socialization (Kornienko et al., 2016). Also, low self-confidence
(poor self-esteem and low self-efficacy for sports or for dominance)
contributes to intergroup bias over time (Jackson, 2013), perhaps
for the same reasons that insecurity fosters felt pressure for gender
conformity.
Development of Within-Gender Forms of Gender
Identity
By age 3 years, between-gender forms of gender identity are likely
to have spurred most children to interact primarily with same-
gender peers and to value fitting in with them. By elementary
school, children possess the cognitive capabilities necessary to
compare themselves to peers of a given gender on gender-
differentiated attributes and to estimate their overall similarity to
peers of that gender (Egan & Perry, 2001; Harter, 2006). It is
unclear how often children formulate such estimates spontaneously
on their own versus in response to contextual cues (e.g., peer teas-
ing, requests from researchers), but elementary school (and older
preschool) children can and do produce reliable and stable esti-
mates of their same- and other-gender typicality when requested
(Martin et al., 2017; Pauletti et al., 2017). Here we summarize
theory and research on how these estimates develop.
Felt same-gender typicality. According to several cognitive
theories (Egan & Perry, 2001; Martin, 2000; Perry & Bussey,
1979; Spence, 1985; Spence & Buckner, 1995; Tobin et al.,
2010), children develop conceptions of the typical or ideal person
of their gender and occasionally compare their own qualities to
these standards to estimate their similarity to their gender
5
collective. These theories further suggest that children differ not
only in the particular gender-typed characteristics they possess but
also in their conceptions of the typical or ideal person of their
gender. Thus, to reach conclusions about their gender typicality,
each child employs an idiosyncratic calculus that weights her or his
gender-typed attributes according to their salience and positions in
a personal hierarchy of perceived importance.
Presumably, most children most of the time are able to identify
in themselves a sufficient amount of gender-congruent attributes to
feel comfortably gender typical and acceptable to peers (and hence
themselves). Occasionally, however, children may perceive a sali-
ent shortcoming in their gender typing that threatens their felt typi-
cality (e.g., a girl who believes beauty is essential for females
realizes she is unattractive). Such instances motivate children to
adopt a replacement gender-typed attribute, or at least to assign
greater weight to alternate gender-typed attributes that they do
possess, so that their summary estimate of gender typicality can
return to a higher level (Spence & Hall, 1996). However, some
children experience chronic felt gender atypicality. They may have
difficulty cognitively repairing temporary threats to their typicality,
or they may perceive in themselves a salient (and perhaps
unwanted) cross-gender attribute that they fear will last a long time.
The 10-year-old girl who prefers rough play with boys over inter-
action with other girls or the 13-year-old boy who is coming to
realize he is gay may struggle with a profound sense of gender
atypicality lasting many formative years.
The hypothesis that children’s self-perceptions of gender-typed
characteristics influence their felt same-gender typicality is well
supported. Indirect evidence comes from the fact that boys score
higher than girls on felt same-gender typicality. This supports the
hypothesis because boys tend to be more gender-typed in their
activity preferences than girls (Ruble et al., 2006), and thus boys
on average have a stronger behavioral basis for inferring same-
gender typicality.
More direct evidence comes from studies relating children’s
self-perceptions of gender-typed attributes to their felt same-
gender typicality. In one study, children’s self-perceptions on seven
dimensions of gender typing (same-gender interests, other-gender
interests, same-gender traits, other-gender traits, liking for same-
gender peers, liking for other-gender peers, and expectation of a
heterosexual future) cumulatively accounted for about one-third of
the variance in children’s felt same-gender typicality (Egan &
Perry, 2001). Other studies suggest similar conclusions (Carver
et al., 2003; Corby, Hodges, & Perry, 2007; Martin et al., 2017;
Vantieghem, Vermeersch, & van Houtte, 2014). Moreover, certain
gender-typed attributes predict change in felt same-gender typical-
ity over time. For example, children who do not expect a hetero-
sexual future or who view themselves as relating to parents or
friends in a gender-atypical away (avoidant for girls, anxious for
boys) feel decreasingly gender-typical over time (Carver et al.,
2004; Jackson, 2013; Menon, 2017).
A limitation of these studies is that they did not assess children’s
conceptions of the attributes that make for the ideal or typical child
of their gender and thus could not test the hypothesis that children
estimate their gender typicality by weighting their attributes
according to their ranks in a personal hierarchy of gender relevance.
However, a study by Menon (2006) supported the full model. In this
study, children’s felt same-gender typicality was concurrently asso-
ciated with the degree to which children’s self-perceptions of 62
behaviors matched the children’s ratings of the gender appropriate-
ness of the behaviors. (For each child, a correlation was computed
6 International Journal of Behavioral Development
between the child’s 62 self-perception ratings and the child’s 62
ratings of same-gender appropriateness, and these per-child corre-
lations predicted children’s felt gender typicality.)
Despite its appeal, the cognitive model may overstate the com-
plexity of many children’s (and adults’) estimates of their gender
typicality. Perhaps many people assess their gender typicality more
economically on the basis of a small number of highly gender-
differentiated attributes. Indeed, perceiving the self to possess even
a single salient cross-sex attribute (e.g., a sexual orientation, man-
nerism, or activity preference characteristic of the other gender)
may be enough to undermine many persons’ felt same-gender typi-
cality, perhaps especially if they feel pressure for gender confor-
mity. Research is needed to determine how the content and breadth
of children’s criteria for feeling gender typical—their
“contingencies of gender typicality”—develop.
Cognitive explanations have dominated theories about the
development of felt same-gender typicality. However, social and
emotional factors appear to play a role as well. For example, secure
attachment to parents or friends promotes felt same-gender typical-
ity whereas avoidant or anxious attachment (especially when gen-
der-atypical) undermines it (Cooper et al., 2013; Menon, 2011,
2017; Pauletti et al., 2014, 2016).
Felt other-gender typicality. Little attention has been paid to
the development of felt other-gender typicality, but it is reasonable
to assume that self-observation of salient other-gender attributes
contributes to this index of gender identity (Martin et al., 2017;
Pauletti et al., 2017). Girls engage in more cross-gender behavior
than boys do (Ruble et al., 2006), and girls score far higher than
boys on felt other-gender typicality. Moreover, the Menon (2006)
study (which showed that children’s felt same-gender typicality
could be predicted from their self-perceptions of behaviors rated
as same-gender-appropriate) included a measure of felt other-
gender typicality; this measure was positively correlated with
children’s self-perceptions of behaviors they rated as cross-
gender-appropriate (and negatively correlated with their self-
perceptions of behaviors they viewed as same-gender-appropriate).
Felt other-gender typicality is negatively correlated not only
with felt same-gender typicality but also with gender contentedness
and felt pressure for gender differentiation. Low levels of these
other forms of gender identity may encourage children to interact
with other-gender peers, reduce the time they spend with same-
gender peers, and lead them to develop cross-gender behaviors; this
is likely to result in self-appraisals of similarity to the other gender
(Kornienko et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2017).
Two other cognitive features of children who feel other-gender-
typical are noteworthy. First, these children eschew the belief that
gender differences are biologically fixed (entity theory of gender);
instead, they believe that boys can learn to be like girls and vice
versa (Menon, 2006). Second, these children (especially girls) score
high on gender frustration (Pauletti et al., 2017), that is, they find
societal prohibitions against behaving in other-gender ways to be
unjust and distressing. The causal relations between felt other-
gender typicality and these other variables have yet to be unraveled,
but they suggest that children who acknowledge similarity to the
other gender possess a rather sophisticated, liberated attitude
toward gender roles. Their identification with their own gender may
be somewhat weaker than other children’s (their gender contented-
ness and felt same-gender typicality are lower), but they do not
believe that gender differences are biologically rooted, they are
cognizant of—and bothered by—the injustice of prohibitions
against cross-gender behavior, and they reject these prohibitions
as guides for their own behavior (they feel little pressure to avoid
other-gender behavior).
Comment on the Development of Gender Identity
Much remains to be learned about the development of individual
differences in gender identity. The lack of research examining
influences of the social environment on children’s gender identity
is especially surprising given the central role such influences are
thought to play in the development of felt pressure for gender con-
formity (Bem, 1993; Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Children do
increasingly resemble their friends’ felt pressure and intergroup
bias (Kornienko et al., 2016), but the mediating social mechanisms
have yet to be identified.
Also surprising is the ubiquitous role that feelings of security
versus insecurity play in gender identity development. Consistent
with attachment theory (Cooper et al., 2013; Sroufe, Bennett, Eng-
lund, Urban, & Shulman, 1993), secure attachment supports two
forms of gender identity that are normative for school children
(gender contentedness and felt same-gender typicality), whereas
insecure attachment supports two forms that usually decline over
the school years and tend to cause adjustment problems (felt pres-
sure for gender differentiation and intergroup bias).
Other sources of insecurity besides attachment insecurity also
contribute to felt pressure for gender conformity (e.g., social anxi-
ety, victimization by peers). Perhaps felt pressure for gender differ-
entiation is a defensive reaction latched onto by insecure children
because it gives them comfort, that is, insecure children may
believe (unconsciously) that gender conformity will earn them peer
acceptance and stave off feelings of insecurity.
More research on possible biological contributions to individual
differences in gender identity is needed. Although some inroads on
this topic have been made (Hines, 2015; Ruble et al., 2006), firm
conclusions are not yet available. Studies examining how biological
factors interact with cognitive, social, and behavioral variables to
affect gender identity may prove particularly informative.
Consequences of Gender Identity
We now consider the ways that gender identity influences chil-
dren’s (a) psychosocial adjustment and (b) adoption of gender-
typed behaviors. We start by summarizing theory, then review the
relevant research.
Theory: Past and Present
Gender identity and adjustment. A longstanding, central hypoth-
esis of most theories of gender development is that children who
feel compatible with their gender—who are content with their gen-
der and feel similar to others of their gender—experience better
personal and social adjustment (e.g., self-esteem, peer acceptance)
than children less comfortable with their gender (Bailey & Zucker,
1995; Egan & Perry, 2001; Kagan, 1964; Kohlberg, 1966; Spence
& Buckner, 1995). Presumably, the latter children fear ostracism,
denial of privileges, or loss of protection from peers (Bugental &
Goodnow, 1998; Caporael & Brewer, 1991) or simply feel inade-
quate as group members (Kohlberg, 1969; Tajfel, 1982). Thus,
children who are dissatisfied with their gender or view themselves
as gender-atypical are expected to suffer anxiety, sadness, low self-
esteem, social withdrawal, self-deprecation, and other forms of
Perry et al.
distress; this in turn may lead them to experience peer rejection or
victimization (e.g., Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988).
These hypotheses remain popular and receive support. How-
ever, we shall see that neither high gender contentedness nor high
felt same-gender typicality is always an unmitigated blessing. For
example, if children endorse stereotypes specifying that their gen-
der is superior to the other, then high gender contentedness fosters
narcissism; and if children view themselves as very dissimilar to the
other gender, then high felt same-gender typicality is associated
with gender-polarizing cognition (e.g., sexist stereotypes, in-
group favoritism). Moreover, neither low gender contentedness nor
low felt same-gender typicality inevitably causes children distress:
it is mainly when children feel pressure for gender conformity that
felt incompatibility with their gender causes them problems.
Such qualifications indicate that the effects of felt same-gender
compatibility depend on other factors in a child’s psyche. Here we
describe four interaction hypotheses that help organize the data we
later review concerning the ways that children’s gender identity
affects their personal and social adjustment.
First is Bem’s (1981, 1993) androgyny hypothesis. In her
influential theory of psychological androgyny, Bem (1981, 1993)
proposed that felt same-gender typicality interacts with felt other-
gender typicality to affect mental health. She suggested that high
felt same-gender similarity is healthy only if people also view
themselves as similar to the other gender. She argued that persons
who view themselves as similar only to their own gender have
internalized their culture’s pressure for gender conformity and pos-
sess the harmful gender schema she described. This was expected to
cause them frustration, unhappiness, gender-polarizing cognition,
rigidity in gendered behavior and thought, and relationship diffi-
culties. Although Bem believed that people who view themselves as
similar to both genders lack this crippling gender straitjacket, she
did not suggest they deliberately strive to be similar to persons of
both genders (i.e., to be both “masculine” and “feminine”). Instead,
she believed that androgynous persons are equipped to acquire
qualities of both genders because gender is simply irrelevant to
their identity and life choices.
There are problems with Bem’s (1981, 1993) theorizing (e.g.,
people may regard themselves as more similar to their own gender
than to the other for reasons other than a crippling gender schema)
and with her research methods (e.g., Bem relied on self-perceptions
of agentic and communal traits to assess male typicality and female
typicality, respectively). These limitations rendered much of the
early research on her ideas hard to interpret (for critiques, see
Spence & Buckner, 1995; Tobin et al., 2010). However, as we shall
see, recent studies that overcome the limitations support Bem’s
belief that viewing the self as similar to both genders offers certain
advantages over viewing the self as similar to only one.
A second interaction hypothesis is the stereotype emulation
hypothesis, or the idea that gender identity motivates children to
adopt attributes they have encoded as appropriate for their gender
(e.g., Martin, 2000; Tobin et al., 2010). Stereotype emulation is
believed to contribute to children’s adoption of gender-typed beha-
viors, discussed later, but because many gender-typed attributes
also capture aspects of children’s adjustment (e.g., aggression,
depression, sports efficacy, nurturance), the hypothesis is relevant
here as well. We shall see that the three between-gender forms of
gender identity (gender contentedness, felt pressure for gender con-
formity, and intergroup bias) are especially likely to combine with
children’s gender stereotypes to affect their well-being, often in
ways harmful to them or their interaction partners.
7
Third is the gender self-discrepancy hypothesis, or the idea that
low felt same-gender compatibility (low gender contentedness or
low felt same-gender typicality) causes distress among children
who possess strongly gender-differentiating cognition (e.g., felt
pressure for gender differentiation, prescriptive stereotypes that
mandate gender differences, entity theory of gender). Presumably,
the combination of felt gender incompatibility with strong gender
standards creates a painful gender self-discrepancy—a gap between
the need to be gender-conforming and the realization that one is
failing. Such gaps can create intense distress, frustration, loss of
self-regulatory control, aggression, and other problems (Carver
et al., 2003; Cooper, 2014; Egan & Perry, 2001; Higgins, 1987;
Pauletti et al., 2014).
Fourth, is a protective function hypothesis, or the idea that strong
felt same-gender compatibility protects children from the poten-
tially harmful effects of certain cognitive, behavioral, and social
risk factors (Yunger, Vagi, Corby, & Perry, 2003). We shall see that
felt same-gender typicality uniquely serves in this protective capac-
ity, possibly by imparting a sense of security that helps children
cope with stressors.
Gender identity and gender typing. Gender identity has also
been suggested to affect children’s gender typing—their gender-
differentiated recreational interests, academic pursuits, personality
traits, choices of playmates, relationship styles, mannerisms, cloth-
ing choices, and so forth. Two pathways by which gender identity
influences children’s adoption of gender-typed attributes have
received the most attention.
First, in a peer-socialization pathway, gender identity affects the
gender(s) of children’s preferred interaction partners as well as
children’s susceptibility to influence by peers of each gender. Har-
ris (1995) offered a cogent two-process developmental theory of
peer socialization of gender that, with amplification, provides a
useful framework for considering the role of gender identity in this
pathway.
Harris (1995) proposed that peer socialization of gender gets
underway in an initial process of between-gender differentiation.
In this process, early gender identity (gender self-categorization)
and associated intergroup cognitions (in-group favoritism, homo-
genization of the out-group) lead young children to interact primar-
ily with peers of their own gender. This results in sex-segregated
interaction. Harris viewed this process as a fairly normative one
with few individual differences. However, not all children play
exclusively with same-gender peers, and individual differences in
gender identity may influence the gender mix of children’s pre-
ferred interaction partners, leading some children to interact mainly
with same-gender peers, some to interact with a mix of male and
female peers, and a few to interact mainly with other-gender peers.
For example, gender identity may affect the assumptions children
make about their likely compatibility with peers of a particular
gender or affect the personal and social consequences children
anticipate for associating with peers of a particular gender (Bussey
& Bandura, 1999; Bussey & Perry, 1976; Kagan, 1964; Kohlberg,
1969; Martin, 2000). All five dimensions of gender identity may
participate in such ways (with felt other-gender typicality predict-
ing lesser rather than greater interest in same-sex peers).
Once between-gender differentiation is underway, Harris’
(1995) second process of within-gender differentiation begins. In
this process, different children of the same gender develop different
same-gender-typed attributes, with each child’s attributes depend-
ing on the particular same-gender peer subgroup(s) the child has
joined as well as the child’s unique temperament, interests,
8 International Journal of Behavioral Development
abilities, opportunities, and values. Gender identity may matter here
too. Because children are attracted to same-gender peers whose
behaviors, attitudes, relationship styles, and other attributes resem-
ble their own (Hodges, Finnegan, & Perry, 1999; Rubin et al.,
2006), they may gravitate toward same-gender peers whose gender
identity resembles their own; further, they may be particularly sub-
ject to influence by these peers’ behaviors, attitudes, and identities
(Kornienko et al., 2016). For example, girls who view themselves
as very girly may befriend each other and interact in ways that
cause them both to behave hyper-femininely. Again, all five gender
identity variables may contribute.
A second pathway via which gender identity influences chil-
dren’s gender-typing is a self-socialization pathway. This involves
the stereotype emulation mechanism described earlier. As children
age, they increasingly represent gender differences cognitively in
the form of descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes, acquired
mainly by observing differences between the sexes in their beha-
viors. In the self-socialization pathway, gender identity leads chil-
dren to adopt behaviors they have encoded as same-gender
appropriate (Bem, 1993; Kohlberg, 1969; Liben & Bigler, 2002;
Maccoby, 1988; Martin & Halverson, 1981; Martin, Ruble, &
Szkrybalo, 2002; Perry, Pauletti, Cooper, & Handrinos, 2012;
Tobin et al., 2010).
Although all five gender identity variables may fuel both peer-
socialization and self-socialization of gender typing, two gender
identity dimensions have received more attention than the others
in theoretical accounts—felt same-gender typicality and felt pres-
sure for gender conformity. Perceived similarity has long been
suggested to foster children’s attraction to, and imitation of, similar
others, not only in cognitive-developmental theories (Kagan, 1964;
Kohlberg, 1969; Martin, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006) but also in social-
cognitive accounts (Bandura, 1986; Bussey & Perry, 1976; Perry &
Bussey, 1979; Tobin et al., 2010). Internalized social pressure has
also been assigned importance, especially in social-cognitive
accounts (Bandura, 1986; Bem, 1993; Bussey & Bandura, 1999;
Liben & Bigler, 2002; Mischel, 1970). Other forms of gender iden-
tity have been given short shrift. We later contend that this may be
an unfortunate oversight.
There may be other ways in which gender identity affects chil-
dren’s gender typing besides peer- and self-socialization. For exam-
ple, gender identity may influence children’s attention to, or
acceptance of, parental or media messages about gender. These
other possibilities have yet to be given much theoretical or empiri-
cal attention, however.
Below we first consider how gender identity affects children’s
personal and social adjustment, considering how each gender iden-
tity variable contributes individually (i.e., as a statistical main
effect) as well as in interaction with other variables to influence
adjustment outcomes. We then consider how gender identity affects
children’s gender-typed attributes. As we noted, some gender-typed
attributes are also indexes of adjustment, and our discussion at
times reflects this overlap.
Influences of Gender Identity on Adjustment
Gender contentedness. As expected, gender contentedness often is
associated with positive outcomes for children of both genders,
concurrently and longitudinally. These include greater self-
esteem, higher self-perceived peer social competence as well as
actual acceptance by peers, increased felt same-gender typicality,
healthier attachments to parents and close friends, less depression,
fewer peer-reported internalizing problems (e.g., social withdrawal,
sadness, anxiety), and less victimization by peers (Carver et al.,
2003; Cooper et al., 2013; Egan & Perry, 2001; Menon, 2011,
2017; Pauletti et al., 2014, 2016; Yunger et al., 2004). However,
gender contentedness sometimes also predicts narcissism, for chil-
dren of both sexes (Pauletti et al., 2014); this suggests that the
generally positive self-concept of highly gender-content children
may have an egotistical element.
Some correlates of gender contentedness are more gender-
specific. For girls, gender contentedness tends to be associated with
communal behavior, self-perceived physical attractiveness, low
externalizing behavior, and low avoidant attachment to parents. For
boys, it more often is associated with agentic behavior, low commu-
nal behavior, intergroup bias, and absence of anxious, preoccupied
relationships with parents and close friends (Carver et al., 2003;
Cooper et al., 2013; Egan & Perry, 2001; Pauletti et al., 2016).
As indicated, the adjustment consequences of gender contented-
ness sometimes depend on other cognitive and behavioral attributes
that children may possess. The findings provide evidence for both
the stereotype emulation and self-discrepancy interaction hypoth-
eses. (All subsequent statements indicating that two variable inter-
act, or combine, to influence an outcome, are supported by
significant interaction terms, with follow-up tests showing that the
effect of one predictor hinges on level of the other in the way
described.)
Consistent with the stereotype emulation hypothesis, if highly
gender-content children believe that an antisocial or other self-
promoting attribute (e.g., dominance) is more common or desirable
for their gender than for the other, they tend to say that they too
possess the attribute (Menon, 2006; Perry et al., 2012). In a similar
vein, if they believe that their gender is the more proficient at an
academic subject (e.g., reading, math, science, language, or art),
they tend to perceive their own competence at the subject to be high
as well. Although these outcomes may enhance children’s self-
esteem, they may contribute to the narcissism of some high-
gender-content children. High gender contentedness does not
appear to spur children’s emulation of stereotypes that prescribe
less ego-boosting traits for their gender (e.g., prosocial behavior).
Gender contentedness also interacts with traditional sexist
stereotypes that grant males power and privilege over females.
According to the stereotype emulation hypothesis, high gender con-
tentedness should lead sexist boys to develop dominance and lead
sexist girls to become submissive. However, highly gender-content
children of both sexes who endorse sexist stereotypes become more
aggressive and narcissistic over time (Pauletti et al., 2014). Thus,
even highly gender-content girls are somehow empowered by sexist
beliefs that relegate them to an inferior, passive status. Perhaps
gender contentedness causes sexist girls to see benefits for them-
selves in sexist roles (e.g., to see males as protectors and providers),
leading to ego-enhancing outcomes.
Gender contentedness also interacts with other variables in ways
consistent with the self-discrepancy hypothesis. Children of both
sexes who are dissatisfied with their gender yet feel strong pressure
for gender conformity (or possess other gender prescriptions,
including sexist stereotypes prescribing male dominance over
females) experience depression, peer-reported internalizing diffi-
culties, and related social problems (e.g., peer victimization; Egan
& Perry, 2001; Perry et al., 2012). Thus, endorsement of strong
gender-differentiating stereotypes constitute gender “oughts” that
create a painful self-discrepancy for children who are unhappy with
Perry et al.
their gender. The problems of children with this self-discrepancy
are not limited to internalizing symptoms, however, because these
children also tend to be aggressive. When people possess an “ought
self-discrepancy” (i.e., feel they should be something they are not),
they tend to experience agitated distress when their self-
discrepancy is made salient; this leads to problems of self-
regulation (Higgins, 1987) and may account for their aggression.
Consistent with this possibility, children with a gender self-
discrepancy tend to direct their aggression toward gender-
nonconforming peers (i.e., peers who prefer other-gender activities
and playmates); perhaps such peers pique their gender self-
discrepancy (Pauletti et al., 2014).
Gender discontent also causes problems for children who are
overtly gender-nonconforming (as perceived by peers). Gender-
nonconforming boys who are unhappy with their gender suffer a
loss of self-esteem over time, perhaps fearing that their gender
dissatisfaction and cross-gender inclinations will endure, prove dif-
ficult to regulate, and lead to other later difficulties. Gender-
nonconforming girls who are gender-discontent also suffer distress.
Most gender-nonconforming girls are popular, athletic, and confi-
dent, but those who are gender-discontent are vulnerable to depres-
sion (Pauletti et al., 2014).
In summary, although high gender contentedness often benefits
children, it can combine with gender prescriptions to create self-
serving, egotistical outcomes. Although low gender contentedness
often disadvantages children, it does not inevitably do so; it pre-
sents problems for children mainly when combined with gender
mandates, leading to a painful self-discrepancy. These interaction
effects support the stereotype emulation and gender self-
discrepancy hypotheses.
Felt pressure for gender differentiation. As Bem (1981, 1993)
and others (e.g., Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Egan & Perry, 2001)
predicted, children who feel pressure to avoid other-sex behavior
often develop adjustment problems, concurrently and longitudin-
ally. These consequences tend to be gender-specific. For girls, felt
pressure for gender conformity predicts depression, low self-
esteem, peer-reported internalizing difficulties, peer rejection, peer
victimization (especially by boys), anxious attachments to parents
and friends, low self-efficacy for sports (and other agentic beha-
viors), and sexist beliefs disparaging females. Boys who feel strong
pressure for gender conformity are prone to narcissism, intergroup
bias, aggression, low prosocial behavior, and sometimes depression
and internalizing symptoms (Carver et al., 2003; Egan & Perry,
2001; Pauletti et al., 2014; Perry et al., 2012; Yunger et al.,
2004). However, in one study boys with high felt pressure were
high achievers in math (Perry & Sharif, 2002). Also, felt pressure is
sometimes associated with reduced internalizing symptoms for
boys; however, this may be limited to cultures where gender norms
advantage males (e.g., Hispanic culture, India; Corby et al., 2007;
Menon and Hannah-Fisher, in press).
High felt pressure for gender conformity also combines with
other factors to cause difficulties for children (or their interaction
partners). These interactions provide evidence for the stereotype
emulation and self-discrepancy hypotheses.
Similar to high gender contentedness, high felt pressure for
gender conformity encourages emulation of stereotypes that pre-
scribe antisocial or self-serving behavior for one’s gender. If chil-
dren believe it is more desirable or more common for persons of
their gender to be popular, dominant, or aggressive, then felt pres-
sure encourages self- as well as peer-perceived possession of the
attribute (Perry et al., 2012). Felt pressure tends not to encourage
9
emulation of stereotypes that prescribe healthier behaviors for one’s
gender (in this sense, it functions similarly to high gender content-
edness). Further, felt pressure spurs children of both sexes to emu-
late traditional sexist stereotypes that accord males power over
females. Boys who harbor such stereotypes and feel pressure for
gender conformity tend to develop externalizing problems—dom-
inance and aggression, especially toward girls. However, girls who
feel pressure and believe they should defer to males develop an
alarming array of internalizing problems and related peer difficul-
ties—low self-esteem, low self-efficacy for sports, low academic
self-efficacy, low body satisfaction, and peer-perceived submis-
siveness, helplessness, anxiety, social withdrawal, and victimiza-
tion by peers. Thus, felt pressure for gender conformity causes
straightforward emulation of sexist, male-advantaging stereotypes
for girls as well as boys (in this respect, it functions differently from
high gender contentedness; Pauletti et al., 2014; Perry et al., 2012).
High felt pressure for gender conformity combines with self-
and peer-perceived incompatibility with one’s gender to create
painful gender self-discrepancies. We saw that felt pressure for
gender conformity creates a self-discrepancy if children are discon-
tent with their gender, but it also does so if children feel different
from same-gender peers, if they feel similar to other-gender peers,
or if they are perceived by peers as gender-nonconforming. Thus,
there are several ways in which high felt pressure for gender con-
formity can pathologize children’s uncertainty over their fit with
their gender. In each case, girls as well as boys risk serious personal
and social difficulties—depression, low self-esteem, low body
satisfaction, low academic self-efficacy, peer-reported internalizing
symptoms, peer rejection and victimization, and aggression (espe-
cially toward girls and gender-atypical peers; Aults, 2016; Carver
et al., 2003; Cooper, 2014; Pauletti et al., 2014; Perry et al., 2012;
Yunger et al., 2003, 2004).
In summary, strong felt pressure for gender conformity com-
bines with other risk factors to affect children adversely. It
encourages emulation of problematic gender stereotypes and causes
considerable difficulties for children who question their fit with
their gender. These findings support the stereotype emulation and
self-discrepancy hypotheses.
Intergroup bias. In-group favoritism is sometimes a strategy
for maintaining self-esteem (Taylor & Brown, 1988), but it can also
undermine cooperative, respectful interactions with other-gender
peers and ultimately lead to interpersonal problems, rejection by
peers of both genders, and low self-esteem (Bigler, Jones, & Lobli-
ner, 1997; Egan & Perry, 2001; Kornienko et al., 2016; Powlishta,
1995). It is associated with endorsement of sexist stereotypes, for
children of both sexes.
A few sex differences in the correlates of in-group favoritism are
noteworthy. Girls with strong intergroup bias are perceived by
peers to be submissive, rarely aggressive toward other girls, and
depressed; they have low self-worth and report low self-efficacy for
sports, popularity, and physical attractiveness. Boys with strong in-
group favoritism tend to be narcissistic (despite their low self-
esteem), report that it is easy to display dominance and inhibit
tenderness, and deny depressive symptoms; they are not well liked
by peers but, surprisingly, are nonetheless viewed as popular
(Pauletti et al., 2014).
Interactions of intergroup bias with other variables have not
been extensively explored. However, in-group favoritism
encourages narcissism among children of either sex who believe
that dominance is desirable for their gender or who espouse sexist
beliefs advantaging males over females (Pauletti et al., 2014). By
10
encouraging narcissism among sexist girls as well as boys, inter-
group bias functions more like gender contentedness than like felt
pressure for gender conformity.
Felt same-gender typicality. As expected, children who
perceive themselves as similar to same-gender peers report higher
self-esteem, lower depression, higher self-perceived peer social
competence, and more secure relationships with close friends (less
preoccupied or avoidant); they also are viewed by peers (of both
sexes) as likable, prosocial, lacking internalizing difficulties, and
rarely victimized (Bos & Sandfort, 2010; Carver et al., 2003; Corby
et al., 2007; Drury, Bukowski, Velasquez, & Stella-Lopez, 2013;
Egan & Perry, 2001; Jewell & Brown, 2014; Martin et al., 2017;
Menon, 2011; Pauletti et al., 2014, 2017; Smith & Leaper, 2006;
Young & Sweeting, 2004; Yu, Winter, & Xie, 2010; Zosuls,
Andrews, Martin, England, & Field, 2016). The advantages of felt
same-gender typicality remain evident even when multiple mea-
sures of children’s gender typing (e.g., gender-typical personality
traits, activity preferences, interaction partners, sexual identity) are
statistically controlled, indicating that children’s omnibus summary
appraisals of gender typicality are important beyond influences of
specific aspects of gender typing (Egan & Perry, 2001). The ben-
efits of felt same-gender typicality for self-esteem are evident not
only for North American children but also for children in Britain,
China, Colombia, India, and the Netherlands. Rarely is felt same-
gender typicality associated with a negative outcome, though occa-
sionally it is associated with aggression, for children of both sexes
(Pauletti et al., 2014; Yunger et al., 2004). Unlike other gender
identity variables, there are no consistent gender differences in the
adjustment correlates of felt same-gender typicality.
Felt same-gender typicality also interacts with other variables to
affect children’s well-being. In contrast to high levels of between-
gender forms of gender identity, there is slim evidence that high felt
same-gender typicality fosters emulation of harmful gender stereo-
types (or even of more benign gender stereotypes). This is some-
what surprising given the theoretical emphasis on perceived
similarity to a gender as a motivator of stereotype emulation
(e.g., Martin, 2000; Tobin et al., 2010). However, felt same-
gender typicality combines with other variables in ways consistent
with three other interaction hypotheses—the gender self-
discrepancy, protective function, and androgyny hypotheses.
Consistent with the self-discrepancy hypothesis, children who
feel different from others of their gender tend to develop internaliz-
ing (and sometimes externalizing) problems if they also feel strong
pressure for gender conformity (e.g., Carver et al., 2003). Children
who appraise themselves as gender atypical but feel little pressure
for conformity are relatively free of such problems. Thus, despite
the benefits of high felt same-gender typicality, low felt typicality is
not inevitably harmful.
In accord with the protective function hypothesis, high felt
same-gender typicality buffers children from the negative conse-
quences of potentially harmful social and cognitive risk factors.
Several examples are noteworthy. First, high felt same-gender typi-
cality protects victimized children (and adults) from the internaliz-
ing problems and low self-esteem that typically result from
victimization (Aults, 2016; Pauletti et al., 2014; Szucs, Schindler,
Reinhard, & Stahberg, 2014; Yunger et al., 2003). Second, high felt
same-gender typicality minimizes the distress of children who per-
ceive themselves as deficient in some important aspect of social or
personal functioning: children who lack self-efficacy for aca-
demics, sports, physical attractiveness, or making friends are
unlikely to become depressed or to lose self-esteem if they feel
International Journal of Behavioral Development
similar rather than dissimilar to same-gender peers (Pauletti et al.,
2014; Perry et al., 2012). Third, high felt same-gender typicality
protects children who believe they possess demonstration attributes
(attributes that garner attention and admiration from peers, such as
physical attractiveness or athleticism) from becoming narcissistic:
children who acknowledge such qualities develop narcissistic ten-
dencies if they feel dissimilar to same-gender peers but not if they
feel similar to them (Perry et al., 2012).
What accounts for these diverse protective effects of felt same-
gender typicality? Perhaps high felt same-gender typicality reflects
a confident sense that one’s same-gender peers (at least a subset of
them) are available for fun, intimacy, companionship, affection,
support, protection, and other crucial affordances of the peer group.
Children who enjoy this sense of security may minimize the neg-
ative implications of peer victimization, peer rejection, or a self-
perceived inadequacy, and they may have little need to derive
narcissistic motivation from self-perception of traits that garner
peer admiration.
Finally, there is evidence for Bem’s (1981, 1993) androgyny
hypothesis. Consistent with Bem’s thesis, if children perceive
themselves as similar only to their own gender, they tend to display
signs of the gender-polarizing cognitive schema she described. That
is, compared to children who view themselves as similar to both
genders (i.e., children with more androgynous identity), children
who see themselves as similar only to their own gender report
greater pressure for gender differentiation, intergroup bias, and
sexist beliefs, and they have less expectation of friendly interaction
with other-gender peers; they do not, however, have lower self-
esteem (Martin et al., 2017; Pauletti et al., 2017).
Felt other-gender typicality. Little is known about the conse-
quences of felt other-gender typicality. However, when considered
as an independent predictor of adjustment, felt similarity to other-
gender peers is associated with low self-esteem (Pauletti et al.,
2017), victimization by peers (Zosuls et al., 2016), and, for girls,
agentic behavior (Menon, 2006).
Relatively little research examines interactions of felt other-
gender typicality with other variables. Nonetheless, consistent with
the androgyny hypothesis, it is when children feel similar only to
the other gender that they suffer low self-esteem and internalizing
problems: if they feel similar to both genders, they tend not to have
these problems (Martin et al., 2017; Pauletti et al., 2017). Thus,
androgyny offers advantages over both same-gender-only identity
and other-gender-only identity. Its advantage over the former is less
gender-polarizing cognition (see above); its advantage over the
latter is fewer internalizing difficulties.
We should caution that children identified as androgynous (i.e.,
children who score higher than same-sex peers on both felt same-
gender typicality and felt other-gender typicality) rarely score as
high on felt other-gender typicality as on felt same-gender typical-
ity in absolute terms (Martin et al., 2017; Pauletti et al., 2017).
Thus, it is probably accurate to characterize these children as
having a primary same-gender identity coupled with a secondary
other-gender one. Indeed, other-gender qualities (e.g., cross-sex
friendships) and identity may benefit children primarily when
auxiliary to a strong sense of same-gender typicality (Bukowski,
Panarello, & Santo, 2017; Kovacs, Parker, & Hoffman, 1996;
Martin et al., 2017; Ullian, 1976).
Moreover, even though felt other-gender typicality may protect
children who feel same-gender typical from developing gender-
polarizing cognition, it does not offer the same range of protective
functions as does felt same-gender typicality. For example, high felt
Perry et al.
other-gender typicality does not protect children from stressors that
cause internalizing problems (e.g., victimization by peers; Martin
et al., 2017; Pauletti et al., 2017).
High felt other-gender typicality can also figure in painful gen-
der self-discrepancies. If high felt other-gender typicality occurs in
conjunction with gender “oughts” (e.g., felt pressure for same-
gender conformity, prescriptive gender stereotypes), children tend
to experience depression, body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and
low academic self-efficacy (Pauletti et al., 2017).
Thus, felt other-gender typicality and felt same-gender typicality
do not offer children equivalent adjustment benefits. Instead, the
consequences of felt other-gender typicality hinge on children’s level
of felt same-gender typicality. If children feel same-gender–typical,
felt other-gender typicality offers the benefit of reduced gender-
polarizing cognition; if children do not feel same-gender–typical, felt
other-gender typicality exposes them to a number of risks.
Influences of Gender Identity on Gender Typing
We turn now to evidence relevant to the peer-socialization and self-
socialization pathways to children’s adoption of gender-typed attri-
butes. We consider each pathway in turn.
Peer-socialization pathway. Scant attention has been paid to
gender identity’s influence on the sex(s) of children’s interaction
partners or children’s susceptibility to influence by peers of each
sex. Children do choose same-sex friends whose level of felt same-
gender typicality or gender contentedness resembles their own, and
over time they increasingly resemble their friends’ intergroup bias
and felt pressure for gender conformity (Kornienko et al., 2016).
These data are consistent with the peer-socialization pathway, but
many other questions about the role of gender identity in peer
socialization remain. Do the dimensions of gender identity act
individually, or possibly in combination, to influence the gender
mix of children’s peer associates? With whom do children suffer-
ing a gender self-discrepancy interact? Perhaps they have diffi-
culty finding friends, owing to their conflicted self-concept and
off-putting mix of depression and aggression. Does gender iden-
tity influence children’s attention to, or imitation of, peers of a
particular gender? Do these various peer processes mediate the
influences of gender identity on children’s gender typing (and
perhaps their adjustment)? Given the importance of peers in the
socialization of gender (Harris, 1995; Martin et al., 2013; Ruble
et al., 2006), such questions are important.
Self-socialization pathway. We previously summarized inter-
active influences of gender identity and gender stereotypes on chil-
dren’s adjustment. Many, but not all, of these interactions were
consistent with the stereotype emulation hypothesis of the self-
socialization pathway to gender typing. For example, between-
gender forms of gender identity often encourage children to adopt
self-promoting attributes they believe are more typical of, or more
desirable for, their own gender than for the other.
Here we examine the question of whether gender identity moti-
vates children to adopt gender-stereotyped attributes that are less
obviously related to adjustment (e.g., recreational interests). Fur-
ther, instead of examining whether gender identity influences chil-
dren’s emulation of individual attributes, we see whether gender
identity predicts an index of stereotype emulation aggregated across
multiple attributes. This allows us to see if a gender identity vari-
able serves as a dispositional motivator of children’s adoption of
gender-typed behaviors.
11
To address this latter issue, we reconsider the Menon (2006)
study described earlier (when discussing the development of felt
same-gender typicality). Menon’s study included measures not only
of five gender identity variables (gender contentedness, felt pres-
sure for gender conformity, intergroup bias, felt same-gender typi-
cality, and felt other-gender typicality) but also of children’s
stereotype ratings and self-perceptions of 62 school-based beha-
viors (e.g., making a new boy at school feel welcome by talking
with him at lunch, acting tough on the inside when feeling afraid on
the inside, learning to play a musical instrument). All behaviors
were ones for which there was considerable variability among chil-
dren of each gender in both stereotype ratings and self-perceptions.
An aggregated stereotype emulation score was computed for each
child (see earlier), and the gender identity variables were treated as
predictors. This study was not longitudinal, however, so conclu-
sions must be tentative.
Felt pressure for gender conformity and intergroup bias were
negligibly related to stereotype emulation. The other gender iden-
tity variables were all individually predictive, with gender content-
edness showing the strongest effect, felt same-gender typicality the
weakest, and felt other-gender typicality falling in-between. How-
ever, when these three gender identity variables were entered
together, only the effect of gender contentedness remained
significant.
These results are surprising because gender contentedness has
received less theoretical attention as a motivator of gender typing
than two other gender identity variables—felt same-gender typical-
ity and felt pressure for gender conformity. However, other data
support the possibility that gender contentedness plays a greater
role in children’s gender typing than previously thought. In one
study (Pauletti et al., 2014), gender contentedness predicted
decreased overt gender nonconformity (peer-reported) over time;
neither felt pressure for gender conformity nor felt same-gender
typicality did so. Gender contentedness also predicted increased
felt same-gender typicality (but the reverse was not true).
Further analysis of Menon’s (2006) data suggests how gender
contentedness might contribute to gender self-socialization. Gender
contentedness was correlated with felt other-gender typicality more
strongly ( 0.61) than with felt same-gender typicality (0.34). This
suggests that gender contentedness may contribute to gender self-
socialization mainly by influencing how children deal with beha-
viors they encode as appropriate for the other gender. That is, high
gender contentedness may deter children from other-gender
options, and low gender contentedness may attract children to them.
Other data accord with this possibility. For children of both gen-
ders, gender contentedness correlates negatively with other-gender
attributes (e.g., agentic behavior for girls, communal behavior for
boys) more strongly than it correlates positively with same-gender
attributes (Carver et al., 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001; Pauletti et al.,
2014). Clinicians too are sometimes struck by the degree to which
gender dysphoric children strive to adopt the conspicuous badges of
the other gender, as if to affirm their preferred other-gender identity
and display it to others (B. Khorashad, personal communication,
2017).
Although gender contentedness may especially affect how chil-
dren negotiate cross-gender options, it would be incorrect to sug-
gest that this is the sole way it operates. Recall that children who are
highly satisfied with their gender adopt self-promoting attributes
they regard as desirable for their gender.
Nonetheless, these findings suggest that neither felt same-
gender typicality nor felt pressure for gender conformity is the
12
broad dispositional motivator of stereotype emulation suggested by
prevailing theories. A few comments about each of these other
forms of gender identity are in order.
Overall, research suggests that felt same-gender typicality is
more likely to be the result of children’s gender typing—an after-
the-fact cognitive summary of it—than a cause of it. It rarely pre-
dicts children’s overt or self-perceived gendered attributes but is
often predicted by such attributes.
Even though felt same-gender typicality may not act proactively
as a dispositional motivator of gender typing, it may affect how
children react when their sense of gender typicality is threatened.
Spence (1993; Spence & Hall, 1996) suggested that threats to gen-
der identity normatively elicit anxiety and spur people to display a
compensatory salient same-gender attribute (e.g., men are more
likely than women to react to gender threats with aggression; Van-
dello & Bosson, 2013). However, a person’s characteristic level of
felt same-gender typicality may influence how the person copes
with downward fluctuations in felt typicality. In particular, if high
trait felt same-gender typicality reflects felt security among one’s
same-gender collective, it may protect against, rather than spur,
compensatory reactions.
Felt pressure for gender conformity also may not be a broad
dispositional motivator of gender typing, but its potential to spur
emulation of stereotypes that prescribe antisocial or debilitating
attributes for one’s gender (e.g., sexist stereotypes) is important.
Felt pressure for gender conformity may also affect how people
react to gender threats (e.g., cause them to experience gender
threats as urgently in need of repair). Perhaps persons who harbor
a gender self-discrepancy are the most likely to react in a dysregu-
lated way (e.g., aggressively).
Comment on Consequences of Gender Identity
Each gender identity variable affects children in some unique way,
underscoring the value of a multidimensional perspective on gender
identity. Each also interacts with one or more other variables, such
as another gender identity variable or a prescriptive gender stereo-
type, to predict adjustment or gender typing. Several general con-
clusions are suggested.
Between-gender forms of gender identity—gender contented-
ness, felt pressure for gender conformity, intergroup bias—encour-
age children of both sexes to emulate stereotypes that prescribe
antisocial, selfish behaviors for their gender. They also cause prob-
lems for children who espouse traditional sexist stereotypes grant-
ing males power and privilege over females.
Felt same-gender typicality buffers children from harmful
effects of personal and social risk factors. However, it is associated
with gender-polarizing cognition (e.g., felt pressure for gender dif-
ferentiation, sexist stereotypes) unless children see themselves as at
least somewhat similar to the other gender as well.
Felt other-gender typicality is associated with distress if children
feel different from their own gender. Children who feel other-gen-
der–typical ordinarily possess little gender-polarizing cognition,
but if they do possess such cognition, they tend to experience a
highly distressing gender self-discrepancy.
Indeed, children who have any of several reasons to question
their fit with their gender—who feel dissatisfied with their own
gender, who feel different from same-gender peers, who feel sim-
ilar to the other gender, or who are overtly gender nonconform-
ing—tend to experience adjustment difficulties (e.g., depression,
International Journal of Behavioral Development
low self-esteem) mainly to the extent that they feel pressure for
gender conformity (or other gender-differentiating cognition). This
is important because it underscores the severe harm that gender
self-discrepancies can cause children, indicates that children who
question their gender fit are not inevitably handicapped, and carries
implications for parents, teachers, and other socializing agents.
Gender contentedness may be a stronger dispositional motivator
of gender typing than other forms of gender identity. Further, it may
be low-gender–content children who drive this self-socialization
effect. That is, gender dysphoria may spur children’s attraction to
other-gender peers, interests, and behaviors.
Additional potential consequences of gender identity are in need
of study. These include social information processing variables
(e.g., attention, causal attribution, memory, classification, stereo-
typing, response search, response evaluation), reactions to gender
threat, and a broader range of gender-typed attributes than typically
studied (e.g., sexual orientation, nonverbal gender-typed stylistic
attributes such as mannerisms and vocal patterns).
Conclusions
It is remarkable that ordinary school children are able to introspect
about themselves in relation to gender so thoughtfully and on so
many different dimensions. Their willingness to share their intimate
thoughts and feelings on this topic has allowed us to develop a rich
understanding of the ways they think about themselves in relation to
gender, how these ways develop, and how they affect their welfare
and behavior. Here we offer a few final comments and suggestions
for future research.
The use of paper-and-pencil self-report scales to assess multiple
dimensions of gender identity has much to recommend it, but such
scales only capture consciously accessible (explicit) aspects of gen-
der identity and ignore potentially influential unconscious (impli-
cit) aspects. Reaction time tasks are one window into unconscious
processes (e.g., Cvencek et al., 2011), but narrative assessments
(e.g., that use the coherence of children’s narrative responses to
gender dilemmas to infer unconscious insecurity) may also be use-
ful. It would be interesting to see whether children whose scores on
self-report measures indicate internal conflict (e.g., children with a
gender self-discrepancy) exhibit more incoherence on narratives
assessments. Also, disparities between implicit and explicit forms
of gender identity may prove informative.
It is clear that a child’s pattern of gender identity is often more
influential than a child’s score on any single gender identity vari-
able at predicting adjustment. Cluster analysis may be useful for
identifying more complex patterns of gender identity that predict
adjustment (e.g., Martin et al., 2017), and once these patterns are
identified, it would be worth investigating their determinants. For
certain purposes, cluster analyses might include not only the gender
identity variables but also one or more other gender phenomena,
such as children’s expectations for a heterosexual future, their overt
gender nonconformity, or a biological variable such as sex hor-
mones. This would permit determining, for example, the pattern(s)
of gender identity that characterize children who question their
heterosexuality. Once such clusters are identified, their determi-
nants and adjustment consequences could be studied. It is known
that many other gender phenomena are correlated with gender iden-
tity (Carver et al., 2004; Ruble et al., 2006), and such an approach
may help identify roots of their co-variation.
Perry et al.
The implications of our review for practical application are
limited but warrant comment. A fairly straightforward recommen-
dation is that adults—parents, teachers, counselors—should strive
to minimize children’s development of felt pressure for gender
conformity and negative attitudes toward the other gender. Adults
should be mindful that some children may suffer gender-related
confusion or insecurity, perhaps experiencing a gender self-
discrepancy but unable to articulate it. Adults may wish to encour-
age children to investigate other-gender as well as same-gender
options of interest to them, but behavioral interventions designed
to foster felt same-gender typicality or androgyny are questionable.
Given the diversity among children in temperaments, interests,
abilities, opportunities, and so on, a “one size fits all” approach
to gender identity is unlikely to be realistic or desirable. Allowing
children to pursue their own interests—even if heavily gender-
typed in one direction—is probably more justifiable, as long as
children learn to respect each gender collective as well as the
diversity within each collective in members’ gender-typed charac-
teristics. It may fall to children with atypical gender identity—
perhaps those who question their gender fit and are frustrated by
society’s gender rules—to perceive the inequality in gender divi-
sions and to be vanguards of social change.
Affect may play a bigger role in the development and operation
of gender identity than previously expected. Insecurity of multiple
origins—insecure relationships with parents and friends, victimiza-
tion or rejection by peers—fosters between-gender forms of gender
identity (and erodes felt same-gender typicality). This suggests that
insecure children latch onto gender roles and rules to make their
world feel safer and more predictable. Whether this affective,
defensive route is a stronger influence on gender identity than the
messages children receive about gender from their social environ-
ments is unknown. The affective aspects of gender identity may
also be responsible for its impact on children’s gender typing and
well-being. Certain forms of gender identity, especially intergroup
bias and gender contentedness, are inherently affective and may
have a direct influence on children’s liking for peers and activities
of one gender and aversion to those of the other. Felt pressure for
gender conformity may also act via affect, given that it is a fear-
based motive to avoid other-gender activities.
Our review is based mainly on findings with predominantly
White samples of ordinary school children attending schools in the
United States and United Kingdom. Gender identity does not neces-
sarily function in the same way across cultures or subcultures,
however, and cross-cultural variation in the meaning, development,
and outcomes of gender identity is in need of study (Corby et al.,
2007). Until such data are available, it is probably prudent to con-
sider many of the conclusions we have offered as culture-specific
rather than universal.
Author Note
This article cites results of secondary analyses of data originally
published in other articles by David G. Perry and colleagues. The
original publications are cited in these cases, but interested readers
who require more information than available in an original publi-
cation are invited to contact the authors.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
13
References
Aitken, M., Steensma, T. D., Blanchard, R., VanderLaan, D. P., Wood,
H., Fuentes, A., & Leef, J. H. (2015). Evidence for an altered sex
ratio in clinic-referred adolescents with gender dysphoria. The Jour-
nal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 756–763. Retrieved from https//:doi:10.
1111/jsm.12817
Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An orga-
nizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and signifi-
cance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Aults, C. D. (2016). Demonstration motivation encourages aggressive
reactions to peer rejection and victimization. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior
and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative
review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.43
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. Retrieved from https://
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual
and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation 1984: Psychology and gender (pp.
179–226). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on
sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating
environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A
study of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Devel-
opment, 66, 1072–1087. Retrieved from https://doi:10.2307/113
1799
Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categoriza-
tion and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child
Development, 68, 530–543. Retrieved from https://doi:10.2307/
1131676
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory:
Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and preju-
dice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x
Bos, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2010). Children’s gender identity in
lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles, 62,
114–126. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9704-7
Braun, S. S., & Davidson, A. J. (2017). Gender (Non) conformity in
middle childhood: A mixed methods approach to understanding
gender-typed behavior, friendship, and peer preference. Sex
Roles, 77, 16–29. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-
016-0693-z
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In
W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology,
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp.
389–462). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bukowski, W. M., Panarello, B., & Santo, J. B. (2017). Androgyny in
liking and in being liked are antecedent to well-being in
pre-adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles, 76, 719–730. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0638-6
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106,
676–713. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
14
Bussey, K., & Perry, D. G. (1976). Sharing reinforcement contingencies
with a model: A social-learning analysis of similarity effects in
children’s observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 1168–1176. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.34.6.1168
Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1991). The quest for human nature:
Social and scientific issues in evolutionary psychology. Journal of
Social Issues, 47, 1–9. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1991.tb01819.x
Carver, P. R., Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Children who ques-
tion their heterosexuality. Developmental Psychology, 40, 43–53.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.1.43
Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and
adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95–109. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1023/A:1024423012063
Cooper, P. J. (2014). Gender self-discrepancies in middle childhood:
Influences on children’s personal and social adjustment. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL.
Cooper, P. J., Pauletti, R. E., Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M.,
Spatta, B. C., . . . Perry, D. G. (2013). Mother-child attachment and
gender identity in preadolescence. Sex Roles, 69, 618–631.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0310-3
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a
famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1037/h0035334
Corby, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Gender identity
and adjustment in black, Hispanic, and white preadolescents. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 43, 261–266. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1037/0012-1649.43.1.261
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gen-
der stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development,
82, 766–779. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.
01529.x
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An inter-
active model of gender related behavior. Psychological Review, 94,
369–389. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369
de Vries, A. L. C., Noens, I. L. J., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Berckelaer-
Onnes, I. A., & Doreleijers, T. A. (2010). Autism spectrum
disorders in gender dysphoric children and adolescents. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 930–936. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0935-9
Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and
sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles, 59, 365–376.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9425-3
Drury, K., Bukowski, W. M., Velasquez, A. M., & Stella-Lopez, L.
(2013). Victimization and gender identity in single-sex and
mixed-sex schools: Examining contextual variations in pressure to
conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, 69, 442–454. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0118-6
Edelbrock, C. S., & Sugawara, A. I. (1978). Acquisition of sex-typed
preferences in preschool-aged children. Developmental Psychology,
14, 614–623. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.6.
614
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimen-
sional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463.
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control
and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87,
477. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477
International Journal of Behavioral Development
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Arndt, J. (2008). A basic but uniquely
human motivation: Terror management. In J. Y. Shay & W. L.
Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 114–134).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socia-
lization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102,
458–489. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.
458.37/0012-1649.37.4.451
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner, & (Series
Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.
505–570). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and
affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
Higgins, E. T. (2012). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation
works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hines, M. (2015). Gendered development. In R. M. Lerner & M. E.
Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child development and developmental
science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-
wiley-com.ezproxy.fau.edu/doi/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy3
20
Hodges, E. V. E., Finnegan, R. A., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Skewed
autonomy-relatedness in preadolescents’ conceptions of their
relationships with mother, father, and best friend. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 737–748. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.35.3.737
Jackson, E. (2013). Changes in components of children’s self-reported
gender identity over time. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typical-
ity, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence.
Social Development, 23, 137–156. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1111/sode.12042
Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex
role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of
child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 137–168). New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s
sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The devel-
opment of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental
approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socia-
lization theory and research (pp. 347–380). Skokie, IL: Rand
McNally.
Kornienko, O., Santos, C. E., Martin, C. L., & Granger, K. L. (2016).
Peer influence on gender identity development in adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 52, 1578–1592. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/dev0000200
Kovacs, D. M., Parker, J. G., & Hoffman, L. W. (1996). Behavioral,
affective, and social correlates of involvement in cross-sex friend-
ship in elementary school. Child Development, 67, 2269–2286.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.2307/1131622
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of
gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating
constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 67, vii–147. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1111/1540-5834.t01-1-00187
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale:
Self-evaluation and one’s social identity. Personality and Social
Perry et al.
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1177/0146167292183006
Lurye, L. E., Zosuls, K. M., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender identity and
adjustment: Understanding the impact of individual and normative
differences in sex typing. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 120, 31–46. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1002/cd.
214
Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 755–765.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming
together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Martin, C. L. (2000). Cognitive theories of gender development. In T.
Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychol-
ogy of gender (pp. 91–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Martin, C. L., Andrews, N. C., England, D. E., Zosuls, K., & Ruble, D.
N. (2017). A dual identity approach for conceptualizing and mea-
suring children’s gender identity. Child Development, 88, 167–182.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/cdev.12568
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. Jr., (1981). A schematic processing
model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Develop-
ment, 52, 1119–1134. Retrieved from https://doi:0.2307/1129498
Martin, C. L., Kornienko, O., Schaefer, D. R., Hanish, L. D., Fabes, R.
A., & Goble, P. (2013). The role of sex of peers and gender-typed
activities in young children’s peer affiliative networks: A longitu-
dinal analysis of selection and influence. Child Development, 84,
921–937. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/cdev.12032
Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories
of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903
Mehta, C. M. (2015). Gender in context: Considering variability in
Wood and Eagly’s traditions of gender identity. Sex Roles, 73,
490–496. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0535-4
Menon, M. (2006). The self-socialization of gender. Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
Menon, M. (2011). Does felt gender compatibility mediate influences
of self-perceived gender nonconformity on early adolescents’ psy-
chosocial adjustment? Child Development, 82, 1152–1162.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01601.x
Menon, M. (2017). Multidimensional gender identity and gender-typed
relationship styles in adolescence. Sex Roles, 76, 579–591.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0589-y
Menon, M., & Hannah-Fisher, L. (in press). Felt gender typicality and
psychosocial adjustment in Indian early adolescents. International
Journal of Behavioral Development.
Mischel, W. (1970). Sex-typing and socialization. Carmichael’s Man-
ual of Child Psychology, 2, 3–72.
Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., Aults, C. D., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D.
G. (2016). Sex differences in preadolescents’ attachment strategies:
Products of harsh environments or of gender identity? Social Devel-
opment, 25, 390–404. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/sode.
12140
Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Perry, D. G. (2014). Influences
of gender identity on children’s maltreatment of gender-
nonconforming peers: A person  target analysis of aggression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 843–866.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/a0036037
Pauletti, R. E., Menon, M., Cooper, P. J., Aults, C. D., & Perry, D. G.
(2017). Psychological androgyny and children’s mental health: A
new look with new measures. Sex Roles, 76, 705–718. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0627-9
15
Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1979). The social learning theory of sex
differences. Imitation is alive and well. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 1699–1712. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.37.10.1699
Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1984). Social development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer
aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807–814. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.807
Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent develop-
ment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 61–74. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00715.x
Perry, D. G., Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Handrinos, J. E. (2012).
The intrapsychics of gender: On the nature and functions of gender
identity. Paper presented at the biennial Gender Development
Research Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Perry, L. C., & Sharif, M. (2002). Gender identity influences upon
children’s academic self-concept, attitudes, and behaviors. Poster
presented at the Conference of Human Development, Charlotte,
NC.
Powlishta, K. K. (1995). Gender bias in children’s perceptions of per-
sonality traits. Sex Roles, 32, 17–28. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1007/BF01544755
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Koole, S., & Solomon, S. (2010).
Experimental existential psychology: Coping with the facts of life.
In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (5th ed., pp. 724–757). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Rogers, L. O., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Is gender more important and
meaningful than race? An analysis of racial and gender identity
among Black, White, and mixed-race children. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 323–334. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/cdp0000125
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions,
relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisen-
berg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emo-
tional, and personality development (pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender devel-
opment. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Hand-
book of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). Engendering identity: Toward a
clearer conceptualization of gender as a social identity. Sex Roles,
73, 474–480. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/josi.12096
Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and
the peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Ado-
lescence, 16, 91–103. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2006.00123.x
Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and implications for concepts of
masculinity and femininity. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 32. Psychology and gender (pp.
59–96). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evi-
dence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 924–635. https://doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.905
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity: Defin-
ing the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.), Gen-
der, power, and communication in human relationships (pp.
105–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, J. T., & Hall, S. K. (1996). Children’s gender-related
self-perceptions, activity preferences, and occupational stereotypes:
16
A test of three models of gender constructs. Sex Roles, 35, 659–692.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/BF01544086
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). On assessing androgyny. Sex
Roles, 5, 721–738. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/BF00287935
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and
peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and
conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1037/h0076857
Sroufe, L. A., Bennett, C., Englund, M., Urban, S., & Shulman, S.
(1993). The significance of gender boundaries in preadolescence:
Contemporary correlates and antecedents of boundary violation and
maintenance. Child Development, 64, 455–466. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.2307/1131262
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships
and development (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steensma, T. D., Biemond, R., deBoer, F., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T.
(2011). Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood:
A qualitative follow-up study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 16, 499–516. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1177/13
59104510378303
Szücs, A., Schindler, S., Reinhard, M., & Stahlberg, D. (2014). When
being a bad friend doesn’t hurt: The buffering function of gender
typicality against self-esteem–threatening feedback. Swiss Journal
of Psychology, 73, 97–103. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1024/
1421-0185/a000128
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. Retrieved from https://doi:10.
1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Tajfel, J. C., & Turner, H. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. Austin & S. Wochel (Eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 193–210. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.
2.193
International Journal of Behavioral Development
Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., &
Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-
socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/a0018936
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A
review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 101–113. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1037/a0029826
Vantieghem, W., Vermeersch, H., & van Houtte, M. (2014). Transcend-
ing the gender dichotomy in educational gender gap research: The
association between gender identity and academic self-efficacy.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 369–378. Retrieved
from https://doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.001
Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships,
psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender
diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50, 525–537. Retrieved from
https://doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023072.53886.86
Yu, L., Winder, S., & Xie, D. (2010). The child play behavior and
activity questionnaire: A parent-report measure of childhood
gender-related behavior in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39,
807–815. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9403-4
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity
influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psy-
chology, 40, 572–582. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.40.4.572
Yunger, J. L., Vagi, K. J., Corby, B. C., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Insecure
gender identity magnifies the impact of peer victimization on inter-
nalized distress. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.
Zosuls, K. M., Andrews, N. C., Martin, C. L., England, D. E., & Field,
R. D. (2016). Developmental changes in the link between gender
typicality and peer victimization and exclusion. Sex Roles, 75,
243–256. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0608-z
Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., & Lowry Sullivan, C. B. (1996). Traits of
separation anxiety in boys with gender identity disorder. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 791–798.
Retrieved from https://doi:10.1097/00004583-199606000-00019