The Role of Attitudes and Interventions in Gender-schematic Processing

Abstract

Research on gender-schematic processing has shown that children often forget and/or distort counterstereotypic information. This process may in part explain the limited impact of past intervention efforts in which children were simply exposed to counterstereotypic information. Here we attempt to reduce schematic-processing distortions by first teaching children decision rules about occupational sorting based not on gender but rather on interests and skills. It was hypothesized that this intervention would lead to greater flexibility in children's beliefs about what men and women can do. Assuming this effect was found, the study was designed to provide an experimental test of the hypothesized relation between attitudes and memory that had been demonstrated only correlationally in previous research. As predicted, the experimental intervention with elementary school children led to a reduction of occupational stereotyping. Children's own occupational aspirations were not, however, significantly affected. Consistent with the hypothesized effect of attitudes on memory, children in the experimental intervention showed superior recall of counterstereotypic information in a later memory test. Results are discussed with respect to the utility of cognitive-developmental theory for planning and evaluating future interventions.

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Gender Typing: How Different Dimensions are Related to Psychological Adjustment

“…Fourth, our finding that adjustment was negatively associated with sexist attitudes towards women was consistent with theory and research on the costs of holding rigid attitudes (Bem, 1974;Bigler & Liben, 1990;Bussey & Bandura, 1992;Martin & Halverson, 1981). Furthermore, our results provided indirect support for interventions aimed at promoting flexible gender attitudes in order to improve well-being (Bigler, 1999;Bigler & Liben, 1990).…”

“…Future work needs to differentiate benefits of interests and preferences versus activity engagement because benefits appear to accrue most strongly when individuals engage in male-typed activities, especially sports, and not when they are simply interested in those activities (Lippa, 1995;McHale et al, 2001;Richman & Shaffer, 2000). Fourth, our finding that adjustment was negatively associated with sexist attitudes towards women was consistent with theory and research on the costs of holding rigid attitudes (Bem, 1974;Bigler & Liben, 1990;Bussey & Bandura, 1992;Martin & Halverson, 1981). Furthermore, our results provided indirect support for interventions aimed at promoting flexible gender attitudes in order to improve well-being (Bigler, 1999;Bigler & Liben, 1990).…”

“…There has been little work on consequences of gender attitudes and stereotypes, and most of it was conducted on children and focused on outcomes other than psychosocial adjustment. For example, children who held genderstereotyped beliefs had limited interests and skills and difficulty remembering events inconsistent with their beliefs (Bigler & Liben, 1990;Bussey & Bandura, 1992;Martin & Halverson, 1983).…”

Post-adjunct Reading Comprehension Questions and Meaning Construction: A Case of Gender Study

“…In these studies, patterns of preference (text topic preferences) are reflected in the readers" performance on the tests of reading comprehension. The assumption that there is better memory for stimuli that is consistent with societal stereotypes about males and females (Bigler & Liben, 1990, p. 1441 can be exploited in order to lend credibility to this fact. As stated formerly, sex-fair text topics, topics which are not bound up with a particular sex, were utilized in the present study.…”

When and Why Social Categorization Produces Inequality (and vice versa)

“…Human Development 2007;50: [328][329][330][331][332] in which children's limited cognitive skills contribute to gender and racial stereotyping [Bigler & Liben, 1990]. For approximately two decades, the field largely ignored questions concerning the role of culture in social categorization and ways in which the origins, functions, and consequences of social categorization and stereotyping differ among those who are privileged versus oppressed by these processes.…”