Unformatted Attachment Preview
Copyright of Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising is the property of CTC Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
455025
2455025Youth & SocietyBrinkman et al.
© The Author(s) 2012
YAS46610.1177/0044118X1
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Article
Children’s Gender
Identity Development:
The Dynamic Negotiation
Process Between
Conformity and
Authenticity
Youth & Society
2014,Vol. 46(6) 835–852
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X12455025
yas.sagepub.com
Britney G Brinkman1, Kelly L. Rabenstein1,
Lee A. Rosén2, and Toni S. Zimmerman3
Abstract
In the current study, 45 girls and 41 boys participated in focus groups following
a program designed to teach them about social justice. The children articulated the discrepancy between their own gender identity and gender role
stereotypes and discussed potential problems with conforming to gender
role expectations as well as consequences of nonconformity. They articulated the ways in which gender identity is complex and they described the
importance of choice and authenticity. Based on these findings, we present a
model of how children’s gender identity develops in relationship to experiences of gender prejudice. In particular, we highlight how children act and
react to gender role socialization as part of a dynamic negotiation process.
Throughout the current article we strive to highlight the need for an alternative in the gender conformity process for children, with children in the position of power regarding their own gender identity development.
1
Chatham University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
3
Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Britney G Brinkman, Chatham University, Woodland Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15232, USA
Email: bbrinkman@chatham.edu
836
Youth & Society 46(6)
Keywords
gender identity, children, focus groups
Gender identity is a topic that is hotly debated. While some assert that gender
has a one-to-one relationship with sex (a biological orientation), many have
argued that gender is a constructed trait. Previous perspectives on gender
identity in children focused on essentialist, developmental, or socialization
theories, which have often emphasized a deterministic, static, dichotomous,
and/or passive perspective on identity development (Adams, Montemayor, &
Gullotta, 1996). In the current article we explore children’s gender identity
development with an emphasis on the role of children’s reactions to experiences of gender prejudice. We present qualitative data generated by focus
groups about gender to highlight voices of children. We build on an interactionist perspective of children’s identity development and argue for greater
attention to be paid to three important issues. First, we assert that children
should be viewed as interactive agents for whom expression of gender may
vary depending on the situation, rather than passive players in the socialization process. Second, we argue that researchers should place greater emphasis on understanding how gender identity is influenced by the consequences
of nonconformity, especially experiences of gender prejudice. Finally, we
encourage researchers to have greater recognition of children’s articulated
desire to be “authentic” and not to be limited by gender norms.
Gender Identity Development:
Traditional Theories
Traditional approaches to conceptualizing the development of gender identity can be categorized into three general types of theories (a) essentialist,
(b) developmental, and (c) socialization. Theorists from these orientations
differ greatly in their explanations of how gender identity forms and develops. The first type of theory about the development of gender identity
emphasizes an essentialist (and often dichotomous) approach. These theories
argue that gender is predetermined and directly tied to sex (the biological
categories of male and female as determined by genetics and hormones;
Delphy, 1993). These approaches suggest that gender is dichotomous such
that all males are inherently masculine and all females are inherently feminine
(conversations about intersex, gender queer, or transsexual individuals are
usually absent). Within this theory, gender identity is not necessarily something that develops, but simply unfolds over time. Developmental theories
Brinkman et al.
837
(the second category) argue that gender identity develops over time in predictable and “normative” stages such as those suggested by Piaget or Erikson.
These theories assert that as children get older, they internalize the gender
expectations they have learned and many of them endorse rigid gender rules
(Warin, 2000). Both the essentialist and developmental approaches are limited in that they overgeneralize and assume gender identity development is
the same for all children. This assumption does not fully explain individual
differences and can lead to pathologizing gender atypical children. These
approaches also present children as being mostly passive participants in the
identity development process.
Our work builds on the third category of socialization theories that are
perhaps the most commonly utilized framework for understanding gender
identity development. This approach describes accumulation of gender identity as a process that occurs over time due to the influence of others. Children
receive direct verbal messages about what is appropriate behavior for boys
and girls, in addition to getting unspoken messages by watching how adults
model gender roles (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In her qualitative study of
preschool children and their parents, Emily Kane (2006) found that parents
are “. . . often consciously aware of their own role in accomplishing gender
with and for their [children]” (p. 149).
Children as Interactive Agents
While socialization theories address individual differences in children, many
of them have presented children as passive objects on which socialization
happens. However, we argue that children are in fact active agents who recognize the pressures to conform and adjust their behavior accordingly. While
our work draws heavily on socialization theories, we assert that children play
a more active role in their development and make conscious decisions regarding conformity than those theories suggest. We are informed by Freeman and
Mathison’s (2009) perspective that children are social actors and they are not
only shaped by their environment but also interact with and affect the environment by their behavior.
In fact, much research suggests that children’s expression of their gender
identity is affected simply by the presence of others. When children are alone,
they tend to exhibit less gender specific play activities. Maccoby (1990) found
that when children play alone the gender-based play behaviors are minimal. In
other words, children do not adopt particular gender role–based behaviors
unless another child enters the playroom. Serbin, Connor, Burchardt, and Citron
(1979) found that both boys and girls will play with gender “inappropriate”
838
Youth & Society 46(6)
toys when they assume they are playing alone (behind one-way mirrors) but
will adopt the more “appropriate” toy if another child enters the room, especially if the other child is not of their own sex. This process of behaving differently when alone or in the presence of other children is a result of a
conscious decision-making process on the part of a child, taking into account
the potential risks and benefits of gender conformity. By first assuming that
children are active players in their identity-making/expression process, we
were able to explore their understandings of their own identity development
as a dynamic and complex process.
Consequences of Nonconformity
We argue that researchers examining gender identity development should
place greater attention to the consequences of nonconformity, particularly
experiences of gender prejudice. Much research has demonstrated ways in
which children are rewarded for engaging in gender appropriate behavior
and punished if they behave outside the norms (Kane, 1990; Lytton &
Romney, 1991; Risman, 1998). In a recent study, 56% of students who identified themselves as gender nonconforming reported being teased, called
names, or bullied at school (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network
[GLSEN], 2012). While awareness of the consequences of not conforming to
gender role expectations is not new, our understanding of how children
develop and express gender identity would be better informed by examining
such consequences in greater detail.
There are some advantages to conforming to gender role expectations,
including being accepted by one’s peers. Being part of the group and feeling
accepted can prove to be a protective factor against loneliness and depression
throughout adolescence (Baskin, Wampold, Quintana, & Enright, 2010).
However, conformity can lead to inauthenticity, which has a number of
potential negative consequences. Children who alter their self-concept to
conform to gender role expectations may experience difficulties in their later
sexual life (Sanchez, Crocker, & Boike, 2005) or harassment and abuse
(Haldeman, 2000).
The notion of conformity or nonconformity is problematized by the fact
that gender role norms are contextually based. While some authors have
attempted to define characteristics that are considered stereotypically “feminine” or “masculine,” these traits are by no means universal or timeless.
Therefore, gender conformity (or lack thereof) must be understood in relationship to what are accepted gender norms for a particular place and time.
Renold (2005) describes “hegemonic” boys as those who “actively construct
Brinkman et al.
839
their masculinities or ‘boy-ness’ through what they consider to be culturally
exalted forms of masculinity” (p. 67). In this study, we ask children to conceptualize conformity/nonconformity by first describing what they consider
to be stereotypical traits for boys and girls and what it means to express or not
express those traits.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were part of a larger study evaluating the
impact of the Fairness for All Individuals Through Respect (FAIR) program
(see Brinkman, Rosén, Zimmerman, & Jedinak, 2010). Forty-five girls and
41 boys participated in focus groups following the FAIR program. The average age of the participants was M = 10.8, with a range of 10 to 13 years of
age. The participants self-reported their ethnicity being White non-Hispanic
(n = 47, 55%), Hispanic/Latino/a (n = 25, 29%), Native American (n = 1,
1%), Asian American (n = 1, 1%), multiethnic (n = 7, 8%), or other (n = 5,
6%). All classrooms were recruited by sending emails to teachers in Northern
Colorado school districts to invite their participation in the study. The family
income for all students in the study ranged from less than US$10,000 (7% of
families) a year to more than US$90,000 (24%) a year and 48% of the families making between US$40,000 and US$90,000 a year. The number of total
family members in a family ranged from 2 to 12 members, with 76% of the
families having 3 to 5 members total.
Procedure
Once the teachers agreed to participate, letters and consent forms were sent to
all parents of the students in the classes. The letters explained the program and
purpose of the research project. Parents were informed that all students would
participate in the activities as part of the school curriculum, and the parents
were given the option of signing a consent form to allow their child to participate in the research aspect of the program (i.e., completing the surveys and
participating in the focus group). Contact information for the principal investigator was also provided. The FAIR program consists of five experiential
activities designed to teach children about social justice concepts. The curriculum for the FAIR program is available online at http://www.fair.cahs
.colostate.edu. All five activities were administered during one school day in
which students just engaged in the FAIR program and the focus groups.
840
Youth & Society 46(6)
Focus groups were chosen as a venue to allow students to provide input
about their own change processes, their ideas about gender identity, as well
as their opinions regarding the program. Focus groups have been used with
children and in school settings to evaluate programs and to explore children’s perceptions of phenomena (Kress & Shoffner, 2007; Nabors, Ramos,
Weist, 2001). The emphasis on participants’ perspectives make focus
groups empowering for their participants and allow researchers to examine
aspects of a concept that may not be fully explained through quantitative
research. Focus groups with children can allow researchers to explore children’s experiences in a developmentally appropriate manner, rather than
relying on children’s reading skills (Kennedy, Kools, & Krueger, 2001).
Focus groups also provide advantages over individual interviews regarding
flexibility, efficient use of time, and direct contact between children and
researchers. Focus groups also provide an opportunity for children to interact with each other, listen to each other’s perspectives, and build and
develop their own ideas.
At the end of the day, immediately following the FAIR program, the students participated in small focus groups (5-8 children in each) led by a
researcher or research assistants. Each group took place in a quiet area where
children would be able to hear each other and the researcher and to minimize
outside distractions. Each group sat in a circle on the floor with the audio
recorder in the center. The researcher asked questions and encouraged students to take turns talking and to be respectful of each others’ responses.
Based on Krueger’s (1988) model for semistructured focus groups, a number
of questions were asked at each group, but the groups also allowed for the
students to be active leaders in the discussion by introducing new ideas and
themes. The focus groups lasted approximately 35 to 40 minutes. Each group
was audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim.
Focus Group Questions
The focus group questions were first piloted with a group of fifth graders
who participated in the FAIR program and changes were made to the questions based on their suggestions. For each of the five activities, the students
were asked the following questions:
What did you learn about yourself from this activity? What did you
learn about how to treat other people from this activity? Before this
program, did you ever think about this topic? What made you think
about this? What do you think now?
Brinkman et al.
841
The students were also asked the following general questions:
Have you had any experiences where you were treated differently or
badly because you were a boy or girl? Do you think there are things
boys can do that girls should not do? Do you think there are things girls
can do that boys should not do? If you had an audience of kids your
age, what would you tell them about what you learned today?
Qualitative Data Analysis
A multiple case study qualitative approach was utilized. Each focus group was
treated as a single case. As Nabors et al. (2001) note, participants in focus
groups may be influenced by each other and may change their opinions based
on the comments of other members. For that reason, we focus on understanding each focus group as a single case, rather than focusing on each individual
participant. In addition, we note the frequency with which themes are mentioned in the groups, thus providing some context for which ideas are common and which are more unique.
The written transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed by the first author
and a trained research assistant. In the initial stage, the principal researcher
utilized a process of open coding to label individual units of data in a way that
they could be identified, compared to other segments, and further analyzed
(Henwood & Pidgeon, 2006). Categories were then developed to provide a
level of analysis that demonstrated the relationship between the open codes.
These categories were developed systematically by using constant comparative analysis, a method that involves comparing data to identify similarities
and differences (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Hennink’s (2007) strategies for
analyzing focus group data and identifying frequencies and consistencies of
themes were utilized. In particular, themes were identified based on how
many groups they appeared in and the number of times they emerged. After
the codes were developed by the primary researcher, they were reviewed by
an independent collaborator for clarity and to verify the comprehensiveness
of the themes and the appropriateness of the coding.
In this article we include data from the focus groups where the students
discuss aspects related to gender identity development, conformity or nonconformity to gender role expectations, and their desire to have choices about
gender role expression. It is important to note that the children used some of
the language they learned from the FAIR program. In particular, children refer
to being “in the box” or “out of the box.” One of the FAIR activities explored
common stereotypes and expectations where the stereotypes related to gender
842
Youth & Society 46(6)
were considered “in the box” and behaviors or traits that challenged these
stereotypes were termed “out of the box.”
Findings
Challenging the Stereotypes
Many of the students described ways in which they or someone they knew
did not conform to gender role stereotypes, or how they were out of the box
(N = 42 references). Some students simply stated that, “I like to be out of the
box.” One boy gave an example of how he feels like he does not fit into the
gender box saying, “I love babies.” A number of students gave examples of
other people who did not fit gender role stereotypes, saying things like, “I
know some girls that play with trucks and stuff” or “My dad likes to cook.”
Another student described how both of her siblings challenged gender role
stereotypes, saying, “My brother would play with Barbie dolls, and my sister
would play with action figures and footballs and everything.”
A few students indicated that they were known for challenging stereotypes
or being “out of the box” and they sometimes felt limited by this. For instance
one girl described her experiences of feeling like she was seen as being not
very feminine and that people expected her to always conform to that identity. She expressed how this might be limiting.
You can also get stuck outside of the box, because I wear a lot of jeans.
On the first day of school I wore a skirt last year, and some people got
really mad at me because I wore a skirt.
A girl from a different classroom discussed having a similar experience of
feeling like she was expected to not do “feminine” things and that this expectation sometimes makes her hesitant about trying new things.
I’m kind of an “out of the box” sort of person and so if I want to do
something that is more “inside the box,” like go shopping or something,
my friends are kind of like “Whoa, that’s weird, you don’t usually do
that.” So I think “okay, maybe I won’t.”
Consequences of Conformity or Nonconformity
In addition to challenging the idea that most people fit into gender role
stereotypes, a few students indicated that there may be drawbacks from
Brinkman et al.
843
trying too hard to fit into these expectations. Students identified things
they saw as potential consequences of conforming to stereotypes (N = 5
references). For example, one girl said, “there is some stuff that people do
to make themselves stay in the box, and it’s just like sometimes really bad
for you, and you shouldn’t make those choices to stay in the box.” The
students gave examples of going to extremes to fit the expectations of
traditional gender stereotypes, such as, “Guys have to be really buff so
they weight-train a lot and they can overdo their bodies and they can
become really unhealthy just to look cool.” Another girl added, “some
people don’t eat just to be skinny, there was this one girl that my friend
was talking about and her boyfriend said that she was too fat and so she
went anorexic.”
Although students extensively discussed ways in which the stereotypes
did not fit for them or people they knew, they also talked about ways that they
felt limited by them. Students disclosed that there were times they wanted to
step outside of their gender role, but worried about the consequences. One
girl discussed her experiences with sports.
In 5th grade I always used to see the boys playing football and my
sister used to say that football was really fun because she used to play
at recess and stuff but I was scared because I didn’t know how to play
football and I didn’t want to make myself feel bad because I didn’t
know how to play.
The students also realized that stepping outside of the gender box may be
easier for some than for others. Although the students often endorsed messages that both boys and girls should be allowed to challenge gender stereotypes, one girl did recognize that perhaps gender norms are more rigid for
boys than girls, noting, “It’s so weird ’cause some girls are boyish but boys
are not girlish. It’s not popular for boys to be girlish.”
Students also described times when people were forced to act outside the
stereotypes in order to amuse another person. One girl said,
My little cousin, he’s a boy, and he has an older sister, and I would go
over to his house sometimes, I find him in tutus, kind of scary. And I
dressed up my cousin when he was four years old in ballerina shoes
and dresses and made him walk around the house. It was funny.
A different girl talked about her experience feeling embarrassed by being
forced to dress in a nontraditional manner.
844
Youth & Society 46(6)
My brother didn’t play with Barbie dolls, he was a really big tom boy,
well he was a boy, he wore all these baggy pants, and so when I was
little he wanted me to be like him, so he dressed me up, he put this
weird hat on me, he put sunglasses on me, this big, big, big jersey that
didn’t fit on me, his baggy pants, and he made me walk down the stairs
and show my mom, and he made me go to the store like that. Kind of
embarrassing.
Fluidity of Gender Identity Development
During the focus groups, the students discussed the fluidity and sometimes
contradictory nature of gender identity development. Many recognized that
it is possible for people to exhibit both gender stereotypical and nonstereotypical traits. When asked what he learned from being in the FAIR program,
one boy said, “I learned that you could be in the box and out of the box at
the same time.” The students also recognized that one’s gender identity may
be a product of others’ expectations, even when they have not consciously
thought about these outside pressures. A boy described how one should be
aware of what is influencing their sense of identity, saying, “Also check in
with yourself and see if you are inside the box because of your friends or if
it’s what you really want to do.”
The students also recognized that developing a gender identity is a process
that changes over time. A female student described her transition from a
“girly girl” to a tomboy and the way others responded to her based on her
gender identity.
On my dad’s side, all I have is boy cousins. I kind of get treated
unfairly, but most of the time since I’m a tomboy now, they treat me
better. But when I was younger I was more of a girly girl so they always
were like “okay we’re going to go sword fight with these metal things”
and I would be like “okay well what could I do?” and they’d always be
like “just go make us soup or something.” Now that they know I was a
tomboy, they treat me better.
The Value of Authenticity
The concept of doing what you “want to do” or having a choice (N = 12
references) about gender identity was a theme that all four focus groups
discussed. For some, this included resisting the influences of others and
focusing on one’s own desires, exemplified with statements like, “Do what
Brinkman et al.
845
you want to do, not what others think you should do.” Students also clarified
that the option of choice should apply to themselves as well as others. When
discussing what girls and boys are expected to do during gym class, one
student remarked, “I think that they should give the girls a choice if they
want to do what the boys are doing or not.” While many of the comments
around choice and gender identity involved engaging in specific behaviors,
such as playing with certain toys or participating in sports, some described
this identity in more abstract and global terms, by saying things like, “It’s
okay to be inside or outside of the box. You should pick which one is right
for you.”
In some groups, the discussion regarding choice evolved into comments
about authenticity (N = 5) and how important it is for people to be true to
themselves. For some, it was as simple as the message, “Just be yourself.”
Other students asserted that if we focused more on authenticity, stereotypes
would be unnecessary. One girl indicated that the lesson she would want
everyone to take away from the program is “that you don’t really need to
have stereotypes, you could just be yourself.” Finally one student recognized
the freedom that could come with focusing on being true to oneself rather
than trying to follow stereotypes, saying, “You don’t have to do what other
people have to do. Just do what you like. If you think that what someone else
is doing is fun, then you can do that.” Another student commented “Do what
you want to do, not what others think you should do,” challenging directly the
idea of making decisions based on pressure (real or perceived) from others.
Discussion
The focus groups allowed researchers to examine the complexities of children’s gender identity in-depth. The children articulated the discrepancy
between their own gender identity and gender role stereotypes and discussed
consequences of nonconformity. They also placed value on the ability to
have freedom of choice and to be authentic. Based on these findings, we
argue that children’s gender identity development be viewed as a dynamic
process in which children are active participants and that they place particular attention to the potential costs of not conforming to gender role norms.
Much of the discussion during the focus groups involved students providing examples of ways in which people did not conform to stereotypes about
gender roles. These findings differ from the assertions of a developmental
perspective, which suggests that by age 8 or 9, most children rate themselves
as being consistent with gender-typed characteristics and do not challenge
these stereotypes until adulthood. It may be that most of the usual discourse
846
Youth & Society 46(6)
with children about gender and most research involving children assumes
that children will fit into such stereotypes and does not give students space to
disagree.
While many of the children presented examples of how they or others do
not fit into traditional gender stereotypes, they also recognized that whether
or not one challenges gender role stereotypes is a complex issue. The back
and forth of the focus group discussion suggested that the children took a sort
of “Goldilocks” approach to conformity to gender stereotypes—too much or
too little is not good. The students appear to be aware that there are potential
costs to not conforming to gender role expectations and may be making their
decisions about how to express gender identity as part of a cost/benefit analysis. Additional research can further address the process by which children
weigh these costs and benefits.
As active agents in their gender identity development process, we argue
that children will attempt to balance the pressures of conforming (and risks of
not conforming) against the benefits of being authentic to their sense of self.
This balance may be more difficult for some children than others. Renold
(2005) discusses how some children who are consistently marginalized continue to resist messages about gender norms and thus become “Others” who
are willing to assert their differences.
Many students in this study commented on their desire to make their own
choice about how to express their identity. They emphasized the importance
of being true to oneself no matter the consequences. In fact, children who
think they are only engaging in a behavior to avoid social costs may eventually decide that they like that behavior. Some research suggests that many
children struggle with and against pressures to engage in normative gendered
behavior (Renold, 2005). The fact that so many children resist or question
gender norms (in part or more fully) suggests that children have a desire to be
authentic but weigh this against the consequences of nonconformity.
Gender Identity Development as
a Dynamic Negotiation Process
We propose that children’s identity development and expression is a complex
revolving input/decision/action process (see Figure 1). The input involves
traditional socialization factors such as media and overt and covert messages
from adults and peers. The input also includes experiences of gender prejudice or harassment or the threat of such experiences (sometimes through
viewing others’ experiences of harassment). Children consider this input and
weigh the costs and benefits of conforming or challenging traditional gender
Brinkman et al.
847
Figure 1. Model of gender identity development demonstrating the input/decision/
action process
norms. They also take into account their own sense of authenticity or preferences in a given situation. Based on these factors, children make decisions
about how to express their gender identity. The child then receives a reaction
from others about his or her gender identity expression, possibly including
harassment or teasing, continues to receive messages from the media and
role models, and the cycle continues as the child makes decisions based on
the reactions to his or her gender identity expression.
We argue that children engage in this process continuously as they make
decisions about identity expression. This process is contextually based and
affected by the presence of others. When children are alone and the threat of
gender prejudice or promise of rewards is removed, they may emphasize personal choice in their decision-making process over the cost/benefit analysis.
Boys and girls often face gender prejudice for different reasons and thus
might factor in this threat differently. Our findings suggest that at least some
of the children are consciously aware of the limitations boys feel in regard to
expressing feminine qualities. In contrast, girls at this age may engage in more
nontraditional behaviors and might even identify as a “tomboy.” In fact, one
girl discussed how her identity process of going from being a “girly girl” to
being a “tomboy” meant that her male cousins treated her with more respect.
848
Youth & Society 46(6)
In addition, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, ability status, and other
areas of identity will all influence this model. Children who are managing the
threat of other types of prejudice (homophobia, classism, racism) in addition
to gender prejudice may weigh the costs or benefits of conforming differently
(Xiao, 2000).
Additionally, children vary in their amount of investment in social
desirability and attention to social clues. For instance, research suggests
that individuals who are especially concerned with social connectedness
are more attentive to social cues (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004).
This suggests that for children who are more invested in belonging they
may pay more attention to the threat of gender prejudice and adjust their
behavior accordingly.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our focus groups were conducted with a small number of children who
predominantly identified as being White. This is a limitation of the current
research as it is possible that children who experience marginalization as a
result of their race/ethnicity may react differently to the pressures to conform to traditional gender roles. While we expect that most children will
engage in similar processes (i.e., considering consequences of their behaviors, making conscious decisions about how to express their gender) experiences of racism likely are an additional factor that children of color must
consider. Future research should explore the current model with students
from a variety of racial/ethnic and nationality backgrounds. In fact, the
authors are currently exploring how children at a predominantly African
American school experience and conceptualize gender harassment and
racial discrimination.
Furthermore, we conducted focus groups during which all children were
encouraged to share, but some children were more vocal than others. It is
possible that some children held views that differed with those of the more
vocal children. We were also conducting the groups following an intervention
designed to address gender prejudice and increase awareness of social justice
issues. Therefore children may have felt pressure to tell us things that were
aligned with the values of the program—although some did assert more traditional views. This presents a potential limitation to our study. While many of
the children expressed challenging traditional gender roles and a desire to be
authentic in their expression, we do not know the percentages of children who
may be more likely to endorse traditional views or nontraditional views of
gender identity. Future quantitative research would allow us to examine how
Brinkman et al.
849
our model is expressed in greater numbers of children and assess the frequencies with which children endorse or challenge traditional gender ideologies.
Larger scale studies would also allow for an exploration of individual differences in children that might influence their decision-making process. For
example, some children may decide to be nonconforming in their gender
expression, even in the face of gender harassment, while others adjust their
(at least outwardly expressed) gender identity to appear more traditional in
the hopes of decreasing such experiences.
Despite the limitations of this study, our findings contribute to the understanding of how children develop a gender identity, placing particular emphasis on some children’s desire to resist stereotypes, the agency children have
in this process, and the role that gender-based bullying plays. The qualitative
nature of the study allowed us to explore in more detail the processes by
which children develop gender identity and many factors that influence them.
While we do not argue that all children experience this process in the same
way or result in the same outcomes, we do believe that many children actively
engage in developing, creating, and re-creating their gender identity. Our
findings challenge models that assert a static and more simplistic developmental process. We hope that researchers, as well as educators and parents,
find our model useful in understanding the complexity of the gender identity
development process.
Conclusions
In this article, we argue that children are active decision makers in a process
of expressing their gender identity in which they weigh the benefits of
authenticity against potential consequences of nonconformity. As children
experience gender prejudice as a result of nonconformity (or witness others
experiencing prejudice), they make decisions about whether and how to
adjust their gender identity and may attempt to integrate the feedback into
their sense of identity, hide aspects of their selves from others, or challenge
(or consider challenging) the prejudice and resist changing who they are as
an individual.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Christine Simpson for her assistance in developing this article.
Authors’ Note
This study is based on the first author’s dissertation, which was supervised by the
third and fourth authors.
850
Youth & Society 46(6)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in part by a
Service Learning Mini-Grant through the Office of Student Leadership & Civic
Engagement at Colorado State University.
References
Adams, G. R., Montemayor, R., Gullotta, T. P. (1996). Psychosocial development
during adolescence: Advances in adolescent development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Baskin, T. W., Wampold, B. E., Quintana, S. M., & Enright, R. D. (2010). Belongingness as a protective factor against loneliness and potential depression in a multicultural middle school. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 626-651.
Brinkman, B. G., Rosén, L. A., Zimmerman, T. S., & Jedinak, A. (2010). Teaching
children fairness, decreasing gender prejudice amongst 5th graders. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 10, 171-191.
Delphy, C. (1993). Rethinking sex and gender. Women’s Studies International Journal, 16(1), 1-9.
Freeman, M., & Mathison, S. (2009). Researching children’s experiences. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice:
Elementary school climate in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Haldeman, D. C. (2000). Gender atypical youth: Clinical and social issues. School
Psychology Review, 29, 192-200.
Hennink, M. M. (2007) International focus group research: A Handbook for the
health and social sciences. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). Grounded theory. In G. M. Breakwell,
S. Hammond, J. A. Smith, & C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (3rd ed., pp. 342-380). New York, NY. SAGE.
Kane, E. W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!” Parents’ responses to
children’s gender nonconformity. Gender and Society, 20, 149-176.
Kane, M. J. (1990). Female involvement in physical recreation—Gender role as a
constraint. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(1), 52-56.
Kennedy, C., Kools, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in children’s focus groups. Nursing Research, 50, 184-187.
Brinkman et al.
851
Kress, V., & Shoffner, M. (2007). Focus groups: A practical and applied research
approach for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 189-195.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and
girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
Nabors, L. A., Ramos, V., & Weist, M. (2001). Use of focus groups as a tool for evaluating programs for children and families. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 243-256. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1203_04
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to
belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 1095.
Renold, E. (2005). Girls, boys and junior sexualities. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom:
Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1445-1455.
Serbin, L. A., Connor, J. M., Burchardt, C. J., & Citron, C. C. (1979). Effects of peer
presence on sex-typing of children’s play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 27, 303-309.
Warin, J. (2000). The attainment of self-consistancy through gender in young children. Sex Roles, 42, 209-231.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.
Xiao, H. (2000). Class, gender, and parental values in the 1990s. Gender and Society,
14, 785-803.
Author Biographies
Britney G Brinkman, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Counseling Psychology at
Chatham University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include better
understanding how people’s social identities (such as gender, ethnicity, social class,
sexual orientation) influence their life experiences and exploring what factors influence people’s involvement in activism, advocacy and social change work. She is
particularly interested in promoting social justice through the development, implementation and assessment of community based prevention and intervention programs
and improving pedagogical and research methods that address social justice issues.
852
Youth & Society 46(6)
Kelly L. Rabenstein is a graduate student in Counseling Psychology at Chatham
University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include exploring gender identity and developing effective methods to measure identity development.
Lee A. Rosén, PhD is a Professor of Counseling Psychology at Colorado State
University in Fort Collins, Colorado. His research interests include child psychopathology and child psychotherapy.
Toni S. Zimmerman, PhD is a Professor of Human Development and Family
Studies and Director of the Marriage and Family Graduate Program at Colorado State
University in Fort Collins, Colorado. Her research interests include assisting young
people to understand the importance of equality and diversity early in their lives. She
and her colleagues have developed several curriculums including FAIR, RELATE,
and PEACE. These are intended for use with preschool through high school students
and can be used in both counseling and teaching settings.
201 Research in the Disciplines
Source Evaluation Assignment/Grading Rubric
You will write five Source Evaluations over the course of the semester, each about a scholarly
source appropriate to your topic.
You will submit and be assessed only on five, but I strongly encourage you to complete Source
Evaluations for all of your ten (+) sources to help you keep track of the ideas, information, and
arguments in your sources, and to build an understanding of them as your project develops.
******************************************************************************
Each evaluation will be graded on a scale of 100, and the average grade of the five Source
Evaluations is worth 20 percent of your overall grade.
******************************************************************************
BEFORE YOU BEGIN, Restate your research question making sure to revise the question if it
has changed since you wrote your proposal.
The Source Evaluations should not include any class readings, as reviews must be from
sources that you have discovered yourself. Each should include:
CITATION/AUTHOR INFO
5 POINTS
● Provide full citation in MLA (or APA) format exactly as it will appear on your Works
Cited (or References) page.
● Give one sentence of information about who the author/s are to verify that they are a
credible and scholarly source.
Remember that the source must be substantive (no short sources), from a scholarly book or
journal, and must include references or citations. Zero points given if the source is not scholarly
unless I have approved it in advance.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT, METHODS
15 POINTS
● Summarize the text in your own words and make sure to cover the main argument of the
source. Include a description of the methods the author/s used to develop the argument.
KEY TERMS OR CONCEPTS
10 POINTS
● Identify at least TWO important terms or concepts from the reading. Define each one
according to how the term is used in the reading. One or both of the terms must be a
theoretical framing concept (if the source has no theoretical content it is not likely to be a
scholarly source).
1
QUOTATION ANALYSIS
20 POINTS
● Select three quotations that are important and relevant to your project. Write out each
quote, paraphrase its meaning in your own words, and then interpret and analyze it in
terms of your own developing argument.
SYNTHESIS
20 POINTS
● For the second and subsequent Source Evaluations, write several sentences of synthesis:
Explain specifically how the terms and concepts in the quotations you selected connect to
the texts in your previous Source Evaluations, and trace areas of agreement and
disagreement between the readings.
OVERALL EVALUATION OF SOURCE
20 POINTS
● Reflect on how the source contributes to your research project. What are its limitations?
What are its strengths? How timely is the source?
● What sources does your source use and how does it use them? Might any of those sources
be useful to you?
● Identify any new questions you came up with while reading that might guide your future
research.
ERROR FREE WRITING
10 POINTS
Your Source Evaluations should demonstrate that you have read the material closely, and
that you comprehend how it fits into your own project. These Source Evaluations will be of
immense use not only in contributing to your body of knowledge about the topic under
investigation, but also because the analytical and synthetic sections of your evaluations
might be incorporated directly into your research paper.
2
Student ND
Professor Lilley
Source Evaluation 4
Research Question
Is there an implicit bias against obese individuals in the health care system, and what role does
this play in future health outcomes and the obesity epidemic overall?
Citation
Sutin, Angelina R, et al. “Weight Discrimination and Risk of Mortality.” Psychological Science,
vol. 26, no. 11, SAGE Publications, pp. 1803–11, doi:10.1177/0956797615601103.
Author Information
Angelina Sutin earned her Ph.D. in Psychology from University of California, David, and is now
an associate professor at Florida State University. She is also an associate editor for the Journal
of Personality. Some of her main focuses of study include health disparities, personality and
health, and lifespan development.
Summary/Methods
This study was focused on finding out whether weight discrimination played any role in
early mortality. The researchers used information from two studies: a longitudinal study of
13,692 people ages 50 and over in 2006-2008, and another study of 7,108 participants in 2004
and 2005. These participants had previously rated in these respective years their everyday
experiences with discrimination. Researchers now compared this information with mortality in
2015. They discovered that discrimination, specifically in regards to a person’s weight or
physical disability, was associated with a higher risk of mortality in both groups. They even
discovered that risk factors like smoking, a well-known link to mortality, had similar levels of
mortality in the samples. This study sought to show the ways that weight stigma can have serious
health implications for obese persons constantly on the other end of the discrimination.
Key Terms
Risk of Mortality - decreased life expectancy
Weight Discrimination - unfair treatment because of one’s body weight
Quotation Analysis
1. “…possibility that the stigma associated with being overweight is more harmful than actually
being overweight” (Sutin et al., 1807).
The researchers in this study discovered that those who experienced weight
discrimination were at a higher risk of mortality, and they even suggest that an obese person
being subject to biases, and feelings of shame as a result, might actually be an even stronger
indicator of early death than health issues associated with excess weight. This would suggest that
feeling discriminated can be enough to lower a person’s life expectancy, and since discrimination
is a fixable social issue, it is necessary that it be eradicated as soon as possible.
2. “…given that weight is largely perceived to be controllable, unfair treatment because of body
weight may lead to feelings of shame because of the perception that people should do something
about their weight” (Sutin et al., 1808).
Overweight individuals are frequently blamed for their weight, and society tends to
consider obesity a completely individual decision. Health factors and socioeconomic factors, just
to name a few, are rarely considered when thinking about why a person is obese. The only
thought that frequently comes to mind is that the person is lazy, gluttonous, or not in control of
themselves. When everyone around is blaming you, it is no surprise that you might start to blame
yourself for the weight, too, or beat yourself up if you can’t lose it. Self-blame and shame can
increase unhealthy behaviors, thus causing an endless cycle of obesity and discrimination.
3. “The effect of weight discrimination on mortality was generally stronger than that of other
forms of discrimination but was comparable with that of other established risk factors, such as
smoking history and disease burden” (Sutin et al., 1807).
With the exception of physical disability, being discriminated against for one’s weight
was related to higher levels of mortality compared to race, gender, sexuality, and other types of
discrimination. The mortality levels associated with weight bias were actually on par with wellknown risk factors like smoking. This is very important to note because society has become a lot
more knowledgable about the harmful effects of smoking and preach the message to kids and
loved ones. Clearly, instilling in everyone the importance of not discriminating based on weight
needs to be addressed next.
Synthesis
In Goffman’s theory of social stigma, he notes that “the stigmatized individual—at least
the ‘visibly’ stigmatized one—will have special reasons for feeling that mixed social situations
make for anxious unanchored interaction” (18), with these ‘mixed’ situations referring to a
stigmatized person and a ‘normal’. He further explains that stigmatized people will likely be
unsure and self-conscious about how the other will perceive him, which leads to questions about
how one should act. These awkward situations can give rise to self-deprecating thoughts in an
obese individual. Sutin mentions that “…given that weight is largely perceived to be
controllable, unfair treatment because of body weight may lead to feelings of shame because of
the perception that people should do something about their weight” (Sutin et al., 1808). Rather
than actually inspire someone to make healthy lifestyle changes, blaming an individuals for their
weight and ridiculing them can actually just lead to “increases [in] blood pressure, reduce[d]
cognitive control, and increases [in] food consumption” (Sutin et al., 1803), thus doing the exact
opposite of what is needed.
Since obesity is treated as an individual choice and failure, people tend not to just view
‘obesity’ as an issue, but the whole person. Teachmen and Brownell’s 2001 study on implicit and
explicit biases in health care professionals found that negative “attitudes seem to be directed
toward obese persons rather than being limited to the concept of obesity, and are evident in a
population committed to the care and treatment of obese persons” (Teachmen and Brownell
1529). This issue of discrimination is one that needs to be addressed, as it is causing serious
physical and psychological issues. Sutin’s study on mortality rates indicated that “the effect of
weight discrimination on mortality was generally stronger than that of other forms of
discrimination but was comparable with that of other established risk factors, such as smoking
history and disease burden” (Sutin et al., 1807). This indicates that premature death can even be
attributed to the experience of stigma, thus making this a national health concern.
Overall Evaluation
This article is from 2015, making it pretty timely. They also used data from a very large
sample, increasing the external validity of the study. I would be interested in finding other
studies with a similar hypothesis in order to see if these findings that weight bias can increase the
risk of mortality can be replicated. I would be interested to know what specifically were the
causes of death in the participants that experienced weight stigma in the early 2000s, and I would
be curious to know if these causes truly were directly or indirectly linked to the discrimination
that they faced.
This was an interesting study for my argument, as most focus solely on whether or not
there are biases present. This study took things a step further and looked at the outcomes that this
bias can influence.
Questions
How can weight discrimination really be ‘fixed’?
Does weight bias lead to increased health care spending too?