Content uploaded by Isabel Thielmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isabel Thielmann on Apr 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Explaining Inconsistent Evidence on Gender
Stereotyping of Newborns
Isabel Thielmann1,2, Edgar Erdfelder2, and Dagmar Stahlberg2
1University of Koblenz-Landau
2University of Mannheim
This article has been published in European Journal of Social Psychology. This accepted
manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This version
might not exactly replicate the official version published in the journal.
The published version of this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2132.
Please cite as:
Thielmann, I., Erdfelder, E., & Stahlberg, D. (2015). Now you see it, now you don’t:
Explaining inconsistent evidence on gender stereotyping of newborns. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 45(6), 669-677.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 2
Abstract
Parental gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns – particularly their physical
characteristics – have been discussed as important determinants of sex-role socialization
from birth on. However, corresponding empirical evidence is inconclusive. We propose
that inconsistent findings on gender-correlated perceptions are due to whether or not
actual physical differences between newborn girls and boys are properly (statistically or
experimentally) taken into account. In our study, 55 mother-father pairs rated both their
own and two unknown newborns, labeled either female or male. Although we
successfully replicated the typical gender-correlated perceptions of own newborns’
physical characteristics, all effects were explainable by actual physical sex differences
in length and weight at birth. Similarly, no gender-specific rating differences emerged
as a function of labeled gender of unknown children matched in actual physical
characteristics. Altogether, the findings demonstrate the vital importance of considering
existing sex differences between newborn girls and boys for drawing valid conclusions
on gender stereotyping of newborns.
Keywords: parental perceptions of newborns, gender stereotypes, gender labeling,
sex differences, children, infants
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 3
Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Explaining Inconsistent Evidence on Gender
Stereotyping of Newborns
“Gender-associated beliefs influence how
people respond to us from the cradle to the
grave. From birth, our parents shape our
world based, in part, on their beliefs about
what boys and girls are and should be like.”
(Kite, 2009, p. 758)
Processes of socialization and education are assumed to play a central role in the
development of psychological gender differences (e.g., Birns, 1976; Block, 1983;
Bronstein, 2006; Eagly & Wood, 2013; Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990). In this regard,
researchers assign vital importance to gender stereotypes – or, in Kite’s (2009) words,
gender-associated beliefs – which may already be at work at the time of an infant’s
birth. Until today, the classical study by Rubin, Provenzano, and Luria (1974) is
frequently cited as an example suggesting the power of gender stereotypes for sex-role
socialization of newborns (e.g., Andenaes, 2014; Jones, 2010; McGinnis, Bocknek,
Beeghly, Rosenblum, & Muzik, 2015). In Rubin et al.’s study, parents judged newborn
daughters to be significantly smaller, softer, finer featured, and more inattentive than
newborn sons on bipolar Likert-format adjective scales. Because objective sex
differences were not apparent, the authors concluded that veridical perceptions of actual
sex differences in physical characteristics can be ruled out as explanation for the
gender-correlated ratings – which notably mainly referred to newborns’ physical
characteristics. Rather, they hypothesized that parental gender stereotypes underlie the
gender-specific perceptions of newborns. Several authors have successfully replicated
Rubin et al.’s findings in the meantime. In particular, parents were found to rate
newborn daughters as finer featured, smaller, weaker, more delicate, more feminine,
less coordinated, and quieter than newborn sons (Karraker, Vogel, & Lake, 1995;
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 4
Sweeney & Bradbard, 1988). Based on this evidence, it has been concluded that
parental gender stereotypes affect gender-specific perceptions of newborns which, in
turn, influence sex-role socialization from birth on – although evidence for this latter
link is far from conclusive (cf. Fausto-Sterling, Coll, & Lamarre, 2012a, 2012b).
Surprisingly though, so-called gender-labeling studies suggest a different
conclusion. Participants in gender-labeling studies are asked to judge neutrally dressed,
unknown children that are randomly labeled a girl for half of the participants and a boy
for the other half. By implication, the labeled gender matches the actual sex in only 50%
of the cases. Consequently, any consistent differences in observers’ evaluations of the
infant(s) as a function of the labeled gender suggest the use of gender stereotypes (cf.
Burnham & Harris, 1992). Unlike the evidence based on the Rubin et al. procedure,
studies relying on this gender labeling design could not corroborate gender stereotyping
of newborns. In particular, a meta-analysis integrating 23 gender labeling studies (Stern
& Karraker, 1989) revealed that the majority of studies failed to provide any evidence
for gender stereotyping in adults’ perceptions of children – similar to a subsequent study
concentrating on maternal perceptions of gender-labeled newborns (Vogel, Lake, Evans,
& Karraker, 1991).
Addressing this lack of evidence for gender stereotyping in gender labeling
studies, Burnham and Harris (1992) improved the standard study design by (a)
implementing a larger sample of eight stimulus babies and (b) investigating combined
effects of actual sex and labeled gender independently manipulated in a two-factorial
design. Despite these improvements, the authors found a clear main effect of labeled
gender on two items only: Labeled girls were rated more feminine and less masculine
than labeled boys. However, since this result seems close to a manipulation check of
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 5
gender labeling, it is questionable whether it can count as strong evidence for gender
stereotyping. Importantly, however, participants judged actual boys to be stronger than
actual girls regardless of the labeled gender. In other words, participants perceived
objective sex differences despite the gender-neutral presentation format of the children.
Integrating the findings reviewed so far, it remains an open issue whether gender-
stereotyping in parental perceptions of newborns exists and, in turn, may trigger sex-
role socialization from birth on: Whereas Rubin et al.’s parent-child assessment
procedure suggests an affirmative answer, gender-labeling studies suggest a negative
one. However, Burnham and Harris (1992) offer a possible explanation for this
inconsistency: Physical sex differences may be apparent and detectable already at the
time of birth – even in neutrally dressed and styled children. While these actual sex
differences between female and male stimulus babies are controlled for in gender
labeling studies as a consequence of experimental randomization, this is not the case in
the Rubin et al. parent-child assessment procedure. It is thus possible that gender-
specific rating differences observed with the latter procedure merely reflect existing sex
differences. This would also explain why gender-biased perceptions in the parent-child
assessment procedure have mainly been observed for newborns’ physical features rather
than for personality characteristics (cf. Stern & Karraker, 1989; Vogel et al., 1991).
In fact, although actual physical sex differences did not become statistically
significant in most of the published studies using the Rubin et al. procedure, this does
not imply that they were absent. Insufficient statistical power might have caused
objective sex differences to remain undetected by statistical tests. Considering the child
growth standards published by the World Health Organization (2006), both the average
length and the average weight at birth are higher for newborn boys than for newborn
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 6
girls. Assuming that these objective mean sex differences correspond to three quarters
of a standard deviation (Cohen’s d = .75) – an assumption in line with the results
observed in our study – the power of Rubin et al.’s (1974) study to detect these
differences at = .05 with a one-tailed t-test using 15 boys and 15 girls was merely 1-
= .64 (G*Power; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Hence, it is not surprising
that Rubin et al. (1974, p. 515) failed to find objective physical sex differences in their
newborns.
Following from this reasoning, it is indispensable to re-evaluate previous findings
that suggested gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns (especially regarding their
physical characteristics) without taking actual sex differences into account
appropriately. To this end, we controlled for physical differences between newborn girls
and boys using two different approaches: a statistical and an experimental approach.
Concerning the statistical control, we included the newborns’ objective physical
characteristics (i.e., length and weight) as covariates in our data analyses. Concerning
the experimental control, we combined the parent-child assessment procedure and the
gender labeling procedure. More precisely, participants rated both their own newborn
and two unknown newborns labeled either female or male.
Furthermore, we implemented objective measures in addition to the usually
employed subjective Likert-type rating scales, taking into account potentially shifting
standards when using subjective ratings. According to the shifting standards model
(Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991), gender stereotypes serve as standards of comparison,
meaning that women and men may be rated based on their similarity to the average
woman or the average man, respectively. As a consequence, subjective Likert-type
rating scales (e.g., small – large) are prone to underestimate gender stereotyping since
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 7
they allow for differential anchoring in judging women and men (e.g., Biernat et al.,
1991; Biernat & Manis, 1994). By contrast, objective rating scales (e.g., judgments in
centimeters for length) are assumed to more likely detect gender stereotypes. For this
reason, we also employed presumably more sensitive objective measures of unknown
newborns’ estimated length and weight to uncover potential gender-biased perceptions
of physical characteristics as a function of labeled gender.
In sum, the present study re-evaluates previous findings on parental gender-
stereotyped perceptions of newborns’ physical characteristics by (a) asking parents to
rate both their own and two other newborns, (b) employing not only subjective but also
objective rating scales, and (c) controlling for newborns’ objective physical
characteristics (i.e., length and weight) in the data analyses. Thus, the present study
aims at explaining inconsistent evidence that has been reported on gender-stereotyped
perceptions of newborns across different methods (i.e., Rubin et al.’s parent-child
assessment versus gender labeling procedure). Given that these inconsistencies mainly
referred to perceptions of physical features, we particularly focused our analyses on
parental judgments of newborns’ physical characteristics – rather than personality traits.
We hypothesized that potential differences in ratings of female and male babies would
result from actual physical sex differences. More precisely, we expected to observe
parental gender-specific ratings of their own newborn (Hypothesis 1a) that should
disappear when statistically controlling for a baby’s actual length and weight
(Hypothesis 1b). Similarly, ratings of the two unknown newborns should be unaffected
by the labeled gender due to the experimental control of actual sex differences
(Hypothesis 2). The latter should be true for subjective ratings and objectives measures
alike.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 8
Method
Sample
A sample of 62 mother-father pairs participated in the current study. Seven
couples had to be excluded from the analyses because they failed to participate within
72 hours after their infant’s birth (which is a necessary condition, following the typical
Rubin et al. procedure). Consequently, a sample of N = 110 participants (aged 19 to 60
years, M = 34.2, SD = 6.0) remained for inclusion. The majority of participants held a
university degree. Parents answered the questionnaire on average 37.4 hours (SD =
14.6) after their child’s birth.
Regarding the newborns’ sex, 30 couples were parents of a girl whereas 25
couples were parents of a boy. As shown in Table 1, and in line with our expectations,
newborn boys were significantly larger and heavier than newborn girls.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: In the first part, all parents rated their
own baby; in the second part, they rated two unknown babies presented on photos.
Ratings of own newborn. Parents rated their own newborn on 24 nine-point,
bipolar adjective scales. These scales included German translations of the 18 scales used
by Rubin et al. (1974) and six adjective scales taken from other studies using the Rubin
et al. procedure (see Table A1 in the Appendix). Furthermore, participants provided
information on their newborn’s length and weight at birth, on the time of their infant’s
birth as well as on their own education and age. To determine the delay between the
infant’s birth and participation, parents also specified the time of questionnaire
completion.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 9
Ratings of unknown newborns. Participants were presented with two randomly
selected photos of different babies (randomly labeled female and male, respectively).
All photos were taken from newborn picture galleries of different German hospitals
(Baby Smile Fotografie; www.babysmile24.de). The selected newborns were neutrally
dressed, had their eyes closed, and laid on a white sheet with their head on the left side
of the photo. The photos were printed grayscale in 9.2 x 14 cm size. To eliminate
objective differences between the two stimulus babies presented in one questionnaire,
the babies for each participant were matched with respect to length, weight, hair, and
skin color.
Altogether, we used photos of 31 different girls and boys, respectively. Each of
these stimulus babies was rated by two different couples, once as a girl named “Hanna”
and once as a boy named “Leon”.
1
Parents rated both babies in their questionnaire (first
“Hanna”, then “Leon”) using the same adjective scales as for the rating of their own
newborn. In addition, participants estimated the length (in centimeters) and the weight
(in gram) of the two stimulus babies.
Procedure
Parents were contacted in prenatal classes and in the neonatal ward of the
University Hospital of Mannheim, Germany, and invited to participate in a study
investigating adults’ perceptions of children. Those contacted in a prenatal class
received the questionnaire by mail about three weeks prior to their anticipated due day
(and were asked to refrain from going through the questionnaire until their child was
1
Because in Germany, unlike in other countries, official statistics regarding the use of
names do not exist, these names were chosen as they were the most popular among German
parents (Bielefeld, 2009) at the time of data collection.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 10
born); those contacted in the neonatal ward received the questionnaire immediately after
their agreement to participate.
Parents were asked to complete the questionnaire within 72 hours after their
infant’s birth. Emphasis was placed on the necessity to complete the questionnaire
individually, that is, without consulting the partner. Parents sent back both completed
questionnaires in the same prepaid envelope. Participation was not incentivized other
than providing access to the (aggregated) results of the study for the participants.
Results
Because our hypotheses refer to gender effects as typically obtained with the
Rubin et al. procedure, we focused our analyses on adjective scales that yielded
significant gender differences in at least two of the relevant studies (i.e., Karraker et al.,
1995; Rubin et al., 1974; Sweeney & Bradbard, 1988). These are: fine featured – large
featured, little – big, weak – strong, and delicate – hardy. Note that all these ratings refer
to newborns’ physical characteristics that can, in turn, be evaluated against objective
data (i.e., a newborn’s actual length and weight). Hence, for these scales, it is possible
to examine whether gender stereotypes affect parental ratings beyond veridical
perceptions of existing sex differences. The main reason to obtain ratings for 20
additional adjective scales was to ensure comparability of the experimental context with
relevant previous studies. In particular, we deemed it important to prevent parents from
attending to physical characteristics exclusively. However, although less important for
hypothesis testing purposes, for the sake of completeness we report the results for all 24
bipolar adjective scales in the Appendix.
For all analyses, a significance level of α = .05 was specified. For the four critical
adjective pairs, effects of actual and labeled gender, respectively, were tested one-tailed
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 11
because directed predictions could be derived based on previous findings (e.g., girls
should be rated as finer featured than boys). To further assess practical significance,
standardized effect size estimates (η²) are reported.
Parental ratings of their own newborn were analyzed using a 2 (Infant’s Sex,
between parent pairs) by 2 (Parent’s Sex, within parent pairs)
2
repeated measures
ANOVA for each of the four adjective scales mentioned above.
3
As shown in Table 2,
and in line with our Hypothesis 1a, parents rated newborn daughters to be significantly
smaller and weaker than newborn sons. Descriptively, parents also evaluated girls to be
finer featured than boys, reflected in a trend towards a significant difference in the
ratings as a function of Infant’s Sex, one-tailed p = .074. In sum, we replicated three of
the four effects that were repeatedly observed in previous studies.
In the next step, we controlled for the reported physical differences between
newborn girls and boys in terms of actual length and weight (as measured at birth by the
hospital stuff) in analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) for the three adjective scales that
yielded significant ANOVA effects.
4
In line with Hypothesis 1b, the significant
ANOVA effects of Infant’s Sex disappeared in the corresponding ANCOVAs (see right
column of Table 2) – thus clearly demonstrating the impact of the newborn’s actual
physical characteristics on parental gender-specific perceptions (see Figure A1 and
2
None of the analyses yielded a significant effect of Parent’s Sex (neither as main effect
nor as interaction, all p’s > .10). As we did not focus on differences between mothers and
fathers in ratings of the newborns anyway, we will not further elaborate on this factor.
3
Because F(1, df) = t²(df), any F-statistic with one degree of freedom in the numerator
can be transferred into a t-statistic by calculating the square root of F(1, df). Therefore, F(1, df)
values can be evaluated one-tailed (as can be t(df) values) if the sign of the mean difference is
appropriately taken into account.
4
Although length and weight are strongly correlated (r = .70), there was no
multicollinearity problem as indicated by a tolerance index of .50 for both covariates in a
multiple regression analysis of the ANCOVA problem, including newborns’ length and weight
as well as sex as predictors.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 12
Figure A2 in the Appendix for scatterplots of parental ratings as a function of
newborns’ weight and length, respectively). Specifically, there appears to be no
significant gender effect over and above the effects of objective physical characteristics
of the newborns.
The final step of our analyses referred to parents’ ratings of the two pictured
newborns. We conducted 2 (Infant’s Sex, between pictures) by 2 (Parent’s Sex, within
pictures) by 2 (Infant’s Labeled Gender, within pictures) repeated measures ANOVAs
for the four adjective scales of interest as well as for the two objective ratings (i.e.,
length and weight estimates). Hence, we compared the four ratings that were accessible
for each photo: the stimulus baby labeled as a girl rated by a mother and a father, and
the same stimulus baby labeled as a boy rated by another mother and another father. As
a consequence of this repeated measures analysis, judgments could only be included if
all four ratings for one photo were available, thus leading to a reduced sample size of 38
mother-father-pairs. Note that the characteristics of this subsample equaled those of the
entire sample. Moreover, assuming correlations of about r = .20 between the four
observations referring to the same baby picture – a reasonable assumption given our
data – the power to detect medium-sized effects (f = .25) of the Infant’s Labeled Gender
factor was still quite satisfactory for our F tests (i.e., 1-β = .92).
Supporting Hypothesis 2, no effects of labeling were observed on any of the
adjective scales of interest (all F’s ≤ 1.60; see Table 3). The same was true for the
objective ratings; that is, parents’ estimates of the newborns’ length and weight did not
systematically differ as a function of labeled gender, F’s (1, 36) < 1. Similarly, as
expected for material with female and male babies carefully matched with respect to
actual length and weight, Infant’s Sex did not affect the ratings.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 13
As revealed by inspection of the Appendix (Table A1), the conclusions reached so
far are supported by the other 20 adjective pairs for which we had no clear-cut directed
hypotheses based on previous research. Regarding parental perceptions of own
newborns, only one of these adjective pairs – notably also referring to infants’ physical
appearance – showed a significant effect (two-tailed): Parents rated newborn daughters
to be less muscular and more angular, respectively, than newborn sons. Again
emphasizing the necessity to consider physical characteristics in evaluating parental
perceptions of newborns, this effect also vanishes when taking into account the
newborns’ actual length and weight as covariates in the analysis, F(1, 53) < 1. In
addition, we observed only one significant effect of labeled gender on parental ratings
of other newborns in the sense that labeled girls were perceived less problematic than
labeled boys. Notably, none of the adjectives referring to newborns’ physical
characteristics yielded significant effects on parental ratings of gender-labeled unknown
newborns.
Discussion
Gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns – especially those regarding physical
characteristics – are assumed to play a central role for sex-role socialization from birth
on. However, previous research is far from conclusive, yielding inconsistent results
across different empirical procedures. The present study aimed to explain these
inconsistencies in gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns’ physical characteristics,
assuming that actual sex differences between newborn girls and boys can account for
the inconclusive findings. Combining two established approaches to study gender
stereotyping of newborns, parents rated both their own newborn and two unknown
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 14
newborns (either labeled female or male) on several bipolar adjective scales as well as
on two objective rating scales.
Regarding ratings of the own newborn – and in line with previous findings –
parents showed gender-biased perceptions of physical characteristics, judging daughters
as smaller, weaker, and finer featured than sons. Basically, these results replicate
previous findings from the U.S. in Germany and show that they still hold, even 40 years
after the classical Rubin et al. (1974) study. Remarkably, however, the observed effects
of “gender stereotyping” on perceptions of own newborns’ features disappeared when
statistically controlling for the newborns’ objective physical characteristics (i.e., length
and weight at birth). Importantly, the covariates used in our data analyses can in fact be
regarded as objective measures of newborns’ physical appearance. That is, both parental
perceptual biases and reporting biases can be ruled out as sources of error because (1)
parents were specifically asked to indicate their newborn’s length and weight as
measured by the hospital staff at the time of birth, and (2) couples agreed to 100% in
their reports of the own newborn’s physical characteristics at birth, although mothers
and fathers filled in the questionnaires individually. Hence, because statistical control of
objective length and weight influences eliminates gender effects altogether, parental
gender-correlated ratings of their own newborns’ features seem to reflect veridical
perceptions of actual physical differences between newborn girls and boys rather than
effects of gender stereotyping.
In line with these results, gender labeling did not affect parental ratings of two
unknown newborns, neither on subjective nor on objective rating scales referring to
newborns’ physical characteristics. In other words, when objective sex differences were
eliminated by carefully matching the female and male babies in terms of length and
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 15
weight, we found no evidence for parental gender-specific perceptions of newborns in
our study. Notably, this was not only the case for the subjective ratings on bipolar scales
but also for the objective ratings of estimated length in centimeters and weight in grams.
Therefore, shifting standards in judgments of girls versus boys – known to be largely
limited to subjective ratings – can be ruled out as potential explanation for the missing
effects of gender stereotyping on ratings of newborns’ physical characteristics. Rather,
the results suggest that the inconsistent evidence reported in previous studies is due to
the automatic control of existing physical differences in the gender labeling procedure
and the lack of control of these influences in the typical Rubin et al. procedure. This
further strengthens our conclusion that gender-correlated perceptions of own newborns’
physical attributes reflect veridical perceptions of existing sex differences.
Importantly, our results do not imply that gender stereotyping of newborns is non-
existent per se. That is, the adjective scales used – with a focus on physical features –
might have missed some traits on which gender stereotypes are typically expressed, for
example those related to agency and communion (e.g., Abele & Wojciszke, 2014; Eagly
& Steffen, 1984). Similarly, it might be important to separate descriptive (what babies
are like) from prescriptive (how babies should be like) stereotypes (e.g., Burgess &
Borgida, 1999; Eagly & Karau, 2002) and investigate whether parents have gender-
stereotypic beliefs about how newborn girls and boys should behave. Both these
questions were not the target of the present study, but provide fruitful directions for
future research. Moreover, participants in our study rated the labeled baby pictures in a
constant order, always starting with the “girl”. Although our results are in line with
previous gender labeling studies (thus indicating that the order did not systematically
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 16
influence the ratings), it might be important to replicate our findings with
counterbalanced orders of the ratings.
Taken together, the present study demonstrates that it is vital to consider actual
physical sex differences between newborn girls and boys to allow for drawing valid
conclusions on gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns. At the same time, the
findings suggest that parental gender-biased perceptions of newborns – particularly with
regard to their physical characteristics – have been overestimated in previous research
using the Rubin et al. parent-child assessment procedure (without taking physical sex
differences into account appropriately). That is, parents indeed perceive physical
differences between female and male newborns, but these differences actually exist and
can thus not be conceived as gender-stereotyped perceptions. Of course, it might still be
the case that parents socialize their children according to the physical differences they
perceive. It is important to note, however, that these processes can then not be ascribed
to gender stereotypes, but rather to veridical perceptions.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 17
References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social
cognition: A dual perspective model. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 50) (pp. 195–255). Burlington:
Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
Andenaes, A. (2014). The task of taking care of children: Methodological perspectives
and empirical implications. Child & Family Social Work, 19(3), 263–271.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00897.x
Bielefeld, K. (2009). Die beliebtesten Vornamen des Jahres 2009. Retrieved from
www.beliebte-vornamen.de/jahrgang/j2009
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 5–20. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.66.1.5
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 485–499. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.60.4.485
Birns, B. (1976). The emergence and socialization of sex differences in the earliest
years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 22(3), 229–254.
Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the
sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54(6), 1335–1354.
doi:10.2307/1129799
Bronstein, P. (2006). The family environment: Where gender role socialization begins.
In J. Worell & C. D. Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women's
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 18
psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan. (pp. 262–271).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be:
Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692. doi:10.1037/1076-
8971.5.3.665
Burnham, D. K., & Harris, M. B. (1992). Effects of real gender and labeled gender on
adults’ perceptions of infants. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and
Theory on Human Development, 153(2), 165–183.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of
women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46(4), 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges
in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
8(3), 340–357. doi:10.1177/1745691613484767
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy
effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues,
46(2), 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 19
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses
using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior
Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fausto-Sterling, A., Coll, C. G., & Lamarre, M. (2012a). Sexing the baby: Part 1 – What
do we really know about sex differentiation in the first three years of life? Social
Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1684–1692. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.051
Fausto-Sterling, A., Coll, C. G., & Lamarre, M. (2012b). Sexing the baby: Part 2 -
Applying dynamic systems theory to the emergences of sex-related differences in
infants and toddlers. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1693–1702.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.027
Jones, P. (2010). Roosters, hawks and dawgs: Toward an inclusive, embodied
eco/feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 365–380.
doi:10.1177/0959353510368120
Karraker, K. H., Vogel, D. A., & Lake, M. A. (1995). Parents’ gender-stereotyped
perceptions of newborns: The eye of the beholder revisited. Sex Roles, 33(9-10),
687–701. doi:10.1007/BF01547725
Kite, M. (2009). Gender stereotypes. In H. T. Reis & S. K. Sprecher (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of human relationships. (pp. 758–761). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412958479
McGinnis, E., Bocknek, E., Beeghly, M., Rosenblum, K. L., & Muzik, M. (2015). Does
child sex moderate vulnerability to postpartum risk among infants of mothers at
risk for psychopathology? Infancy, 20(1), 42–69. doi:10.1111/infa.12065
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 20
Rubin, J. Z., Provenzano, F. J., & Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: Parents’
views on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44(4), 512–519.
doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1974.tb00905.x
Stern, M., & Karraker, K. H. (1989). Sex stereotyping of infants: A review of gender
labeling studies. Sex Roles, 20(9-10), 501–522. doi:10.1007/BF00288198
Sweeney, J., & Bradbard, M. R. (1988). Mothers’ and fathers' changing perceptions of
their male and female infants over the course of pregnancy. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 149(3), 393–404.
Vogel, D. A., Lake, M. A., Evans, S., & Karraker, K. H. (1991). Children’s and adults'
sex-stereotyped perceptions of infants. Sex Roles, 24(9-10), 605–616.
doi:10.1007/BF00288417
WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. (2006). WHO child growth
standards: Length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-for-
height and body mass index-for-age: Methods and development. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 21
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) of Newborns’ Characteristics as a
Function of Sex with t Values and Standardized Effect Size Estimates (d).
M (SD)
Infants’ characteristics
female (n = 30)
Male (n = 25)
t(53)
d
Birth length (cm)
51.30 (2.63)
52.94 (1.84)
2.63*
0.73
Birth weight (g)
3253.67 (460.31)
3557.60 (410.40)
2.56*
0.70
Age (hr)
37.72 (12.33)
37.03 (17.03)
0.25
0.05
Note. According to Cohen (1988), d = 0.2 reflects a small, d = 0.5 a medium, and d =
0.8 a large effect.
*p < .05, two-tailed
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 22
Table 2
Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) of Parental Ratings of Own Newborns as
a Function of Infants’ Sex (Female vs. Male) with Corresponding ANOVA and
ANCOVA Results (F and η²), the Latter Including Length and Weight as Covariates.
M (SE)
ANOVA
ANCOVA
Scale
female
male
F(1,53)
η²
F(1,51)
η²
fine featured – large featured
2.67 (0.21)
3.16 (0.23)
2.16†
.04
< 1
.01
little – big
4.38 (0.29)
5.64 (0.28)
7.48**
.12
2.06
.04
weak – strong
5.68 (0.27)
6.43 (0.24)
3.27*
.06
< 1
.02
delicate – hardy
4.37 (0.27)
4.37 (0.25)
< 1
<.01
---
---
Note. According to Cohen (1988), η² = .01 reflects a small, η² = .06 a medium, and η² =
.14 a large effect.
All tests are one-tailed.
† p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
GENDER STEREOTYPING OF NEWBORNS 23
Table 3
Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) of Parental Ratings of Other Newborns as
a Function of Labeled Gender (Female vs. Male) with Corresponding ANOVA Results
(F and η²).
M (SE)
ANOVA
Scale
Female
male
F(1,36)
η²
fine featured – large featured
4.26 (0.21)
4.60 (0.22)
1.60
.04
little – big
5.16 (0.21)
4.97 (0.24)
< 1
.01
weak – strong
5.57 (0.16)
5.72 (0.18)
< 1
.02
delicate – hardy
4.75 (0.20)
5.04 (0.17)
1.40
.04
