Hypotheses
Two decades after Title IX, Etaugh and Liss (1992) ponder the combined effects and interactions among parental child-rearing practices, teacher and playmate/peer reactions on gender role socialization. The main hypothesis, though not explicitly stated by the psychologist-researchers, was that the 245 boys and girls ranging in school level from Kindergarten to Grade 8 would reveal statistically significant differences in toy preferences, experiences in school, peer relations, chores done at home, educational and career preferences.
The study instrument consisted of self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The research design was that of a pre-and post-study, chiefly to find out whether children received the toys they preferred for Christmas.
Results
Analysis proceeded by gender and age of the child, employing ANOVA, chi-square and correlation as suited the variable class.
In the area of toy preferences, boys and girls routinely wished-for traditionally male or female toys, respectively. With increasing age, the disparity declines. For some reason, older girls preferred female toys less. These findings held true when composing their Christmas wish lists, for presents received at Christmas and when participants were asked how well they liked their presents. In addition, children were more likely to receive the gifts they requested if they were traditionally suited for their gender. More often than not, girls who asked for masculine toys and boys who requested female toys did not receive them.
In point of peer relations, children usually had more friends of their own gender but this became heterogeneous with age. Game preferences varied in the expected direction, with boys engaging in ball sports, play cars, and war games while girls preferred dolls, playing house and outdoor play.
The type of toy received corresponded well with preferences, gender of friends kept, and games played. It is a stretch, however, for the authors to say that parental gift decisions at least support if not encourage toy preference and peer relations choices.
The data was equivocal when it came to uncovering gender-based differences in liking for science, math, etc. On the other hand, traditionally male occupations were preferred, although one wonders how stable such perceptions are until children have finished high school and gotten to college. Nonetheless, it is interesting that girls who liked science and math were especially interested in male occupations.
At home, girls were assigned more chores, particularly kitchen and laundry duties. Boys took on garbage duties.
Conclusions
While holding out the caveat that correlations do not mean causality, Etaugh and Liss conclude anyway that parents play a major role in gender stereotyping by giving gender-typical toys and assigning chores fathers or mothers do to children who already “…display (male or) feminine interests” (1992, p. 145). The authors also believe that such parental actions influence children to choose same-gender friends, play and occupational aspirations.
Psychologists over-reach themselves in seeking a socialization basis for gender roles and therefore upholding Title IX statutes. If gender is solely a product of the environment, then parents and schools ought to “reform” the way they treat boys and girls so that their gender-linked preferences can go either way. In fact, the data in this instant study forces the authors to concede that parental and child preferences interact in ways that make assigning causality risky.
Carrying the emphasis on gender “preference” or “interests” to its ultimate conclusion is to bow to conventional “wisdom” that homosexuality is solely a harmless choice, “merely” an idiosyncratic refusal to comply with the social structure of the family forbearing and sheltering the next generation of human beings.
The second flaw in this analysis is a case of variables mistakenly chosen. It is much more likely that parents react not to children’s “gender interests” but good old biological differences. Secondly, girls’ reduced preference for female toys cannot be assumed to mean reduced gender stereotyping with age. The scope of the study was limited to gifting with toys. Etaugh and Liss seem to have overlooked the fact that by eighth grade, females at least begin to think less of toys and more about clothes, fantasy books, cosmetics, and personal care products as delightful and meaningful gift choices. The least that can be done in future studies is to expand the choice set offered.
At the end of the day, this admittedly dated research sought empirical validation for gender socialization only to find that gender itself is already a powerful explanation for toy choices.
References
Etaugh, C. & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school and playroom: Training grounds for adult gender roles. Sex Roles, 26 (3/4) 129-147.