Young children think about gender in the same way they think about species of animals. They believe, for example, that a boy's preference for football is innate, as is a girl's preference for dolls, just as cats' behavior is innately different from dogs'.
That's the finding of a new study from researchers at Pacific Lutheran University and the University of Michigan. The study appears in the March/April 2009 issue of the journal Child Development.
"These results have important implications for how children think about activities that are culturally associated with the other gender, for example, how girls think about science or math," explains Marianne Taylor, assistant professor of psychology at Pacific Lutheran University, who led the study. "By confronting this belief directly, parents and teachers can help encourage girls and boys to explore a wider range of school activities."
The researchers surveyed more than 450 Americans from diverse racial-ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds who were 5 years old to college age. The study's findings confirm prior research, which has shown that adults and children alike think different species have deep biological differences, for example, that innate differences cause dogs to behave differently from cats. This study also found that it's not until children are at least 10 that they treat gender and species concepts as distinct from one another, as adults do. At that age, they also understand that environment plays a role in gender-related behaviors.
The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Kids Think Other Gender Is Like A Different Species
Comments
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 09:57 AM
"You highlighted think rather than biological. "
Wow. OK.
From the article: "adults and children alike think different species have deep **biological** differences, for example, that innate differences cause dogs to behave differently from cats." emphasis mine.
Now admittedly, the word "deep" is not well defined here. Nonetheless, cats and dogs do actually have biological differences that manifest themselves as behavior differences - do they not? The phrasing of that sentence makes it sound like it's correcting a misconception.
If this is a misconception, then there must be some reason other than biological differences to explain the behavior differences between cats and dogs. I can't think of any other reason - I think that the differences in behavior are due to biology. So I don't understand the point of the sentence at all.
Wow. OK.
From the article: "adults and children alike think different species have deep **biological** differences, for example, that innate differences cause dogs to behave differently from cats." emphasis mine.
Now admittedly, the word "deep" is not well defined here. Nonetheless, cats and dogs do actually have biological differences that manifest themselves as behavior differences - do they not? The phrasing of that sentence makes it sound like it's correcting a misconception.
If this is a misconception, then there must be some reason other than biological differences to explain the behavior differences between cats and dogs. I can't think of any other reason - I think that the differences in behavior are due to biology. So I don't understand the point of the sentence at all.
chris (not verified) | 04/29/09 | 10:33 AM
You seem to be saying that a biological difference makes dogs more likely to be man's best friend but we're misunderstanding what we each mean by biology. To me, cats and dogs share a common biology with humans; like milk and hair. Not whether or not they are independent or like to sit on a couch with me. :)
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 11:35 AM
Well, neither dogs nor cats are particularly good at math, and the article doesn't make that claim so I don't want to debate it.
The article seems to suggest that people are mistaken for believing that biological differences between cats and dogs account for behavioral differences. Are people mistaken for believing that? I don't think so. Hopefully that line of the article is just poorly worded, or I'm misreading it.
The article seems to suggest that people are mistaken for believing that biological differences between cats and dogs account for behavioral differences. Are people mistaken for believing that? I don't think so. Hopefully that line of the article is just poorly worded, or I'm misreading it.
chris (not verified) | 04/29/09 | 13:02 PM
I'm not sure that that isn't drawing the line in biology a little too precisely. After all, the behaviors of animals are clearly governed by their biology well beyond whether they both have hearts or brains. A dog being more of a social animal will tend to be more comfortable with the "pack" behavior than a cat would. Similarly, we see different behaviors in the genders of these animals which suggests that there is a fundamental difference in the way they are "wired" to see each other.
In particular, this "wiring" is responsible for determining what constitutes a good mating partner, so it must be innate, otherwise the very concept of gender becomes meaningless. Females must think and behave as females, as do males. If this isn't governed by their biology, then I don't know what is.
We clearly recognize the differences in the biochemistry between males and females, and consequently basic issues like attitude, behavior, and thinking will certainly be affected by these factors. Similarly the mere biological issue of pregnancy conveys a difference between males and females so profound, it would certainly influence a wide variation between the genders in terms of their biology. Size differences, musculature, etc. are all biological elements that will influence the differences between genders, and consequently their behaviors and attitudes.
The problem I have with some of these studies is that they seem to suggest that somehow there's something wrong with how people think regarding genders (especially as it relates to science or math). In truth, it isn't unusual or unexpected that the gender cues will primarily be taken from the parents, and while there is certainly no innate inability to deal with such topics (science or math), there may well be questions about interest and desire.
It is clear that there is no biologically different structural manifestations that would prevent gender performance to excel in any of those disciplines, but to me that's too simplistic. Sort of like suggesting that because I have legs, I can also be a long-distance marathon runner. Maybe in principle this is true, but in practice it is very much biological factors that will influence whether I'm any good at it.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/29/09 | 13:49 PM
They think that ...because that's true, right? I'm just a little confused. The phrasing of that sentence makes it sound like it's correcting a misconception.