Reminders on genders

Sex and gender: what is the difference? 

Sex and gender are two related concepts, but which must be distinguished. The term “sex” refers to physical differences distinguishing men and women (reproductive organs, hair, etc.), while “gender” refers to the socially determined roles and behaviors that society considers as a features of men and women. In western countries – in France at least -, in everyday life, it is often said that a man must be protective and have some authority. Instead, women must be smiling and paying attention to their appearance.

“Man” and “woman” are two categories of sex, while “masculine” and “feminine” are categories of genders.

If the sexes have fairly constant characteristics across time and space (anywhere in the world and throughout history, women have a vagina and men a penis), genders change depending on the time and the society. Some examples here:

• In Western countries, medicine has long been exercised by men. Currently, this occupation is being largely feminized. (64% of students in some French universities)¹.
• In West Africa, sewing and garment making is an activity considered as very virile².
• In Malaysia, computer sciences are very feminized and are considered as a typically feminine activity ^{3 4}.
• In Moso society (China), property and family names are transmitted by the mother (matrilinealsociety). Women are
  

  Khasi people

  traditionally considered as more powerful than men, mentally and … physically⁵! Women have political power and the majority of household heads are females⁶. Women’s identity is based on work rather than on maternity⁶. Finally, in this society, there is no marriage, relationships between men and women are not contractual and non exclusive^{6 5,} but note that if a man decides to come and live in the house of his partner, he will adopt her name⁶. Currently, this society changes and adopts increasingly the dominating Chinese model, based on the patriarchy and marriage⁶.

•  Among Khasi, in the state of Meghalaya (India), women are heads of households and they provide the financial needs of the household, while men stay at home^{7 8}. Women also have the power of decision. After marriage, the woman brings her husband to live at home with her parents⁷. Females dominate the social and economic space and are more financially independent than men⁸. In general, and contrary to the rest of India, parents want to have daughters rather than boys⁷. Traditionally, the youngest daughter inherits property from her mother. Men do not have access to property⁸.This inferior status of men in the Khasi generated movements for the rights of men.^{8 9}.It was shown that Khasi women are more competitive than men and they take more risks ^{8 9}.
• Margaret Mead studied three different populations of New Guinea, describing it in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) ¹⁰. She thought initially that temperament was primarily modeled by sex, but she realized ultimately that it is mainly determined by the education given to children, which can lead to poor differentiation of gender identities. Thus, in
  

  Chambuli women

  Arapesh, both mother and father take equally care of the children, who are raised with no violence; manifestations of authority are uncommon. The fathers are thus very maternal and gentle with their offspring, an attitude that would be considered as feminine in the Western world. Neither men nor women have the feeling that sexuality is a powerful force which they are slaves of. In contrast, in Mundugumor society, men and women have a “masculine” behaviour, insults and shoving being common for both sexes. Having a child is considered as a sign of decline and shame; children are raised very hardly. No signs of maternal love can be detected either among men or women (but where is the famous maternal instinct?). Both sexes claim to have uncontrollable sexual needs. Finally, in these two societies, Arapesh and Mundugumor, which are radically different, finally, genders  are not really differentiated, unlike Chambuli. Among them, the masculine and feminine characteristics seem reversed compared to the Western societies. Thus Chambuli men appear as artists, rather emotional and very concerned about their appearance: they wear lots of jewelry and other accessories to seduce women who hold the economic power. Men have to ask their wife’s permission to spend the money at the market. Females are the chiefs of their family and sustain it. They are described as strong, dominant and authoritarian by Mead, and display a shaved head. However, some authors have suggested later that Chambuli men are not so much dominated, since they hold the political power. Actually, both sexes would be more or less equal¹¹.

•  There is a third gender in India and Pakistan, Hijras, who claim themselves as asexual¹².

Thus, genders vary a lot from one society to another, which suggests they are not biologically determined but socially constructed.

In Western society, how are genders constructed? 

The construction of genders in our societies is one of the major themes of gender studies and my blog. I will therefore mention it only briefly, just to give an overview:

Since its birth, the child is subjected to a gendered education, which is sometimes done involuntary. Hence the cry of a female baby will be interpreted as fear, whereas parents think that their male infant cries of anger – anger that must be appeased as quickly as possible¹³. Mothers move more and touch more their baby boys, while they smile more and talk more with their female infants^{14 15}. Finally, mothers feel averagely more attached to baby boys and behave more impersonally with female babies¹⁴.

Later, the mother will favor three times more often her child if he is boy than a girl, in the case of a conflict with another child¹⁶.

Girls are given toys corresponding to their gender, i.e, referring to the ​​domestic area and /or to childcare (dinette, doll …) or their physical appearance (Barbie, jewel, princess costume …). Boys are given toys which will enable them to express their imagination (pirates, astronauts…), and even sometimes their violence (guns, swords …). Until the age of five, physical aggression is more tolerated – if not encouraged- for boys than girls¹⁷.

In children’s literature books (see my detailed article), the heroes are most often males. Girls are more passive and more often indoors. The boys are represented in as more active and live more exciting adventures.

Girls are also suggested to do manual activities (drawing, pearl jewels making) or activities where they can develop theirgrace and

Hobbies for boys and hobbies for girls

beauty (dance, gym). Boys will be encouraged to do physical sports like soccer or rugby, sport representing one of the most important vectors of male socialization: on the field, boys will have to show their strength and their pain resistance. They will have to show they are men, and not “fags”!

Girls are taught how to behave correctly, the boys not to cry like a girl.

Finally, at school, teachers behave differentially with girls and boys (see detailed articles here, here and there), especially in male-connoted subjects, such as sciences and mathematics. Teachers communicate more with boys, they ask them more difficult questions and overestimate their good papers; briefly, they have greater expectations from boys than from girls! And this has effects on their students…

During adolescence, parents allow more freedom to their son than to their daughters; boys can get out more often and come back to home later. Girls will be ordered to take part in household chores, more often than boys.

So, in summary, that’s how little girls become feminine and boys masculine, in Western societies, without mentioning the influence of the mass media. Finally, two groups of individuals appear: a group of individuals who are more self-confident and more competitive: males. On the other hand, the group of women will tend to underestimate themselves and to be pay more attention to their environment; women will also integrate quickly they have to please men and be pleasant  companions : good housewives knowing how to cook, or sexy girlfriends, thin and shaved, depending on the generation and / or the social environment. Because of their education, women will tend to be submissive to men and men will tend to dominate women, on average (the intra-sex variability is very strong, obviously).

Education of boys and girls differ radically, so referents cultures of men and women are not the same. There is a male culture (where sports and technology are predominant) and a female culture (with notably fashion and everything that relates to the physical appearance) within Western societies.

 Note that this gendered education is not only constructive but also punitive: a disagreement between sex and gender shall be punished: it is not accepted that a woman speaks loudly or does not behave herself. The reverse – a man adopting a feminine attitude – may be even less tolerated.

Gendered societies? 

Societies are themselves gendered. The degree of “femininity” or “masculinity” of their people can be evaluated by the BSRI method  - Bem Sex Role Inventory – which is to complete a questionnaire including self-description of masculine traits (strong personality, dominant, aggressive, leadership behavior, hard) and feminine traits (affectionate, sensitive to the needs of others, warm, tender, loving children).  Moya et al 2005 ¹⁸ have shown that the degree of masculinity of men and women were correlated within societies, as well as their degree of femininity. In other words, in countries where women are feminine, men are also feminine. On the contrary, where men are masculine, women are masculine too. Note that femininity and masculinity are not necessarily negatively correlated. The countries the most feminized are the least sexist (in terms of benevolent and hostile sexisms), the most developed (higher HDI), the most individualistic and most respectful of human rights.
These results re-emphasize the fact that psychological characteristics of individuals (aggressiveness, tenderness …) are socially constructed and not dependent on any genetic determinism. They seem rather determined by social context than by sex, according to this study. For example, the score of femininity of French men (5.20) is, on average, higher than that of women in Nigeria and Ghana (4.44). In some countries women got higher masculinity scores than men (Guatemala, Venezuela …) and in others, men get higher femininity scores than women (Iran).

Naturalization and gender hierarchy 

The distinction between sex and gender is crucial. It emerged in the late 60′s among Anglo-Saxon feminist and covers a major evolution of thought: it calls into question the evidence that personality and behavior would be mainly explained by biological sex. This distinction questions the idea that male and female behaviors are “naturally” different.

In Western societies, genders, which are perceived as “natural essences” of men and women, enabled the establishment of a sexual and hierarchical division of labor: two “kinds” of people, so different from each other, could not obviously perform the same activities. The public sphere activities that required skills like reason, intelligence or force – that women did not supposedly  have- went naturally to men than. The women were mostly confined to the private sphere, where they accomplished an unpaid domestic work

If this division of labor has been widely questioned in the West since the late nineteenth century and that currently, women have legal access to all professions, actually, it remains deeply entrenched. It was not until 1966 that French women can exercise an occupation without the prior consent of their husband and open a bank account. In France, in 1999, women spent daily averagely 1h30 more doing household than their husbanded¹⁹. There is little doubt that this has changed since this time, as suggested by an Ipsos study ²⁰. Private sphere seems to be still the preserve of women. Note that the more feminized occupations are often more or less connected to the domestic sphere: childcare (teacher, childminder) or adult care (nurse, caregiver) and housework (cleaning lady). In 2011, in France, men earn 37% more than women.²¹, indicating that males’ work is more paid and that they have access to more remunerative professions. In conclusion, the women work for wages far below those of men, so they are exploited on the labor market. In addition to this, there is an extortion of a domestic work, unpaid, within the couple. All this confirms that the unequal sexual division of labor, is still prevalent and justified by the genders.

The famous “complementarity of sexes,” a justification of the sexual hierarchy 

The establishment of genders thus allows a hierarchy between the sexes and the naturalization of genders is a justification for this hierarchy. Formerly, it was stated that males were more intelligent than females, and thus they were not allowed to study because it was “fair” and “logical.”

Are women really better at multi-tasking?

Currently, few people still dare to say that. They prefer to speak of “complementarity between men and women“, the naturalization of genders in an egalitarian appearance. In reality, this idea of ​​complementarity between the sexes is very dangerous, because of its friendly aspect; it justifies the unjustifiable: sex inequality. It is said, especially in psychology books and magazines for the general public, that men are more logical – while women are more sensitive. But if men are more logical and are more capable of reasoning, it is “normal” that they who hold power. It is sometimes written that men are better in math (which is false ²²) while women are more apt to verbal tasks (also false ²³): if men are better in science, it is “logical” that occupations related to sciences (the best paid, coincidentally) go to men. It is said that men have a more specialized brain while women have the ability to do many little tasks at once (another misconception! ²⁴). How to find a better justification for the traditional division of labor? Men would be better to do a specialized task – his job – whereas women are able to do lots of not very complicated tasks, but requiring a great versatility –i.e household chores. In the end, each alleged natural differences between sexes is used to justify an unequal social system.

To conclude 

There are differences between men and women, obviously. However, the physical differences must be distinguished from the cognitive ones. Cognitive differences have been brought to light (IQ scores, preference for certain activities, differences in speaking time), but nothing indicates that they are the result of any biological determinism. Many social effects come into play: gendered education, but also stereotype threat or Pygmalion effect. When (i) the very strong magnitude of these phenomena (ii) the gender differences in other types of society are considered, we can suppose that social conditioning has a central influence in gender differences; biological determinism has probably a very minor influence - or not influence at all – on the psychological differences between sexes.

The existence of two genders – in other words the creation of two categories of individuals who would be radically different depending on their sex – leads to a hierarchy of the sexes. It is difficult to imagine that sex equality can be achieved without the gender abolition: it is difficult to imagine the creation of two distinct classes of people without trying to rank them, to determine which one is the “best”. Sex should be seen for what it is: a physical trait, and nothing more. 

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Kahn-Bensaude I. La féminisation : une chance à saisir. Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins. 2006. Available at: http://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/article/la-feminisation-une-chance-saisir-588. Consulté mai 5, 2011.

2. Guinche T. Fratrie recomposée : fratrie de sang et fratrie de cœur : un statut du tiers applicable aux quasi-frères/sœurs ? Caen: Université de Caen; 2008. Available at: http://www.sauvegarde56.org/uploaded/Thierry%20GUINCHE.pdf.

3. Lagesen VA. A Cyberfeminist Utopia?: Perceptions of Gender and Computer Science among Malaysian Women Computer Science Students and Faculty. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2008;33(1):5-27.

4. Othman M, Latih R. Women in computer science: no shortage here! Commun. ACM. 2006;49(3):111-114.

5. Shih C-kang. Tisese and Its Anthropological Significance : Issues around the Visiting Sexual System among the Moso. L’Homme. 2000;(154/155):697-712.

6. Luo C-L. The Gender Impact of Modernization among the Matrilineal Moso in China. 2008.

7. Kumar Utpal D, Bhola Nath G. Status Of Women In The Rural Khasi Society Of Meghalaya. Dans: Kolkata; 2007.

8. Andersen S, Ertac S, Gneezy U, List JA, Maximiano S. Gender, Competitiveness and Socialization at a Young Age:  Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. 2011.

9. Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA. Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. NBER Working Paper,. 2008;(13 727).

10. Mead M. Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. 1er éd. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 2001.

11. Errington F, Errington FK, Gewertz DB. Cultural alternatives and a feminist anthropology : an analysis of culturally constructed gender interests i Papya New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

12. Nanda S. The Hijras of India: Cultural and Individual Dimensions of an Institutionalized Third Gender Role. J. of Homosexuality. 1986;11(3):35-54.

13. Condry J, Condry S. Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development. 1976;47(3):812-819.

14. Denham S, Moser M. Mothers’ Attachment to Infants: Relations with Infant Temperament, Stress, and Responsive Maternal Behavior. Early Child Development & Care. 1994;98(1):1-6.

15. Laflamme D, Pomerleau A, Malcuit G. A Comparison of Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in Childcare and Stimulation Behaviors During Free-Play with Their Infants at 9 and 15 Months. Sex roles. 47(11-12):507-518.

16. Ross H, Tesla C, Kenyon B, Lollis S. Maternal intervention in toddler peer conflict: The socialization of principles of justice. Developmental Psychology. 1990;26(6):994-1003.

17. Loeber R, Farrington DP. Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Develop. Psychopathol. 2000;12(4):737-762.

18. Moya M, Poeschl G, Glick P, Paez D, Fernandez Sedano I. Sexisme, masculinité-féminité  et facteurs culturels. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale. 2005;18(1-2):141-167.

19. Ponthieux S, Schreiber A. Dans les couples de salariés, la répartition du travail reste inégale. Insee; 2006. Available at: http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/donsoc06d.pdf.

20. Plisson H. Les hommes rechignent toujours aux tâches ménagères. Ipsos Public Affairs. 2005. Available at: http://www.ipsos.fr/ipsos-public-affairs/actualites/hommes-rechignent-toujours-aux-taches-menageres. Consulté mai 11, 2011.

21. Synthèse : les inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes en France et en Europe. Observatoire des inégalités. 2011. Available at: http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article1400.

22. Spelke ES. Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science?: A Critical Review. American Psychologist. 2005;60(9):950-958.

23. Wallentin M. Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language. 2009;108(3):175-183.

24. Bishop KM, Wahlsten D. Sex Differences in the Human Corpus Callosum: Myth or Reality? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 1997;21(5):581-601.

Stereotype threat

The Stereotype threat 

Demonstration and definition 

Stereotype threat was demonstrated on Afro-american people

The stereotype threat was shown in 1995 by two researchers of the Stanford University, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1). They formed two groups of students, each comprising 50% of black people and 50% of white people. They made these two groups sit a test on verbal skills, exactly identical for both but presented differently.  The first group was said the test measured intelligence, whereas the second group was said it was a test to understand the brain function, not to measure intelligence. In the first group, Whites obtained higher score than Blacks, but there were no differences between Whites and Blacks in the second group. Indeed, according to the stereotype, Blacks are less clever than Whites. This stereotype had been “activated” by the fact of referring to a measure of intelligence.
These results showed that, when a group is subject to a negative stereotype, the performance of its members in the area related to the stereotype (intelligence for black people, mathematics for women, for example), are altered, especially when the stereotype is “activated”. This phenomenon has been called the “stereotype threat“. Disruptive anxiety felt by the members of the target group, who would be afraid to confirm the stereotype, is the hypothesis the most often put forward (2).

Hence, a group subject to a bad reputation will behave in a way that will validate the stereotype in eyes of others. This perverse mechanism allows maintenance of inequality, including gender inequality.

Although this phenomenon has been highlighted on black people, it has been shown to affect all groups experiencing negative stereotypes, including women.

Case of gender stereotypes

Numerous studies have shown that women go to pieces when facing some stereotypes, whereas they are as successful as men in the absence of stereotype threat. Here are some of these studies (adapted from the thesis of Sylvain Max (3)):

Stereotype	Reference	Population	Way of activation of the stereotype (vs controled conditions)	Measurement
“Females are less gifted in math than males”	Ambady and al., 2004 (14)	44 female undergraduates	Subliminal presentation of 20 words from the female register (20 vs. neutral words)	12 questions of the Canadian Math Competition
	Davies and al. 2002 (15)	34 women and 33 men competent in mathematics	Watching stereotypic commercials (vs. counter-stereotypic commercials)	Avoidance of a task of mathematics and interest for 12 academic areas of and careers
	Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000 (16) ; 2003 (17)	72 et 54 female undergraduates	Achievement of the experiment in the presence of 2 men (vs. 2 women) ; the experimenter stated that her performance would be communicated to the group	20 mathematics items of the Graduate Recor dExaminations (GRE)
	Ambady andal., 2001 (18)	81 asian-american girls aged from 4 to 14	Coloring a drawing of a girl with a doll (negative stereotype) or of two Asian children who eat rice with chopsticks (positive stereotype; vs. a landscape)	Test of mathematics (Iowa Test of Basic Skills)
	Huguet & Régner, 2009 (19)	92 girls and 107 boys aged from  10 to 13	Presentation of the test as a measure of skills in geometry (vs. drawing)	The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
	McGlone & Aronson, 2006 (20)	90 undergraduates  (45 females and 45 males)	Before the test, filling of a questionnaire in which some items refer to the sex of the individual (vs. being a student in a private school ; vs. Northeast U.S. identity )	A Redrawn Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotations Test
“Women have poorer athletic ability than men.“	Chalabaev and al., 2008 (21)	51 women practising soccer	Presentation of the task as being a diagnostic measure of athletic ability (negative stereotype), or technical skills (positive stereotype) in soccer (vs. measure psychological factors) ; enquiry of the sexe before performing the test	Soccer dribbling task
	Stone & McWhinnie, 2008 (22)	110 sporty female students	Male experimenters (vs. female) and presentation of the task as a measure of natural athletic performance ; subjects are said there have been differences in performance between sexes (vs. differences in performance between white and black; vs. measure of psychological factors)	Number of shots in golf
“Women are less talented than men in computer”	Koch andal., 2008 (23)	50 female and 47 male students	Participants were informed that in general men performed better on computer test than women (vs. the opposite vs. control conditions)	Assignation of failure
”Women drive less well than men”	Yeung & von Hippel, 2008 (24)	88 female undergraduates having the driving licence for 3.6 years	The study was presented as aiming to determine why men are better drivers than women (vs. to determine the mental processes involved in driving)	Reactions to unexpected events in a driving simulator
”Women are less able to negotiate than men”	Kray andal., 2001 (25)	36 students in MBA	Presentation of the task as diagnostic (vs. non-diagnostic) of personal skills to negotiate	Selling and buying prices of a product after a negotiation simulation
”Women have less knowledges in politics than men”	McGlone and al., 2006 (26)	71 female and 70 male undergraduates	Activation (vs. or not) of the gender before performing the test (demographic question) ; addition of the words “the inquiry in which you participate today revealed (vs. did not reveal) gender differences in previous research	10 Questions of political knowledge
”Women are not leaders”	Gupta and al., 2009 (27)	469 undergraduates in business	Entrepreneurship was presented with terms related to masculinity (versus femininity)	Score measuring the intention to become an entrepreneur
	Davie and al., 2005 (28)	30 men et 31 women	Watching stereotypic commercials (vs. counter-stereotypic commercials)	Interest in the role of leader

Role model can reduce stereotype threat

How to end this vicious cycle?

There would be ways to reduce stereotype threat:
- Individuation (4, 18, 19) which enables an individual to be be distinguished from other members of its group, focusing on its individual identity rather than its collective identity.
- Focusing on the achieved identity (eg the pursuit of a particular profession, loving a hobby …) from the ascribed identity (being born male or female, white or black …) (10)
- Encouraging the view that intelligence is something malleable and constructed,  not innate (20, 21).
- Showing positive role models to whom the target group can identify, such as a female mathematician or a female computer scientist (22).
-  Informing about the existence of the phenomenon of stereotype threat (23). At least, this article is not completely useless! ;)

To go further

The website Reducingstereotypethreat is a website where it is explained what the stereotype threat is and how to fight it.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Steele, C. M. et Aronson, J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995, 69, pp. 797-811.

2. Schmader, Toni, Johns, Michael et Forbes, Chad. An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance. Psychological Review. 2008, Vol. 115, 2, pp. 336 –356.

3. Max, Sylvain. Les effets des réputation d’infériorité intellectuelle sur les performances académiques : une menace de l’identité. 2010.

4. Ambady, Nalini, et al. Deflecting negative self-relevant stereotype activation: The effects of individuation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2004, Vol. 40, pp. 401–408.

5. Davies, Paul G., et al. Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002, Vol. 28, pp. 1615-1628.

6. Inzlicht, Michael et Ben-Zeev, Talia. A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science. 2000, Vol. 11, 5, pp. 365-371.

7. —. Do High-Achieving Female Students Underperform in Private? The Implications of Threatening Environments on Intellectual Processing. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003, Vol. 95, 4, pp. 796-80.

8. Ambady, Nalini, et al. Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological science. 12, 2001, Vol. 5, pp. 385-390.

9. Huguet, Pascal et Régner, Isabelle. Counter-stereotypic beliefs in math do not protect school girls from stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009, Vol. 45, pp. 1024–1027.

10. McGlone, Matthew S. et Aronson, Joshua. Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2006, Vol. 27, 5, pp. 486-493 .

11. Chalabaev, Aïna, et al. Do Achievement Goals Mediate Stereotype Threat? An Investigation on Females’ Soccer Performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psycholoy. 2008, Vol. 30, pp. 143-158.

12. Stone, Jeff et McWhinnie, Chad. Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threat cues impact performance through dual processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008, Vol. 44, pp. 445–452.

13. Koch, Sabine C., Müller, Stephanie M. et Sieverdin, Monika. Women and computers. Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Computers & Education. 2008, Vol. 51, pp. 1795–1803.

14. Yeung, Nai Chi Jonathan et von Hippel, Courtney. Stereotype threat increases the likelihood that female drivers in a simulator run over jaywalkers. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2008, Vol. 40, 2, pp. 667-674.

15. Kray, Laura J., Thompson, Leigh et Galinsky, Adam. Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001, Vol. 80, 6, pp. 942-958.

16. McGlone, Matthew S., Aronson, Joshua et Kobrynowicz, Diane. Stereotype Threat and the Gender Gap in Political Knowledge. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2006, Vol. 30, 4, pp. 392-398.

17. Gupta, Vishal K., et al. The Role of Gender Stereotypes in Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Intentions to Become an Entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2009, Vol. 33, 2, pp. 397–417.

18. Davies, Paul G., Spencer, Steven J. et Steele, Claude. Clearing the Air: Identity Safety Moderates the Effects of Stereotype Threat on Women’s Leadership Aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005, Vol. 88, 2, pp. 276-287.

19. Martens, Andy, et al. Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2006, Vol. 42, 2, pp. 236-243.

20. Aronson, Joshua et Fried, Carrie B., Good, Catherine. Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2002, Vol. 38, pp. 113–125.

21. Good, Catherine, Aronson, Joshua et Inzlich, Michael. Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology. 2003, Vol. 24, pp. 645-662.

22. Marx, David M. et Roman, Jasmin S. Female Role Models: Protecting Women’s Math Test Performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002, Vol. 28, 9, pp. 1183-1193.

23. Johns, Michael, Schmader, Toni et Martens, Andy. Knowing Is Half the Battle : Teaching Stereotype Threat as a Means of Improving. Psychological Science. 2005, Vol. 16, 3, pp. 175-179.

24. Tajfel, H. et Wilkes, A. L. Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Psychology. 1963, 54, pp. 101-114.

25. Moliner, P. & Vidal, J. Stéréotype de la catégorisation et noyau de la représentation. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale. 2003, 1, pp. 157-176.

26. Tajfel, H. Human Groups and Social Categories. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1981. ISBN : 0521228395, 978-0521228398.

27. Leyens, Jacques-Philippe et Yzerbyt, Vincent. Stéréotypes et cognition sociale. s.l. : Mardaga, 1996. ISBN : 2870095279, 9782870095270.

28. Sales-Wuillemin, Édith. Psychologie sociale expérimentale de l’usage du langage : : représentations sociales, catégorisation et attitudes, perspectives nouvelles. s.l. : L’Harmattan, 2005. ISBN : 2747583384, 9782747583381.

29. Brown, Rupert. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. 2. s.l. : John Wiley and Sons, 2010. ISBN :1405113065, 9781405113069.

30. Blair, I. V. The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2002, Vol. 6, 3, pp. 242-261.

31. Gaertner, S. L. et McLaughlin, J. P. Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly,. 1983, Vol. 46, pp. 23-30.

32. Désert, M. Les effets de la menace du stéréotype et du statut minoritaire dans un groupe. Ville école intégration diversité. 2004, Vol. 138, pp. 31-37.

33. Bourhis, Richard Y.. et Leyens, Jacques-Philippe. Stéréotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes. 2. s.l. : Mardaga, 1999. ISBN : 2870096992, 9782870096994.

What is a stereotype?

Humans tend to categorize their surroundings, to make the world more intelligible. However, this can be socially dangerous. Indeed, the categorization process is not only the establishment of neutral categories: humans give them some particular characteristics. This phenomenon of categorization has been highlighted by Tajfel and Wilkes in 1963 on objects (bars of different lengths) (1). In their studies, they showed that subjects, by categorizing these objects (categories of “short bars” and “long bars”), saw the bars of the same category as very similar, more than they were actually (assimilation biais). Instead, the differences between bars of different categories were perceived as more important than they were in reality (contrast biais).

Homogeneity biais and a common stereotype : girls are bad at math

It’s the same for people, humans also create categories: women, men, whites, blacks, Muslims, workers, managers … It is what we call the social categorization (Tajfel 1972 cited by Moliner & Vidal 2003 (2)). Like for objects, categories of persons are affected by the assimilation and contrast biais (3, 4): the differences between people belonging to different categories are accentuated (contrast biais) while the differences between members of the same category are minimized (‘They are all the same’, assimilation biais). Ultimately, all the people belonging to a same category will be seen as having the same characteristics. Thus, categories of persons are given very specific behaviors. These are stereotypes, “a set of shared beliefs concerning personal characteristics, personality traits and often the behaviors of a group of people” according Leyens (4).

Stereotypes are a generalization affecting a category of person. They may be simplistic or even totally incorrect, positive (“women are sweet”) or negative (“women are bad drivers”). Stereotypes typically involve members of a category, which you do not belong to, but not always: it’s what we call autostereotypes.

In addition to assimilation and contrast biais, there is the homogeneity biais: Generally, we tend to minimize differences between members of a category, which we don’t belong to, compared to our own category. So “they” are seen as all alike whereas “we” would be very different from each other. (5, 6).

Stereotypes would be activated quasi automatically in the presence of a member (or as ymbolic equivalent) of the target category (7, 8). Indeed, stereotypes are beliefs that children are aware very early (9). Thus, on adulthood, stereotypes have been activated frequently in the past.

Please note, although stereotypes and prejudices are linked concepts, it is not exactly the same thing: prejudice is a negative attitude toward a person only because it belongs to a particular group (Allport 1954 cited by Bourhis & Leyens 1999 (10)).

 —————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Tajfel, H. et Wilkes, A. L. Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Psychology. 1963, 54, pp. 101-114. Abstract

2. Moliner, P. & Vidal, J. Stéréotype de la catégorisation et noyau de la représentation. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale. 2003, 1, pp. 157-176. Full text

3. Tajfel, H. Human Groups and Social Categories. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1981. ISBN : 0521228395, 978-0521228398. Abstracts

4. Leyens, Jacques-Philippe et Yzerbyt, Vincent. Stéréotypes et cognition sociale. s.l. : Mardaga, 1996. ISBN : 2870095279, 9782870095270. Abstracts

5. Sales-Wuillemin, Édith. Psychologie sociale expérimentale de l’usage du langage : : représentations sociales, catégorisation et attitudes, perspectives nouvelles. s.l. : L’Harmattan, 2005. ISBN : 2747583384, 9782747583381. Abstracts

6. Brown, Rupert. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. 2. s.l. : John Wiley and Sons, 2010. ISBN :1405113065, 9781405113069. Abstracts

7. Blair, I. V. The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2002, Vol. 6, 3, pp. 242-261. Full text

8. Gaertner, S. L. et McLaughlin, J. P. Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly,. 1983, Vol. 46, pp. 23-30. Full text

9. Désert, M. Les effets de la menace du stéréotype et du statut minoritaire dans un groupe. Diversité (ville école intégration). 2004, Vol. 138, pp. 31-37. Full text

10. Bourhis, Richard Y.. et Leyens, Jacques-Philippe. Stéréotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes. 2. s.l. : Mardaga, 1999. ISBN : 2870096992, 9782870096994. Abstracts

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects : Part 2, the Pygmalion effect

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects

Part 2, Pygmalion effect: the dangers of stereotypes.

To end my little series of articles on sexism in school, I will deal with the Pygmalion Effect (or Rosenthal effect). The description of this effect, which is similar to the placebo effect in some respects, will show the danger of the stereotypes.

The Pygmalion effect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that influences the evolution of a student by venturing a hypothesis about one’s academic future. Thus, if a teacher has high expectations about a student, this latter will actually progress greatly. This phenomenon may explain why girls, then they do as well as boys in mathematics, are less confident in this subject and appreciate it less.

First experiment on rats (1)

This phenomenon has been demonstrated by Rosenthal, first on rats. Two groups of rats, formed completely randomly, were presented to students who were asked to judge their ability to exit a labyrinth. Students were told that the first group was constituted of intelligent rats. They were said the rats of the second group were from wrong lines, which did not learn very quickly. Finally, the results have fully confirmed the fanciful predictions of Rosenthal: there are even a few rats in the second group that did not leave the starting line!

Actually, students believing they were dealing with intelligent rats had taken care of them and had been patient with them along their learning, which they had not done with the rats supposed stupid. This can explain the better result of the 1^st group. It is also possible that the students had overvalued the rats of the first group.

Do boys perform less well at school than girls because of stereotypes ?

Experience retried at school … (2)

Rosenthal retried his experience on pupils, based on the expectations of teachers. He claimed he conducted a study at Harvard, which required the evaluation of the IQ of pupils at two different times, to see if there was an evolution. Rosenthal said to the teachers he wanted to identify precocious pupils, who would be not necessarily good in class, but capable of enormous progress. The experiment was therefore supposed to start with a first test at the beginning of the year. Rosenthal made pupils pass the first test and then submitted the name of “gifted children” to teachers. But these results did not correspond to the actual performance! In fact, 20% of children had been randomly picked and designated as precocious. Rosenthal and Jacobson had created an expectation among teachers about the future progress of these pupils: teachers imagined that they were smarter and would progress faster than others.
Teachers were asked not to tell students  about the results.
At the end of the year, Rosenthal made pupils pass the IQ test again. And … “precocious’” students, according to the results of the fake IQ tests, had improved greatly their intelligence test scores, but also their academic performance, whatever their actual performance. And that’s not all:
- Teachers had interacted more with these students and had given them more time to respond to questions.
- These students had been assigned responsibilities, such as managing or supervising activities of the class.
- Teachers ignored or minimized their small mistakes.

And sexism? …

In a previous article, I explained that many scientific studies pointed that teachers, in science and mathematics in particular, had higher expectations from boys and girls: they interact more with the formers (3), give them more time to respond questions(4), overestimate their good papers (5) … Just as the teachers of the Rosenthal’s experiment did with the 20% pseudo-best pupils …

Rosenthal’s experiments indicated that if teachers’ expectations depend on the gender, both genders are not equal … and boys will be favored, because the stereotype is that boys are better in math than girls.

For their part, the girls also incorporate this stereotype by this way. Curiously, in mathematics, the Pygmalion effect does not seem

Male medical students overestimate their abilities

to result in a difference in performance between the sexes, but rather by a difference of opinion in this matter. This is suggested by a 2008 study that examined seven million American students (6): Girls perform as well in math than boys, but are less interested in this subject. Another study showed that at equal level and from the middle school, girls are less confident in their abilities in math than boys and seem to appreciate it less (7). Beyond a lower self-esteem, girls censor:  when they consider themselves very good in math, 8 boys on 10 will study science, against 6 girls on 10 (8). “Throughout its socialization, the child will learn to identify and adopt the behavior and activities of one’s: “culture “of sex.” explains Vouillot (9). Since teachers and parents (7) make girls understand, from an early age and in a nearly invisible way, they are not made for science and mathematics, girls incorporate this idea and convince themselves they do not like them. This also explains their “fear of success”, their self-censorship: the girls do not feel comfortable in the most prestigious fields. Hence, a literature survey (10), showed that while there is no consistent gender difference in academic performance, female medical students tend to underestimate their abilities while males tend to overestimate theirs. The survey also found that male students had achieved a greater level of identification with the role of doctor than female students with the same medical school experience

But that sexism may also have a negative impact on the academic success of boys: some of them, to get into the “manly” role imposed to them, try to be antiestablishment, unruly or even reject school. Actually, according to the stereotype, boys are more gifted, but also less docile than girls and need to be more controlled. Being a good student – or at least a serious student – may seem to be a female behavior, and thus may be avoided by some boys (3).

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Rosenthal, Robert and Fode, Kermit L. The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science. 3, 1963, Vol. 8, pp. 183–189. Abstract

2. Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review. 1968, Vol. 3, 1, pp. 16-20. Abstract

3. Duru-Bellat, M. L’école des filles: Quelle formation pour quels rôles sociaux. s.l. : L’Harmattan, 2004. p. 85. 2747573095.

4. Gore, D.A. and Roumagoux, D.V. Wait-time as a variable in sex-related differences during fourth-grade mathematics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research. 1983, Vol. 76, 5, pp. 273-275. Abstract

5. Lafontaine, D. Les évaluations des performances en mathématiques sont-elles influencées par le sexe de l’élève ? Mesure et évaluation en éducation. 2009, Vol. 32, 2, pp. 71-98. Full text

6. Hyde, J. et al. Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. 2008, Vol. 321, 5888, pp. 494-495. Full text

7. Yee, Doris K. and Eccles, Jacquelyne S. Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles. Vol. 19, 5-6, pp. 317-333. Full text

8. Égalité des filles et des garçons. Ministère de l’éducation nationale. [En ligne] mars 2011. [Citation : 5 avril 2011.] http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid4006/egalite-des-filles-et-des-garcons.html

9. Vouillot, Françoise. Filles et garçons à l’école : Une égalité à construire. s.l. : Centre national de documentation pédagogique, 1999. p. 87.

10. Blanch, Danielle C., et al. Medical student gender and issues of confidence. September 2008, Vol. 72, 3, pp. 374-381. Full text

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects : part 1

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects.

Part 1: the invisible mechanisms.

Do boys do better in scientific subjects because of a greater intelligence?

From elementary school, girls perform better in school. They repeat less and their success rate in the certificate of general education and A-level exam (84.8 for males and 87.4 for females in 2009 in France for all series (1)) is better (2, 3).

At the end of the middle school, girls go more in for general and technological fields than professional ones. However in general technological fields, they are turning away from science and engineering. In preparatory classes, women represent 75% of students in the humanities and only 30% of science students. In the end, only 26% of engineering degrees are awarded to women.

But science represents prestigious and well paid professional opportunities. Why do girls turn away from it? Why this censorship? I will evoke the subtle and unconscious mechanisms which are at work.

Teachers in science and mathematics have different expectations for girls and boys

During class, teachers spend a little less time with girls, particularly in mathematics (4, 5, 6) – about 44% of their time, against 56% for boys. This difference, which can seem insignificant, is nevertheless important given the time a student spends in class (4). In addition, teachers spend more time responding to the interventions of boys. Thus they receive more personalized instruction (4) (7). However, although teachers interact more often in a negative or neutral ways with boys than girls, positive interactions are equitably distributed between genders. (8) The fact that teachers have more negative interactions with boys may explain their dropping out of school.

Many behaviors – in addition to teacher-student interactions – suggest teachers expect more from boys than girls. In mathematics, from grade 3, in the United States, teachers ask female students questions that require little intellectual efforts; on the contrary, boys have to answer more difficult questions (5, 9).

Several docimology experiments have shown notation in science differs depending on the student’s gender (10, 11, 12), although teachers claim that capacities and the interest of the student does not depend on sex (12). Good papers of boys are overmarked whereas good papers of girls are undermarked. This suggests that teachers unconsciously attribute a higher level to male students. In contrast, they are more lenient with bad papers of girls and more severe with poor copies of boys, as if they were certain of their capabilities and wanted to punish them for their lack of seriousness. For girls, it’s “as if they were “excused “not to succeed because of their gender”(11). Teachers believe boys can do better, i.e., they attribute them capacities which exceed their effective performances. When boys get good results, teachers imagine it’s because of their intelligence. In contrast, they don’t suppose girls have “hidden” abilities; in addition, their good results are attributed to their seriousness – even to their conformism – and not to their intellectual capacities (13).

Finally, teachers at primary school – when girls and boys do as well in math – predict a better future success in this area for boys than for girls (11).

And parents? …

At equal level in math, parents believe that their child is better if it is a boy. They also think that their daughters succeed because of their seriousness and their efforts, and their boys because of their ability … (14)

Conclusion: girls incorporate stereotypes

All these details about the differential treatment of girls and boys at school may seem insignificant. However they act sneakily about self-confidence, risk-taking and ambition of girls. I will detail in a forthcoming article the consequences of these mechanisms.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

To go further

Secada, Walter G., Fennema, Elizabeth et Byrd, Lisa. New directions for equity in mathematics education. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1995. Extraits

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Insee – Enseignement-Éducation – Réussite au baccalauréat par série. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. [En ligne] [Citation : 20 Mars 2011.] http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATFPS07237.

2. Filles et garçons sur le chemin de l’égalité de l’école à l’enseignement supérieur : les résultats. Ministère de l’Education Nationale. [En ligne] Mars 2011. [Citation : 25 Mars 2011.] http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2011/37/6/Les_resultats_170376.pdf.

3. Filles et garçons sur le chemin de l’égalité de l’école à l’enseignement supérieur : le premier degré. Ministère de l’Education National. [En ligne] Mars 2011. [Citation : 2011 Mars 25.] http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2011/37/4/Le_premier_degre_170374.pdf.

4. Duru-Bellat, M. L’école des filles: Quelle formation pour quels rôles sociaux. s.l. : L’Harmattan, 2004. p. 85. 2747573095. Extraits

5. Leder, Gilah C. Teacher student interaction: A case study. Educational study in mathematics. 1987, Vol. 18, 3, pp. 255-271. Abstract

6. Duffy, Jim, Warren, Kelly et Walsh, Margaret. Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject. Sex roles. 2001, Vol. 45, 9-10, pp. 579-593. Abstract

7. Secada, Walter G., Fennema, Elizabeth et Byrd, Lisa. New directions for equity in mathematics education. 1995. 9780521477208. Extraits

8. Jones, S. M. et Dindia, K. A Meta-Analytic Perspective on Sex Equity in the Classroom. Review of Educational Research. 2004, pp. 443-471. Full text

9. Leder, C. G. Teacher-student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. [éd.] E. Fennema et G. C. Leder. Mathemathics and gender. 1990, pp. 149-168.

10. Mosconi, N. Limites de la mixité laïque et républicaine. Les Cahiers pédagogiques. 1999, Vol. 372, pp. 8-11. Abstract

11. Duru-Bellat, M. Filles et garçons à l’école, approches sociologiques et psycho-sociales. 2ème partie : La construction scolaire des différences entre les sexes. Revue française de pédagogie. 1995, Vol. 110, pp. 75-109. Full text

12. Lafontaine, D. Les évaluations des performances en mathématiques sont-elles influencées par le sexe de l’élève ? Mesure et évaluation en éducation. 2009, Vol. 32, 2, pp. 71-98. Full text

13. Mosconi, N. L’égalité des filles et des garçons : comment éduquer à l’égalité ? Eduscol. [En ligne] 2 Septembre 2009. [Citation : 26 Mars 2011.] http://eduscol.education.fr/cid47785/genre-et-pratiques-scolaires%A0-comment-eduquer-a-l-egalite%A0.html.

14. Yee, Doris K. et Eccles, Jacquelynne S. Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles. Vol. 19, 5-6, pp. 317-333. Full text

Sexism in children’s literature

Sex roles...

Although reported in France since the 1970s under pressure from feminists, gender stereotypes persist in children’s literature. According to Anne Dafflon Novelle, there has been even a regression in this area in recent decades (1). How appears this sexism?

More male characters

In children’s literature, female characters are underrepresented in the leading roles (2, 3); the title makes often first contact with one character, who happens to be male in 2 / 3 of cases, according to a study published in 2002 (3). When two characters are mentioned, they are two girls in only 4% of the cases against two boys in 30% of cases.

A character is almost always on the covers of albums for children. A male character appears on over three quarters of these illustrations (77.7%), whereas less than half the covers (48.9%) contained at least one female character … (3)

Even inside illustrated books, the male presence is growing. Hence 90% of the books present at least one male character, while only 73% of the books present at least one female character. This imbalance is particularly increased for childish characters, as little girls appear in only 42.5% of the books, and little boys in 56.8% (3). Another study states that 51.3% of the book tells the story of a hero and only 24.7% narrate the story of a heroine (4).

Impact of the type of characters: human, animal or anthropomorphic.

There are three main categories of characters: the human characters, anthropomorphic characters and real animals. The ratio between the sexes is fairly balanced in the “human” illustrated books” as a male appears in about 92% of the books and a female character in about 84%. But the probability of seeing a female character decreases in “anthropomorphic” illustrated books, as the likelihood is only 74% against 94% for boys! These trends are increasing again in the illustrated book with real animals: we encounter a male in 96% of the books, while only 69% of the books contain at least one female character (3, 4).

Different gender roles…

Girls or women little access to the main role, although they are slightly more numerous than male characters in minor roles. Female characters are usually represented inside and are less active. When women are shown working (which is twice less than for male characters …), they are represented in traditional and undiversified occupations (teaching and child care in half the cases, trading in 30% of the cases …) (2, 3). Sometimes, female characters appear in non stereotyped activities, but the goal in this case seems to bring out the “abnormal” aspect of the situation: so women’s work is devalued (3). Furthermore, the maternal function is present in the illustrated book (there’s a mother in approximately 40% of books) and appears as the major model of the adult female: only 20% of the books about humans and 25% of the books with humanized animals are depicted whith a female character who is not a mother (3).

Men’s roles are more diverse: in addition to their professional activities, much more varied, fathers are more often represented in the process of sharing leisure activities with their children (2). In addition, over one third of the books about humans and half of those about humanized animals represent an adult male who is not a father. (3)

Finally, the type of animals used to represent an anthropomorphic character will differ depending on the sex of the character. Hence, male heroes are much more represented in the form of powerful animals (bears, wolves, etc.) or under the traits of an animal from children’s collective imagination (rabbits). In contrast, female characters take the form of small and / or demeaning animals, such as mice or insects. In addition, animals which are selected to embody them are less diverse than them used to represent males. (2, 4)

Consequences

Sexism in children’s literature has consequences on children’s development, as they integrate very quickly societal norms. Thus, according to a study published in 1978 (5), girls who have read books with female characters presented in non-traditional roles consider women could engage in occupations or activities not stereotypically feminine, more often than girls who have seen only traditional female characters.

In addition, it has been shown that self-esteem of children increases when they are in contact with heroes of the same sex (6). Thus, self-esteem of girls may be affected since there are few heroines in the books they read.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Novelle Dafflon, Anne. Sexisme dans la littérature enfantine : quels effets pour le développement des enfants ?
http://www.cemea.asso.fr/aquoijouestu/fr/pdf/textesref/SexismeLitteratEnfants.pdf

2. Ferrez, Eliane et Novelle Dafflon, Anne. Sexisme dans la littérature enfantine. Analyse des albums avec animaux anthropomorphiques/Sexism in children’s literature. Analysis of picture books with anthropomorphical animals. Les Cahiers internationaux de psychologie sociale. 2003, Vol. 57. Abstract

3. Brugeilles, Carole, Cromer, Isabelle et Cromer, Sylvie. Les représentations du masculin et du féminin dans les albums illustrés ou comment la littérature enfantine contribue à élaborer le genre. Population. 2002, Vol. 57, pp. 261-292. Full text

4. Dafflon Novelle, Anne. La littérature enfantine francophone publiée en 1997. Inventaire des héros et héroïnes proposés aux enfants. Revue suisse des sciences de l’éducation. 2002, Vol. 24, pp. 309-326. Full text

5. Ashby, M. S. et Wittmaier, B. C. Attitude changes in children after exposure to stories about women in traditional or nontraditional occupations.  Journal of Educational Psychology. 1978, Vol. 70, pp. 945-949. Abstract

6. Ochman, Jan M. Journal Name. The effects of nongender-role stereotyped, same-sex role models in storybooks on the self-esteem of children in grade three. Sex Roles. 1996, pp. 711-735. Abstract

Inequality between girls and boys at school

Inequality between girls and boys at school

Is school always egalitarian ?

I found yesterday an interesting video on the website Universcience-vod: Is school equal for boys and girls?

This is an interview of Annette Jarlégan, who is a lecturer in education sciences at the  University of Nancy and who has worked on genders in school. Her work explains notably how school can generate differences, especially between genders.

Unfortunately, the video is only in French and without subtitles. That’s why here I wrote a summary of the interview:

By the way of subtle mechanisms, school produces differences between girls and boys. The albums of children’s literature, for example, carry numerous stereotypes that pupils will integrate. In these albums, there are many more male than female heroes. Women are represented more often indoors, in the private sphere and are rather passive. Conversely, men are shown outdoors in the public sphere and are active. Also in school textbooks, there are very little cultural female figures, which creates an identification problem for girls. Unlike boys, they have no role models, which would encourage them to invest in a particular field. Finally, even the exercises could contribute to a difference between boys and girls, because their content and / or context of presentation are usually taken from areas of interest of boys. The representations and beliefs of teachers about girls and boys would have an influence as well. Thus from kindergarten through higher education, teachers are inclined to believe that girls are better in literature, and boys in mathematics. These beliefs are reflected in how they assess their pupils. Thus, teachers do not see the causes of the achievement of girls and boys in the same way: the good girl pupils would do well by their professionalism and efforts. The boys succeed because of their talent and potential. A docimology experience has shown that a good copy gets a better rate if a male name is written on it, than a female name. Conversely, a bad copy is more sanctioned if it is attributed to a boy. The assessments written next to the mark are different as well, depending on the sex. These differences in assessment and evaluation indicate that teachers expect more from boys than from girls. Teacher-pupils interactions are not similar depending on the sex of the pupil. For example, boys speak up more often, and teachers speak to them more often. In addition, teachers – especially in math – rather ask open questions (which generally requires a knowledge creating) to boys, and closed questions (which generally requires only to repeat a lesson) girls. Teachers also tend to give more feedbacks – positive or negative – to boys, i.e they are more likely to encourage or reprimand them. And all that influences pupils’ performance and behavior, because of the Pygmalion effect (Phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students, the better they perform. More information on the Wikipedia page). Girls tend to make less efforts in math than boys because teachers have higher expectations for boys in this discipline. As a result, at the same level in math and science, girls go less often in for a career in these disciplines than boys. All these mechanisms are responsible for what is called a “hidden curriculum“, a set of values, representations and skills acquired by pupils, without anybody noticing. We must distinguish sex (biological) and gender (social role). Gender is socially constructed by the family, the media, but also the school, as demonstrated by the various observations made above. This notion is important because it helps to understand how the school participates in the development of the gender, and how to remedy. Despite these differences in treatment between girls and boys, some improvements have been made over the last 10-20 years in France, perhaps due to the works on genders, fairly recent in sociology. The gender had long been poorly taken into account in the training of teachers. But in the 80′s, official instructions have tried to attracj teachers’ attention on sexism in course materials. The current policy also seeks to remedy girls’ self-censorship towards scientific fiels and some recommendations are given to teachers about the differences of behavior towards girls and boys. Publishers of children’s literature have also been solicited. All these actions from the government had consequences: thus, some years ago, two thirds of classroom interaction concerned the boys against one third for girls. Now the ratio is much closer to 55% – 45%. Finally, even if the way women and men are represented in the albums of children’s literature is still not really egalitarian, progress has been made. However while differences are disappearing in a particular domain, new mechanisms create some new ones in other ones. … Things will change permanently through initiatives and meetings, not only through recommendations from the government. Indeed, teachers are often totally unaware they do not behave the same way with boys and with girls.

Here for the summary! I wrote more about these issues in some articles, with references to scientific articles :

Sexism in children’s literature

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects. Part 1: the invisible mechanisms

Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects. Part 2: the Pygmalion effect

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

L’école : garçon, filles à égalité ? Universciences-vod. [Cited: Mars 10, 2011.] http://www.universcience-vod.fr/media/1694/l-ecole—garcon–filles-a-egalite–.html