Which of the following is an example of gender socialization?

2 Learning to Conform to One’s Gender

Gender socialization (i.e., the process of learning one’s gender role) begins as soon as babies are born. The hospital staff members announce, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” As soon as the newborn is cleaned up and weighed, it is wrapped in either a pink or a blue blanket. Relatives and friends of the new parents rush to the store to buy congratulatory cards, and they find themselves confronted with an array of blue or pink cards containing gendered messages about how active a baby son is and how sweet a baby daughter is. One must search long and carefully to find a unique nongendered card, which might be yellow and green and discuss how much happiness a new baby can bring. Before babies can even begin to understand spoken language, adults and older children greet them with gendered exclamations such as the following. “What a big boy!” “How’s my little girl?” “He has such a strong grip!” “She has beautiful eyes!” Adults handle baby girls more gently and play with baby boys more vigorously. Some of these actions are done deliberately because people believe that it is proper to treat boys and girls differently. Other actions are done without thinking about their repercussions. The phrases “big boy” and “sweet girl” just seem to go together because people have heard those phrases uttered so often.

2 Gender Acquisition in Childhood

Gender socialization, or the process of learning gender roles, begins at the onset of human life and occurs through cultural, structural, and cognitive avenues. The first statements at the birth of a child include references to the sex of the infant. Parents and friends alike agonize over the purchase of blue or pink gift items according to the sex of the newborn. Beyond the acquisition of items that are “blue for boys” and “pink for girls” and the inherent information presented by these items, infants encounter different treatment based on their sex. Adults, whether knowingly or not, handle infant girls more gently than infant boys, and comment upon the delicate features of girls but on the strong features of male infants. For example, as soon as 24 hours following the birth of a child, mothers and fathers describe female infants as finer featured, softer, smaller, and more inattentive as compared to male infants. This occurs despite the lack of significant differences between female and male infants in both birth length and weight. This difference in treatment occurs even prior to children’s acquisition of language and before they become cognitively aware of gender-appropriate behavior.

The acquisition of gender identity becomes apparent in children by the age of three. Social learning theory offers an explanation for the development of gender roles and gender-typed preferences at such an early age. It suggests that children learn gender-appropriate behavior through the observation of others. This occurs through observational learning in which the child watches the behavior of others, parents and other adults alike, and mimics their behavior. In addition, adults reinforce children for acceptable gendered behavior and punish them for violating gendered expectations. For example, if a young boy begins to play with his sister’s doll, his parents may look at him disapprovingly or even remove the doll from his play area. In addition to experiencing reward contingencies directly, children witness vicarious reinforcement. Vicarious reinforcement refers to the observed reinforcement or punishment of parents, friends, teachers, and television characters for their gender-consistent or -inconsistent behavior, which children imitate depending on the anticipated reward. The reinforcement of observed others sends messages to the child regarding the acceptability of the observed individual’s actions. Therefore, children receive information regarding not only the actual mechanics of behaviors but also the social value in imitating them.

The process of gender socialization also takes place bidirectionally, with children participating in their own socialization. Children cognitively categorize the information they actively learn through the reinforcement and modeling of gender-appropriate behavior. Cognitive-developmental theory suggests that children desire to display prescribed gender-appropriate behaviors. While reward contingencies shape some gendered behavior, children also form their own preferences regarding toys, activities, and same-sex individuals. In a cyclical fashion, social and cognitive processes maintain these gender preferences, and both encourage the reinforcement and performance of gender-consistent behavior. In turn, the performance of appropriate gendered behaviors increases the reinforcement of gendered activities and cognitions.

Children often prefer to wear gender-appropriate clothing and play with same-sex peers. Often this occurs due to children’s’ own inability to remember or categorize same-sex behaviors and traits correctly. Therefore, children use general in-group (individuals perceived as belonging to the child’s own group) and out-group (individuals perceived as not belonging to the child’s own group) favoritisms to guide their own behaviors. For example, a girl may express the belief that her same-sex peers are more friendly, honest, and humorous than the same-sex boys group. However, the boys feel the same way toward their same-sex peers and feel negatively toward the opposing group of girls.

Child peer preference also occurs due to the propensity of parents and child-care facilities to segregate children into same-sex play groups based on gender-typed activities. These activities (such as sports or group projects) encourage bonding among their participants and the formation of in-group and out-group stereotyping and grants children a venue for developing more same-sex relationships. In addition, children, like adults, pay attention to and remember behavior consistent with their gender stereotypes. Conversely, gender-inconsistent behavior passes unnoticed and unassimilated into the child’s general gender schema. As a result, children learn that boys and girls normally spend time apart and in different activities.

Aging, Appearance, and Women’s Socialization

Reflecting differing gender socialization, appearance is more important for women than for men irrespective of age, and looks are an important marker of a woman’s social value. Whereas men are socialized to focus more on social and physical accomplishments than on their outer facade, women learn from an early age to be especially concerned with their appearances and the achievement of idealized beauty. Thus, women are taught to use makeup, to attend to fashion, hair care, and bodily adornment as well as to watch their weight so as to be considered as attractive as possible. This process of socialization occurs through women’s interactions with peers and significant others, particularly their mothers and other female role models. Advertising and television combined with the influence of the multibillion dollar fashion and cosmetic industries further entrench the message that how women look is of utmost consequence for their societal acceptance and accomplishments in various realms of their lives.

Extreme examples of this emphasis on a woman’s appearance can be found in some countries such as the United States where beauty pageants exist for female toddlers through to young and middle-aged women, and for which there are no male equivalents. While not all women compete in beauty pageants or equally embrace cultural ideals of feminine beauty, the research reveals that women’s appearances are important to their success in obtaining everything from friends, to romantic partners, to workplace promotions. Additionally, a woman’s sense of identity and self-esteem are more closely linked to her feelings about and perceptions of her appearance as compared to men. Therefore, the loss of culturally valued and defined beauty as a result of physical aging has body image, identity, self-esteem, and social standing consequences for older women.

8 Extracurricular Participation

There has been an increasing awareness that much of gender socialization occurs outside of the classroom in the extracurricular and informal activities of the school (Eder and Parker 1987). Data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988–94, a nationally representative longitudinal sample of over 20,000 adolescents, show differences in gender participation. Girls were more likely to participate in artistic, religious, social, and service activities. White females were more likely to participate in most extracurricular activities than Hispanic, African–American, or Asian–American females. Male high school graduates were more likely than females to have taken at least one year of physical education, and outnumbered girls in team sports. Girls outnumbered boys in performing arts, school government, and literary activities, but boys were more likely than girls to occupy positions of leadership in some of these activities. As for activities outside of school, girls were more likely to take classes and be involved in activities with their parents than were boys.

Dissonant Patterns of Grief

Doka and Martin (2010) suggest that gender does not solely determine one's reaction to bereavement, although accompanying gender socialization certainly can have an impact. These researchers suggest a continuum of grief reaction styles. At one end is the intuitive griever, sometimes referred to as a “heart griever.” This style is most consistent with what mental health workers are taught to assume is the best approach to facilitate the grieving process by concentrating heavily on experiencing emotions and expressing them. This type of grief is by definition difficult for some men to enact, in part, because affective reactions and turning to another can be labeled as counter to traditional male roles. Sharing the content of inner lives and turning to others is counter to totally self-sufficient masculinity and may be associated with the sense that one has failed as a man.

At the other end of the continuum is the instrumental griever, also called the “head griever.” The instrumental approach advocates “mastery” over oneself. Grief is approached as both private and reflective. There can also be an action component in the service of grieving. Persons may increase activity on seemingly nongrief-related actives as a way to burn off the intensity of emotions. It also gives a focus, a way to turn something that feels intangible into a thing that can be touched. Doka and Martin have found in their research that many men are socialized to approach grief in this more action-oriented, reserved, and reflective fashion.

While many men and women utilize blended styles of grieving, drawing from both intuitive and instrumental reactions, one's approach to loss becomes problematic if there are inconsistencies between the ways grief is experienced and the pressure to express it in a different way. Doka and Martin refer to this as dissonant patterns of grief. Dissonant grievers can be either of the intuitive or of the instrumental variety, but the constraints of what can be a mismatched approach for the griever hold them back from freely working through loss. A recent study (Bartone & Blazina, 2016) found that younger men (aged 18–24 years) reported higher levels of dissonant patterns of grief over the loss of their most significant canine companion versus those of middle-aged males. Doka and Martin (2010) suggest restrictive emotionality is the most important concept related to dissonant patterns of grief. In this case male grievers hide their feelings and thoughts from others. They may also avoid or withdraw from people because of it (Doka & Martin, 2010).

A closely related concept to dissonant patterns of grief is that of disenfranchised grief. That is when society, family, and close friends do not recognize one's loss as legitimate. The outcome for the griever is to make the loss even more private, possibly complicating the bereavement process. In a nationwide survey, a quarter of men reported endorsing the notion that, “Other people would not understand how I feel” in regard to the loss of their companion animal (Blazina, 2016). This finding underscores how a significant number of men feel alone when working through the loss of their dogs.

Gender Theory

The application of gender theories of caregiving has increased since the 1980s. This body of work has been greatly informed by feminist scholarship and has its roots in the gender socialization framework and social role perspective. Gender socialization proposes that gender roles are internalized as stable personality traits and result from gender differences in socialization during childhood. In contrast, a social role perspective explains gender differences in behaviors as the result of a person's current and continuous construction of social realities and the related role demands of these realities. Using a gender socialization framework to understand gender differences in caregiving and caring, one would expect early role socialization and personality factors to be linked to greater involvement of women in caregiving tasks. In contrast, a social role perspective would posit that women are more involved than men in caring activities because women have fewer alternative roles as a result of their limited access to diverse social resources. However, research has moved away from these two views of gender, focusing instead on issues related to inequity and identity. This redirection is due in part to the fact that women, by default, perform more care tasks than men and, in turn, express being more distressed. Moreover, distinct stressors affect women caregivers who often provide care both on the job and at home, which increases their vulnerability to stress. In general, feminist scholars do not promote the view of caring as a universal element of women's identity, or as a human quality, separate from the cultural and structural circumstances that create it. To feminist scholars, caring is a process that maintains and repairs our world and, in turn, one that should be highly valued within our world.

Risk Factors: Targeting the Study

Not everyone is at equal risk for every disorder. As we discussed in Chapter 4, risk factors are variables which make it more likely someone will develop a disorder. Identifying variations in risk can help researchers to target their efforts toward a population that needs further research and treatment efforts.

Risk factors can include variables on the personal, family, social group, community/neighborhood, or national level (Braveman, Egerter, & Williams, 2011). On a personal level, risk for many disorders varies depending on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics such as age, gender, race, education, or income, as well as genetic predispositions, behavioral profiles, and personality-related variables. Risk can also be affected by community-level variables such as the characteristics of a neighborhood. For example, on a community or neighborhood level, low levels of neighborhood income, high levels of crowding, high levels of crime, and low levels of social cohesion have all been identified as risk factors for some behavioral health disorders (Alamilla, Scott, & Hughes, 2016). Other risk factors that are associated with health outcomes include local or regional policies and regulations (i.e., concerning childcare or breastfeeding) that may influence health behavior (see Richman & Hatzenbuehler, 2014).

What characteristics could affect risk for the disorder you are investigating?

Demographic?

Environmental?

Social?

Personal?

Political?

Understanding the risk factors may provide important information about the etiology or causes of the disorder. Choosing risk factors can provide direction for identifying mechanisms that trigger or maintain the disorder.

For example:

If age is a risk factor, then the mechanisms might involve changes to developmental processes.

If gender is a risk factor, then the mechanisms might involve hormones or gender socialization.

If substance use is a risk factor, then the mechanisms might involve impulse control problems or other consequences of using substances.

How Can You Find Information On Risk Factors?

To find evidence of a risk factor for your disorder, you can use the term “risk factor” combined with the term for your disorder (Fig. 5.7). Or you can use some of the risk factor terms suggested in Table 5.4.

Figure 5.7. Sample search.

Table 5.4. Examples of risk factor constructs at different levels.

Risk factors considered on an individual level	Example of measurement methods
Family stressors, child maltreatment	Self-reports, child welfare reports
Family resources, attachment	Self-reports, parent reports, observations
Other trauma	Self-reports, police reports
Family history of behavioral health disorders	Self-reports, parents' reports
Personality	Self-reports, personality tests
Age	Self-reports
Gender	Self-reports
Ethnicity or race	Self-reports
Education	Self-reports or educational records
Income or assets	Self-reports, tax returns
Risk factors considered on a community level
Neighborhood disadvantage	Census data
Neighborhood segregation	Census data
Neighborhood crime and violence	Reports from police reporting services, such as COPSTAT

As shown in Table 5.4, constructs which are commonly considered as risk factors for behavioral health symptoms and treatment outcomes include stressors and resources in the family and neighborhood/community (Reardon, 2016; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). As you can see in the table, different measurement methods can be used to gather data on family and neighborhood stressors and resources. Consequently, there can be many different variables representing the constructs of family stressors and family resources.

For example, the construct of family stressors could include variables such as “Child Maltreatment” or “Domestic Violence” or “Child Neglect.” In this case the variables also could be assessed through child reports, records from child welfare agencies, criminal justice organizations, or medical charts, among other measurement instruments.

Neighborhood stressors and resources can be represented by variables derived from the US census, including neighborhood disadvantage or neighborhood crowding. Sometimes researchers also use self-report surveys to assess neighborhood disorder or resources such as neighborhood cohesion).

Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.9. FFIEC website.

Using national databases to find information about neighborhood stressors and resources

To find information on community stressors in the social or physical environment, researchers often use information from the census or other national databases (see examples in Fig. 5.8). Here is an example of the type of data on a neighborhood that can be obtained from the census using freely available links (e.g., FFIEC https://geomap.ffiec.gov/FFIECGeocMap/GeocodeMap1.aspx) (Fig. 5.9).

Documenting Risk Factors

To document that a variable is a risk factor, you need quantitative evidence of a relation between the risk factor and the disorder you are studying. There are different ways this quantitative evidence can be provided. The relation between a risk factor and an outcome can be expressed in terms of percentages. For example, a researcher might state that 10% of people with the risk factor have the disorder compared with 5% of people who do not have the risk factor.

Or the relation can be expressed as a relative risk or odds ratio (OR) in which the researcher is expressing the likelihood of having the disorder if the person has versus does not have the disorder. Other studies document the relation between the risk factor and outcome by reporting a correlation or regression coefficient estimating the extent of the relation. Or researchers can present differences in symptom scores between those who do versus do not have the risk factor.

Here are the results from the Harford et al. (2018) study examining the relations of substance use to different forms of violence (Fig. 5.10). The authors examine whether meeting criteria for each substance use category is associated with violence. There are low levels of violence overall, but within each category of substance use, the authors examine whether those who meet more criteria for substance use disorders are more likely to engage in some type of violence.

Figure 5.10. Table from Harford et al. (2018).

7 Gender and Health Across the Life Course

During the twentieth century there have been radical changes in actual and expected gender roles, as well as in norms about age-related behavior. Gender roles and responsibilities are socially constructed in ways which vary across the life course. Thus, gender differences in health are likely to reflect gender socialization as to behavior at different stages of the life course. Thus the nature of inequalities in health for men and women may vary for different age groups (Annandale and Hunt 2000).

The health and other characteristics of women and men are influenced by their prior life course. This is vividly seen in later life, since the financial well-being of older adults is intimately tied to their previous role in the labor market and private pension acquisition. A life course approach emphasizes the linkage between phases of the life course, rather than seeing each phase in isolation.

Research often neglects gender differences in health in childhood and later life, while the dominant concern is working age adults. During the working ages, family structure has a greater effect on women's than men's health. Married men and women report the best health, irrespective of whether they have children, but lone mothers report the poorest health. Class continues to be a major factor determining the health of working age British men and women. However, other structural variables are likely to become increasingly salient in the twenty-first century. Whether or not a person is in paid employment has become a key marker of health status, while educational qualifications increasingly differentiate health, especially among women.

In later life, previous occupational class is the key determinant of health for older British men and women (Arber and Cooper 1999). The similarity in the pattern of class inequalities in health for older women and men is surprising given that the majority of the current generation of older women have spent less than half their adult life in paid employment.

The nature of health inequalities between women and men is likely to differ over time and across societies, reflecting gender roles and relationships historically and cross-nationally. Taking a life course approach provides added insights into the mechanisms underlying the creation and perpetuation of gender inequalities in health.

Multivariate Studies of Regional Suicide Rates

The accuracy of official national and regional rates of suicide has been questioned by Jack Douglas and others, who have argued that these rates are biased by the values of the local coroners and medical examiners and of the resident populations. However, despite the fact that regions do have different standards for classifying a death as suicide, Peter Sainsbury and Brian Barraclough showed that the suicide rates of immigrants to one country from different nations are in almost the same rank order as the suicide rates of nations of origin.

The suicide rates of 71 nations reporting to the World Health Organization are shown in Table 1 for males and females. An inspection of the table reveals two basic findings: (1) in all countries, males have higher suicide rates than females, which suggests that differential gender socialization (e.g., males are socialized to be more aggressive and to keep their feelings inside) significantly impacts suicide rates; and (2) suicide rates vary significantly among the 71 countries, which suggests that cultures differ in the degree to which suicide is viewed as an acceptable behavior. Cutright and Fernquist term this phenomenon the culture of suicide.

Table 1. Suicide rates around the worlda

Source: World Health Organization Statistical Information Systems website.

Simpson and Conklin identified two clusters of variables that were associated with national suicide rates: (1) a cluster that had the highest loading from the percentage of Muslims in the population and (2) a cluster that seemed to assess economic development. Suicide rates were lower in nations with less economic development and where Islam was a more important religion. Two other clusters (Christianity and the Eastern bloc) were not associated with suicide rates.

In similar study of the social correlates of national suicide rates, Lester identified 13 orthogonal (independent) factors for social variables, only one of which was associated with suicide rates, a factor that seemed to measure economic development (with high loadings from such social variables as low population growth and high gross domestic product per capita). Thus, these two studies agreed in finding that economic development is associated with higher suicide rates. Cutright and Fernquist reported that classical Durkheimian variables measuring social integration (i.e., divorce, fertility, and religiosity), as well as female labor-force participation, were strong predictors of cross-national suicide rates for both males and females of different age groups.

For the United States, a similarly designed study conducted by Lester identified a cluster of variables that seemed to measure social disintegration (high divorce and interstate migration rates, low church attendance, and high per capita alcohol consumption), and this was the strongest correlate of the suicide rates of the states.