p. 229-230:
Leinbach and Fagot 1993 "Categorical habituation to male and female faces: Gender schematic processing in infancy": babies were seen to respond to male/female headshots differently, but it looks like they were responding to hair/clothing cues
+p. 237 This 2009 book is the high point; it's only going to get worse
+> we know of no research on children’s knowledge and understanding of this particular challenge to the traditionally assumed "fact" of gender constancy, and thus our discussion focuses on children’s developing understanding of traditional gender constancy that assumes that birth sex is permanent and immutable.
+
+Bradbard and Endsley 1983, "The effects of sex-typed labeling on preschool children's information-seeking and retention"; describing novel objects (a pizza cutter or a buglar alarm) as toys "for boys/girls" did affect the children's behavior
+
+p.264
+effect of stereotypes on memory is manipulable in individuals!
+
+p. 271
+male preference is disappearing in Western culture
+
+p. 272
+types and mechanisms of parental influence—
+1. creating a gendered world (choosing names, clothes, activities)
+2. differential treatment
+3. direct instruction (boys don't cry &c.)
+4. parents as models
+
+boys names tend to become girls names
+
+p. 275
+> children's perceptions about their own ability (especially for girls in math) has been shown to be influenced more by their parents' perceptions about the children than by the children’s own grades (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Herbert & Stipek, 2005; Jodl et al., 2001).
+
+Lytton & Romney, 1991 "Parents' differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis": effect size of chore assignments is around d=0.3-0.5 ; but boy-only families still give the boys domestic chores
+
+
+
-----
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff