Girls as objects, boys as humans
I recently discovered a number of articles related to gender stereotypes. First, Leshin & Rhodes (2025) published “Girls as Objects, Boys as Humans: Young children tend to be objectified along gender lines” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statement:
Objectification—the psychological phenomenon of relegating people to the status of objects, denying their humanness—is associated with a host of negative consequences for those targeted, from diminished cognitive performance to heightened risk of danger. Girls and women constitute the primary targets of objectification; thus, these harms fall disproportionately on them. Despite the persistence of such gendered patterns, however, it is not clear how they arise. That is, we do not yet know whether and to what extent perceivers objectify children along gender lines (i.e., associating girls with objects and boys with humans), thus limiting our grasp of this phenomenon both theoretically and practically. In the present studies, we addressed this gap on two fronts. First, we tested whether adults (n = 430) objectify young children based on gender. Second, we tested whether children themselves (n = 418, ages 4–10 years) display gendered patterns of objectification toward other children. We found evidence that adults objectify children based on gender: in both their categorizations and attributions, adults revealed overlap between their concepts of girls and objects and their concepts of boys and humans (although the degree to which each specific pattern manifested varied across studies). Children showed more limited evidence of this phenomenon: boys, but not girls, displayed the predicted pattern of conceptual overlap, and only in their categorizations. Together, these findings reveal that gender-differentiated patterns of objectification may take root in perceptions of young children—suggesting that the gendered consequences of this phenomenon may be larger in scope and earlier-emerging than previously assumed.
Our research represents the first test, to our knowledge, of the tendency for adults (and children) to objectify children along gender lines and has a few notable limitations. First, we did not assess whether and to what extent our measures of objectification toward child targets converge with prior measures of objectification (and related phenomena, such as dehumanization) toward adolescent and adult targets. Additionally, our measure of categorization-based objectification included only White stimuli; for a more complete investigation of this process, future research will need to diversify the stimulus set used in tests of categorization-based objectification. Finally, our analyses—and, in particular, our tests of categorization-based objectification—would benefit from replication with larger and more diverse samples.
They do a nice job of summarizing the limitations of the study. I thought it was helpful to know that it is boys who adopt the stereotypes first. Next, Block, Hall, Gonzalez, Cimpian, Schmader & Baron (2025) published “Who Cares about Caring? Gender stereotypes about communal values emerge early and predict boys’ prosocial preferences” in Developmental Psychology. The edited abstract and impact statement follow:
Communal values (i.e., valuing care for and connection with others) are important to individual well-being and societal functioning yet show marked gender differences, with girls valuing communion more than boys do. We examined whether endorsement of gender stereotypes associating communal values more with girls than with boys relate to children’s own communal values and interests, potentially giving rise to gender differences in preferences. We tested this relation across two studies with Canadian children between the ages of 4 and 11 years (N = 379; 92 girls, 287 boys; majority White and East Asian or Pacific Islander). We assessed children’s stereotypes about communal values (Studies 1 and 2; e.g., “Who do you think cares more about always helping other people, even if it takes effort? Boys or girls?”), as well as the extent to which children themselves (a) valued communion and (b) displayed interest in communal activities (Study 2). In both studies, we found that children older than 6 consistently associated communal values with girls more than with boys. Younger children, in contrast, exhibited an ingroup bias—they associated communal values with their own gender. Study 2, which included only boys, found that endorsement of stereotypes associating communal values with girls predicted lower personal endorsement of communal values and lower interest in communal activities among boys older, but not younger, than 6. These results suggest that gender stereotypes about communal values are learned early and predict boys’ disengagement from communal domains. Implications for gender differences in values and behavior are discussed.
Valuing care for and connection with others (“communion”) is important for the well-being of everyone, regardless of gender. Yet, girls and women value communion more than do boys and men. Why? We investigated gender stereotypes as a potential explanation. Indeed, we found that, as early as 6 years of age, children hold gender stereotypes that girls have stronger communal values (e.g., care more about helping and being kind) than boys do. The more that boys endorsed these gender stereotypes, the less they personally endorsed communal values themselves and the less they were interested in communal activities. This research identifies gender stereotypes as a possible early source of boys’ disengagement with communal values and activities.
So, just as boys objectify girls earlier, they believe, by age 6, that girls have stronger communal values and less often endorse or participate in communal activities. This may well explain the growing problem of isolated and unhappy boys and men. Next, Cvencek et al. (2024) published “National Disparities Favoring Males Are Reflected in Girls’ Implicit Associations about Gender and Academic Subjects” in Developmental Psychology. Here’s the edited information:
Based on data for N = 2,756 children (1,410 girls; Mage = 8.10 years) from 16 data sets spanning five nations, this study investigated relations between national gender disparities and children’s beliefs about gender and academic subjects. One national-level gender disparity involved inequalities in socioeconomic standing favoring adult males over females (U.N. Human Development Index). The other involved national-level gaps in standardized math achievement, favoring boys over girls (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Grade 4). Three novel findings emerged. First, girls’ results from a Child Implicit Association Test showed that implicit associations linking boys with math and girls with reading were positively related to both national male advantages in socioeconomic standing and national boy advantages in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Second, these relations were obtained for implicit but not explicit measures of children’s beliefs linking gender and academic subjects. Third, implicit associations linking gender to academic subjects increased significantly as a function of children’s age. We propose a psychological account of why national gender disparities are likely to influence children’s developing implicit associations about gender and academic subjects, especially for girls.
In an international study, we examined how national patterns of gender disparities relate to elementary school children’s implicit associations between gender and academic subjects. The study involved 2,756 children from five countries. We found that, for girls, national variations in gender inequalities in socioeconomic status and academic achievement significantly predicted stronger implicit associations linking boys with math and girls with reading. Moreover, children’s implicit associations linking gender and academic subjects significantly increased with age. The findings have implications for psychology, educational equity, and public policy.
This is a large international sample, illustrating that it is implicit associations linking boys with math and girls with reading relate to boys’ better SES in adulthood. Finally, Heine & Dufner (2025) published “How Aware Are People of Their Current Affect? A physiology-based investigation of affective awareness” in Emotion. Here’s the edited abstract:
The assumption that people differ in affective awareness (i.e., the extent to which a person’s subjective affective experience matches their affective bodily state) is central to emotional competence. To test this assumption empirically, we used a physiology-based approach to investigate individual differences in affective awareness. Participants (N = 255) viewed 76 pictures with affective content and rated their experienced affect. Facial muscle activity during picture presentation was assessed via electromyography (EMG) as a direct physiological measure of affective reactions. We used a multilevel model to quantify affective awareness as the strength of the intraindividual relationship between a person’s EMG reactions and affect ratings. This relationship was positive on average and differed significantly between participants. These individual differences in affective awareness were reliable and stable over time. Affective awareness was higher for women than for men and went along with generally strong affective EMG reactivity and better socioemotional abilities.
Here we find that women have higher affect awareness than men, with affective EMG reactivity and better socioemotional abilities more common in women. These studies illustrate ways in which gender stereotypes continue to impact children and adults’ behavior.