HANDBOOK OF ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY - PART 4 ppt

differences in problem behaviors have frequently been observed. Girls, for instance, are less often engaged in problem behaviors than are boys and are likely to terminate their involvement in such behaviors sooner than are boys (Ensminger, 1990; Petersen, Rich- mond, & Leffert, 1993). A recent meta-analysis of 150 studies on gender differences in risk-taking behavior (which overlaps to some extent with problem behavior but may also be broader, includ- ing categories of intellectual risks and risk taking in physical skills) found an interesting pattern of results (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999). Whereas the overall average effect size was significant but small, with males taking more risks than females (d = .13), the size of the difference depended on the category of risk taking as well as on the age of the participants (classified into five groups ranging from 3- to 9-year-olds to over 21 years). A gender difference in drinking and using drugs was found only in 18- to 21-year-olds and in those over age 21. More college-age males (18 to 21 years) reported drinking and drug use (d = .17), whereas more females over age 21 reported drinking and drug use (d = 15). A gender gap in reckless driving, with males reporting more of it, was strongest in 18- to 21-year-olds (d = .37) and in those over age 21 (d = .85) compared to 14- to 17-year-olds (d = .16). The only age group in which there was a significant gender difference in smoking was among 18- to 21-year-olds (higher in females). Finally, more males than females engaged in risky sexual activities in early adolescence (ages 10 to 13; d = .60), in middle adolescence (ages 14 to 17; d = .22), and at college age (d = .18), but in those over 21, more females engaged in risky sex (d = 11). The authors reported that overall the gender gap seems to be diminishing over time (Byrnes et al., 1999). What explains differential rates of problem behaviors or risk taking in males and fe- males? Many theories abound (Byrnes et al., 1999). For example, Arnett (1992) referred to higher propensities of sensation-seeking desires (probably biologically based) in males relative to females as well as to cultural factors and gender roles that shape the behaviors considered appropriate for males and females. Nell (2002) argued that reckless driving in young males is an evolutionary adaptation that is reinforced by myths and narrative forms (e.g., James Bond movies) that promote feelings of invulnerability and immortal- ity. Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, and Silva (2001) presented longitudinal evidence that gender differences in adolescents’ and adults’ antisocial behavior (including conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence) may be attributed to males’ higher exposure to risk factors such as neurocognitive deficits, undercontrolled temperaments, poor impulse control, and hyperactivity in early childhood. It is likely that the processes by which males and fe- males come to engage in different levels of problem behaviors and risk taking involve a variety of predispositional, cognitive, emotional, situational, and sociocultural factors. Positive Youth Development An emerging trend in the literature on adolescence is an increasing focus on under- standing positive youth development (Galambos & Leadbeater, 2000; Lerner & Galambos, 1998). Scales, Benson, Leffert, and Blyth (2000) identified seven indicators of positive youth development (or thriving outcomes), including school success, leader- ship, helping others, maintenance of physical health, delay of gratification, valuing di- versity, and overcoming adversity. Although it is common to assume that one sex or the other possesses more positive qualities (e.g., girls are thought to be more helpful and al- Gender Differences in Adolescence 247 truistic), there is a dearth of empirical research examining sex differences in positive youth development. In a study of over 6,000 adolescents in an ethnically diverse sample, girls were significantly more likely than boys to report more school success and greater ability to resist dangerous situations. Boys, on the other hand, were more likely than girls to be engaged in leadership activities (Scales et al., 2000). It could be the case that certain indicators of positive youth development have more important conse- quences for one sex than for the other. Gore, Farrell, and Gordon (2001), for example, suggested that girls’ involvement in team sports activities counteracted the negative ef- fect of a low grade point average on depressed mood. Although it is too soon to say whether there are generalizable and systematic gender differences in specific aspects of positive youth development, such differences are worth exploring in future research. Peer Relations and Intimacy There is much research in the area of adolescence showing differences in males’ and females’ experiences of friendships. Girls’ friendships typically are more numerous, deeper, and more interdependent than are those of boys; moreover, in their friendships girls reveal more empathy, a greater need for nurturance, and the desire for and ability to sustain intimate relationships. Boys, in contrast, tend to place relatively more em- phasis on having a congenial companion with whom they share an interest in sports, hobbies, or other activities, and they are also more directive and controlling (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hoza, 1987; Connolly & Konarski, 1994; DuBois & Hirsch, 1993; Noack, Krettek, & Walper, 2001; Updegraff et al., 2000; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). The greater intimacy in peer relationships that girls experience extends to their ro- mantic associations. In a study of Israeli adolescents, girls reported that their romantic relationships lasted longer than did boys’, and they reported higher levels of affective in- tensity in these relationships. Attachment and care were seen more by girls than by boys to be among the advantages of dating, whereas more boys saw romantic relationships in terms of game-playing love (i.e., keeping her guessing; Shulman & Scharf, 2000). Another study showed that from Grade 8 to Grade 12, girls more than boys increased the amount of time they spent with a boy, as well as the amount of time they spent thinking about a boy (Richards, Crowe, Larson, & Swarr, 1998). An analysis of gender differences in ado- lescent reactions to heartbreak (i.e., breaking up with a partner) revealed that more girls than boys cried, approached friends for solace, reported insomnia and feelings of isola- tion, and thought about suicide. More boys than girls reported verbal and physical vi- olence, going out more often, using alcohol or drugs, and turning to sex and a new re- lationship (Drolet, Lafleur, & Trottier, 2000). The pattern of findings pertaining to the characteristics of adolescent friendships, romantic relationships, and reactions to heart- break mesh well with current understanding of the feminine and masculine gender roles. That is, females are viewed as expressive, nurturant, and empathetic and attached to oth- ers. Males, on the other hand, are viewed as strong, aggressive, and able to stand alone. Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior Among the many gender-related dimensions that can be studied are observable, gender-typed behaviors. One aspect of conformity to one’s gender role is how people 248 Gender and Gender Role Development in Adolescence behave in social situations (Huston, 1983; Leaper, 2000). Indeed, Deaux and Major (1987) argued that gender is constructed in the process of social interaction. Hundreds of studies of gender differences in the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of adult females and males, and some of children, show that females and males behave differently on some dimensions. For example, women more often than men ask questions, smile and laugh, and gaze at their partners, whereas men more often interrupt, spend more time speaking, and offer facts (Hall & Halberstadt, 1986; West & Zimmerman, 1985). Such studies of adolescents, however, are rare. One observational study that examined gen- der differences in the interactions of adolescents (ages 11–14) enrolled in a summer camp found that boys were more assertive and argumentative whereas girls were more complimentary and advice seeking and giving (Savin-Williams, 1979). In a study designed to examine gender differences in the verbal and nonverbal be- haviors of adolescents, Kolaric and Galambos (1995) videotaped 30 unacquainted mixed-sex dyads composed of 15-year-olds. With respect to verbal behaviors, girls and boys were more similar than different. They did not differ in questions, interruptions, or showing uncertainty. Amount of speaking time was higher for boys when the topic of the discussion was a masculine task (i.e., changing oil) but higher in girls when the topic was a feminine task (i.e., babysitting). With respect to nonverbal behaviors, girls engaged in more smiling, coy smiling, hair flipping, and appearing smaller compared to boys, whereas boys did more chin touching. There were no gender differences, how- ever, in gestures, head-facial touching, gazing, and head tilts. The authors speculated that girls were engaged in nonverbal display behaviors that communicated their femi- ninity. It is interesting, however, that girls’ and boys’ views of themselves as masculine or feminine were not significantly related to their verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Ko- laric & Galambos, 1995). In a similar study, girls were found to engage in more hair stroking, coy smiles, and eyebrow lifts with smiles, whereas boys, again, did more chin touching (Tilton-Weaver, 1997). A meta-analysis of gender differences in smiling showed that the largest difference was present in adolescents, compared to young, middle-aged, and older adults (La France, Hecht, & Levy Paluck, 2003). This under- studied area of research has much potential to shed light on adolescents’ gender-typed behaviors. SOCIALIZATION CONTEXTS The learning of gendered behavior is likely the result of the adolescent’s participation in multiple contexts in which there are models for and pressures to behave in gender- typed ways. In this section, evidence for the effects of several prominent contexts on the learning of gendered behaviors is presented. These contexts include the family, peers, school, and the mass media. Family The family has received more attention than any other context in research on gender development in adolescence. The influence of parents in particular has a long history of research. The relationship between family structure and gender-typed behavior and Socialization Contexts 249 characteristics was examined in early studies of mothers’ employment, as researchers found that adolescent girls with employed mothers were less gender typed than were those with nonemployed mothers (Gold & Andres, 1978; Hoffman, 1974). Other stud- ies indicated that boys were less gender typed if they came from single-mother house- holds rather than two-parent homes (Russell & Ellis, 1991; Stevenson & Black, 1988). There is a large body of literature on how the quality and content of interactions be- tween parents and children is related to gendered characteristics in children. One of the questions has been whether mothers and fathers treat daughters and sons differently (McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). A meta-analysis by Lytton and Romney (1991) indicated gender-differential socialization by parents in one domain: encouraging gender-typed activities in their children. Another meta-analysis found that parents with more gender-schematic identities and attitudes were more likely to have offspring with gender-typed cognitions, attitudes, and interests than were gender-schematic par- ents (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002). McHale et al. (2003) pointed to ways in which parents might influence adolescents’ gender role development. Specifically, parents serve as instructors and opportunity providers, may model gendered behaviors in marital relationships, and may have per- sonality characteristics, leisure interests, and gender role attitudes that reflect more or less gender role flexibility. One study showed that boys’ participation in masculine and feminine household tasks may be linked to family structure and to fathers’ own in- volvement in these tasks. Specifically, in single-earner families, there were positive cor- relations between fathers’ and sons’ engagement in masculine household tasks and in feminine tasks. Moreover, boys in single-earner families who were more highly involved in feminine tasks felt less competent and more stressed by their responsibilities com- pared to boys in dual-earner families who were so involved (McHale et al., 1990). These results pointed to the possible importance of congruence between the traditionality of the family context and tasks performed by boys for boys’ psychosocial adjustment. Ex- amining parents’ gender role attitudes and girls’ weight concerns, McHale, Corneal, et al. (2001) found that weight concerns were higher in adolescent girls whose mothers ex- pressed more traditional gender role attitudes. Fathers’ gender role attitudes were not linked with their daughters’ concerns about weight. An interesting short-term (2-year) longitudinal study investigated predictors of tomboy activities in girls who started the study in Grades 4/5 or 9/10/11 (McHale, Shanahan, Updegraff, Crouter, & Booth, 2002). Tomboyism was defined as the time spent in masculine play and leisure activities (e.g., competitive sports) relative to femi- nine play and leisure activities (e.g., dance). The researchers examined to what extent parents’ gender-typed characteristics (gender role attitudes, masculinity, femininity, and gender-typed leisure interests), girls’ gender-typed characteristics (gender role at- titudes, masculinity, femininity, and gender-typed leisure interests), and parents’ and girls’ testosterone levels were linked to changes in tomboyism over time. In preadoles- cence, change in girls’ tomboy activities was predicted only by the girls’ earlier interests in such activities. In early adolescence, in addition to previous levels of tomboyism, mothers’ masculine interests and fathers’ more egalitarian gender role attitudes were linked with girls’ increasing involvement in tomboy activities. In middle adolescence, girls’ previous level of tomboyism and their fathers’ masculine personality and mascu- line interests predicted increases in girls’ tomboyism. Moreover, there was evidence that 250 Gender and Gender Role Development in Adolescence in middle childhood, mothers’ and girls’ higher levels of testosterone were linked to tomboy activities. Another set of analyses found that girls who engaged in tomboy ac- tivities reported more social competence with peers, better relationships with their par- ents, and an internal locus of control (McHale et al., 2002). These results as a whole are informative in that they clearly link some aspects of parents’ gender-related character- istics to their daughters’ behavior. There is evidence that siblings also play a role in gender socialization (McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 1999) and in some instances may be even more important than par- ents. McHale, Updegraff, Helms-Erikson, and Crouter (2001) found that over a 2-year period in early adolescence, younger siblings became more like their older siblings with respect to gender role attitudes, gender-typed personality qualities (i.e., masculinity, femininity), and masculine leisure activities. These results held even after controlling for the effect of parents’ gender-typed characteristics on adolescents. In contrast, older siblings became less like their younger siblings. The authors concluded that the results were consistent with a social learning process for younger siblings, in which older sib- lings served as models. On the other hand, older siblings seemed to be engaged in a de- identification process, which involved differentiating themselves from their siblings (McHale, Updegraff, et al., 2001). Updegraff et al. (2000) extended this research on sibling influences by examining the relationship between the gender composition of firstborn-secondborn sibling dyads (same- vs. mixed-sex) and the qualities of adolescents’ same-sex friendships. The au- thors predicted that having a sister or a brother might be linked to intimacy (higher in girls’ relationships) and control (higher in boys’ relationships) in close friendships and to friends’ masculine and feminine leisure interests and personality qualities. The re- sults showed that adolescents with brothers, compared to those with sisters, were more controlling in their close friendships and also had friends who were more controlling. These findings are consistent with a social learning perspective in which siblings may learn more controlling behaviors from their brothers. On the other hand, brothers did not seem to learn intimacy from their sisters. This study adds to evidence that siblings are an important part of the gender socialization experience. Peers Beginning in early childhood and evident in many cultures, boys and girls segregate themselves into same-sex peer groups, continuing until about age 12 (Maccoby, 1990). Within these same-sex groups, girls form dyadic or triadic friendships, whereas boys form larger friendship networks. The quality of girls’ and boys’ same-sex interactions in these groups differs as well, with competition and conflict present in the all-male groups and nurturance and empathy characterizing the all-girl groups. The intimacy that is present in girls in adolescence may have a basis in these earlier all-girl groups. Maccoby (1990, 2002) argued that gender-typed behavior is observed, learned, and re- inforced in these groups. It is not clear, however, to what extent peer groups in adoles- cence form a context for and shape gendered behaviors. The void in empirical work on peer influences on gender-typed behavior in adoles- cence is deep. It is evident from studies conducted of adults, however, that this void could be filled with interesting and relevant research. For example, research on dyadic Socialization Contexts 251 interactions in young adults demonstrates that gender-typed behaviors may be more noticeable in same- compared to mixed-sex dyads (Carli, 1989) and in dyads discussing masculine-oriented issues (Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keating, 1988). A study of young children found that girls’ expression of their own perspectives was sig- nificantly higher in all-girl playgroups than in playgroups in which boys were present (Benenson, Del Bianco, Philippoussis, & Apostoleris, 1997). It would be interesting to see observational studies of the behaviors of male and female adolescents in interaction with same- and other-sex peers. The enactment of gender roles could come alive (or not) in these situations. In addition, the kind of pressures to which adolescents are ex- posed to conform to gender roles could be documented. Given that the gender intensi- fication hypothesis assumes that peers are important socializing agents for gender- typed behavior, it is surprising that researchers have not picked up on the need to document whether, to what extent, and by which processes peers influence gender- related behavior. School Much of the difference in girls’ lower interest in math and science has been attributed not to the abilities of girls (who perform comparably to boys when they have equivalent backgrounds and academic experiences), but to teacher and parent expectations for girls’ lower achievement and interest in these subjects (Parsons, Kaczala, & Meece, 1982; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). In addition, boys are given greater time, atten- tion, and encouragement in the classroom (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). These findings point to schools as sources of gender differences in academic interests. One study provided tantalizing evidence that all-girl schools could reduce the aca- demic disadvantages that girls can experience. Using data from the large-scale High School and Beyond study, Lee and Bryk (1986) compared the experiences of over 1,800 girls and boys enrolled in similarly constituted coeducational and single-sex private Catholic schools as they moved from Grade 10 through Grade 12. They investigated a wide variety of student outcomes including academic and social attitudes, school- related behaviors, course enrollment, academic achievement, educational aspirations, self-concept, and gender role attitudes. After carefully adjusting for family background and school variables, the results were consistently in favor of girls who attended all-girl schools. Relative to girls in coeducational schools, girls in single-sex schools did more homework, associated more with academically oriented peers, expressed more interest in math and English, took more math courses, made more gains in reading and science achievement across the 2-year period, had higher educational aspirations, rated their schools and teachers more positively, and became increasingly more egalitarian in their gender role attitudes from Grade 10 to Grade 12. Boys in single-sex schools also expe- rienced advantages relative to their coeducational counterparts (e.g., they enrolled in more math and science courses and had higher achievement scores in some areas), but the differences were weaker, and on most variables (educational aspirations, self- concept, and gains in achievement) there were no school differences at all. On a different note, studies have indicated that early maturation in girls is a risk fac- tor for their involvement in delinquency (e.g., Stattin & Magnusson, 1990). Caspi, Ly- nam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993) compared the effects of early, on-time, and later matu- 252 Gender and Gender Role Development in Adolescence ration in a sample of adolescent girls attending either mixed-sex or all-girl secondary schools in New Zealand. As in previous research, early maturation was associated with higher levels of delinquency at ages 13 and 15 and more association with peers who en- gaged in such behavior. (On-time and late maturation were not linked with delin- quency.) The association between early maturation and delinquency, however, was found only among girls who attended mixed-sex schools. The authors concluded that “at least two factors are necessary for the initiation and maintenance of female delin- quency: puberty and boys” (Caspi et al., 1993, p. 26). Both of these studies point to the important role that the school context can play in the gender socialization of adolescents. Studies of the differences between single-sex and coeducational schools highlight the concern that North American schools in gen- eral (because most are coeducational) may to some extent perpetuate gender stereo- types. These results also suggest the importance of looking within schools to determine what practices and experiences increase or diminish gender differences. Naturally, teacher behavior and attitudes, school climate, and the endorsement of gender stereo- types and pressures for conformity by classmates are among the school variables that likely contribute to gender socialization. Mass Media The mass media, including movies, television, and magazines, have come under fire from academics and members of the public for their sexualization of young girls, the portrayal of violence, and the perpetuation of gender stereotypes and unrealistic ex- pectations for body weight and appearance. Because of its pervasiveness, television has received special attention as a purveyor of messages containing gender stereotypes. Re- search on the content of television programming demonstrates that television consis- tently underrepresents women as a proportion of the population, glorifies youth and beauty, presents unrealistic and stereotyped images of women’s and men’s bodies, and portrays women and men in stereotyped roles and occupations. Moreover, these images are present in situation comedies, children’s programs, music videos, and commercials. And despite the negative publicity that this issue has received, the content with respect to gender stereotyping has remained remarkably stable over the last 30 to 50 years (Sig- norielli, 2001). In an interesting content analysis of 28 situation comedies on television, Fouts and Burggraf (1999) coded the body weights, dieting behaviors, and verbal behaviors di- rected at the bodies or weights of 52 female characters who were central to the shows. In line with the literature in general (Signorielli, 2001), underweight females were over- represented (33% of the characters) and overweight females (7%) underrepresented rel- ative to the U.S. population. Nearly half of the female characters received positive comments about their bodies from other male characters; 21% received such comments from other female characters. The thinner the female character was, the more positive were the comments bestowed on her by male characters. There was no relationship be- tween thinness of the character and negative comments directed at her. However, the more the female character engaged in dieting activities, the more she made negative comments about herself. In a similar study, Fouts and Burggraf (2000) found a positive relation between female characters’ body weight and male characters’ negative com- Socialization Contexts 253 ments about her weight or body. Moreover, an examination of reactions of the audience to the negative comments indicated that 80% of these comments were greeted by laugh- ter, giggles, and “oohs.” Another study examining the weights of central male charac- ters found that above-average weights were underrepresented, that male characters rarely received negative comments about their bodies from female characters, and that when they did, the audience did not respond. Males who were heavier, however, made more negative comments about their bodies, and this was reinforced with audience laughter (Fouts & Vaughan, 2002b). Findings such as these illustrate the distortion of reality (e.g., overrepresenting thin females) that is present in television sitcoms and the perpetuation of gender stereotypes such as “thinner is better.” Naturally, the social learning perspective leads us to worry about the possible harm to viewers who receive and internalize these messages. In general, research has shown an association between television viewing and the possession of gender-typed views and attitudes for all segments of the life span (Sig- norielli, 2001). It is difficult, however, to document the causal effects of television view- ing on gender roles and gendered behavior. Correlational studies cannot determine whether individuals with more traditional gender role attitudes, for instance, have those attitudes because they watch more television or whether they watch more television be- cause they already had more traditional gender role attitudes. Combined with the re- sults of natural experiments, longitudinal studies can help to illuminate the direction of effects (Ruble & Martin, 1998). With respect to adolescence in particular (a period for which there are few relevant studies), there is a positive relationship between the amount of television watched and more traditional gender role attitudes and stereotypes (Morgan, 1982, 1987). In a lon- gitudinal study of adolescents, higher levels of television viewing predicted increases in girls’ gender stereotyping across a 1-year period (Morgan, 1982). Another study found that 10- to 17-year-old girls who had an external locus of control combined with rela- tively high amounts of television watching were most at risk for reporting symptoms of eating disorders (Fouts & Vaughan, 2002a). Girls perceive higher levels of influence from the media on their body images compared to boys (Polce-Lynch et al., 2001). An- derson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, and Wright (2001), however, reported that higher levels of entertainment television viewing were linked to poorer body images in adoles- cent girls and boys. ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN GENDER DEVELOPMENT The study of gender development in adolescence has been largely restricted to Euro- pean American samples of middle-class adolescents (see Kulis, Marsiglia, & Hecht, 2002, for an exception). Thus, what we think we know about gender development may not necessarily be generalizable to other ethnic groups. For example, Basow and Rubin (1999) suggested that the socioeconomic conditions experienced by African American women lead them to take on both masculine and feminine behaviors and roles. In essence, then, these women may be ahead of their European American counterparts in gender role flexibility (Binion, 1990). In early adolescence, African American girls have higher self-esteem compared with 254 Gender and Gender Role Development in Adolescence European American girls. In addition, African American girls barely register a decline in self-esteem in early adolescence compared with that seen in European American girls. Latinas, on the other hand, have high self-esteem prior to early adolescence but show a steep drop beginning in high school (American Association of University Women, 1992). African American and Asian American girls and women also report lower levels of eat- ing disordered symptoms and body dissatisfaction compared with European Ameri- cans (Akan & Grilo, 1995). A study of 4th-, 6th-, and 8th-grade African American and European American girls and boys found that African American girls, compared with all others, believed that girls were more competent than were boys in all academic do- mains (Feagans, Rowley, Kurtz-Costes, & Mistry, 2002). On the other hand, with re- spect to academic self-esteem, African American girls may start out high but seem to lose their confidence across the adolescent years (American Association of University Women, 1992). A strong self-esteem in African American girls and Latinas has been linked to a strong ethnic identity (Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Phinney & Chavira, 1992). Basow and Rubin (1999) concluded that it is important to consider minority-group status when studying gender development. Furthermore, they pointed out not only that gender development should be considered in ethnically diverse samples but also that in- vestigations should include different religious and sexual minorities. These areas rep- resent virtually unexplored territory that could shed light on the ways in which gender development differs by ethnic, religious, and sexual background and experience. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS How and why do girls and boys differ? It is easy to conclude after reading the results of many studies that adolescent girls and boys differ dramatically. It is important to re- member, though, that gender differences in characteristics and behavior do not mean that all males are one way and all females are another. Rather, many males and females are both masculine and feminine, and results of meta-analyses show that where there are gender differences, few are large in effect. Thus, gender differences should not be exaggerated. At the same time, it is difficult to get a handle on the breadth and depth of the gen- der difference. Part of this difficulty may stem from personal experiences with both sexes. We all walk in this world, making observations that lead many of us at one time or another to draw sweeping conclusions about gender differences. Undoubtedly, these personal experiences also color our reading of the literature on gender roles. Part of the difficulty in understanding exactly how boys and girls differ arises also from the com- plex multidimensionality of gender role constructs and of behavior in general. Whereas we might note a gender difference in one behavior, there might not be one in a related behavior. Or whereas we might observe what we think is a gender-typed quality in someone we know, other dimensions of his or her behavior may strike us as distinctly not gender typed. Matters become more complicated when we consider that gender role development does not stop at a young age. Across time, as individuals mature and become exposed to other people, contexts, and places, their visions of themselves and of gender roles may change. It would be interesting to learn what the wisdom of old age brings to our own personal construction of gender. Summary and Conclusions 255 As for the question of why there are differences between girls and boys, the answer is equally difficult. What the literature tells us is that there seems to be truth to all of the theories that have been offered to explain gender development. Biology may not be des- tiny, but it announces to the world that with respect to some internal and external phys- ical attributes, girls and boys are different. Moreover, the external physical attributes are impossible to ignore in adolescence when gender differences in size and shape in- crease exponentially. Cognitive perspectives on gender and role development also have something to offer in terms of understanding why girls and boys might be different. Gains in cognitive development that occur in infancy through adolescence undoubt- edly shape the individual’s evolving gender schemas, which become more complex with age and show interindividual variability. These schemas, including the many aspects of gender identity, help to explain individual differences in gender-typed behavior. Fi- nally, there is evidence for gender socialization in many contexts, including the family, peers, school, and mass media. Differential treatment of girls and boys occurs to some extent in each of these contexts, but it depends, of course, on who is in that context and what behaviors they show toward the adolescent. A developmental systems approach to gender development leads us to consider bi- ology, cognition, and socialization as interrelated and important influences on adoles- cent behavior. If we accept that adolescent girls and boys are different in some ways, then we can attribute those differences to a complexity of changing and interwoven in- fluences. Trying to understand the exact nature of gender differences and the myriad of influences on gender development, however, remains a most fascinating and challeng- ing task. REFERENCES Akan, G. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1995). Sociocultural influences on eating attitudes and behaviors, body image, and psychological functioning: A comparison of African-American, Asian American, and Caucasian college women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 181–187. Alfieri, T., Ruble, D. N., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Gender stereotypes during adolescence: Devel- opmental changes and the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1129–1137. American Association of University Women. (1992). The AAUW report: How schools short- change girls. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001). Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1, Serial No. 264). Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmen- tal Review, 12, 339–373. Artz, S. (1998). Sex, power, and the violent school girl. Toronto: Trifolium Books. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barker, E. T., & Galambos, N. L. (2003). Body dissatisfaction of adolescent girls and boys: Risk and resource factors. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 141–165. Basow, S. A., & Rubin, L. R. (1999). Gender influences on adolescent development. In N. G. Johnson, M. C. Roberts, & J. P. Worell (Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent girls (pp. 25–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 256 Gender and Gender Role Development in Adolescence [...]... children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis Developmental Psychology, 38, 615–630 Tenenbaum, H R., & Leaper, C (2003) Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34 47 Tilton-Weaver, L C (1997) Adolescent perceptions of nonverbal displays in mixed-sex encounters Unpublished masters thesis, University of Victoria Tobin-Richards,... Noack, P., Krettek, C., & Walper, S (2001) Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear and separated families Journal of Adolescence, 24, 535– 548 Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J S (19 94) The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence Psychological Bulletin, 115, 42 4 44 3 Parsons, J E., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C M (1982) Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences...References 257 Bem, S L (19 74) The measurement of psychological androgyny Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 , 155–162 Bem, S L (1975) Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 6 34 643 Bem, S L (1981) Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing Psychological Review, 88, 3 54 3 64 Benenson, J F., Del Bianco,... of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395 Lerner, R M (2002) Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Lerner, R M., & Galambos, N L (1998) Adolescent development: Challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and policies In J.T Spence (Ed.), Annual review of psychology (Vol 49 , pp 41 3 44 6)... adolescents Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1587–1598 Connolly, J A., & Konarski, R (19 94) Peer self-concept in adolescence: Analysis of factor structure and of associations with peer experience Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 385 40 3 Crick, N R., Casas, J F., & Ku, H.-C (1999) Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool Developmental Psychology, 35, 376–385 Crick,... meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, 15, 47 0–500 Kohlberg, L (1966) A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes In E E Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp 82–173) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Kolaric, G C., & Galambos, N L (1995) Face-to-face interactions in mixed-sex adolescent dyads: Do girls and boys behave differently? Journal of. .. Gender labels and gender identity as predictors of drug use among ethnically diverse middle school students Youth and Society, 33, 44 2 47 5 La France, M., Hecht, M A., & Levy Paluck, E (2003) The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–3 34 Lamke, L K (1982) The impact of sex-role orientation on self-esteem in early adolescence Child Development,... events and depressive symptoms during adolescence Developmental Psychology, 30, 46 7 48 3 Gold, D., & Andres, D (1978) Comparisons of adolescent children with employed and nonemployed mothers Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 24, 243 –253 Gore, S., Aseltine, R H., Jr., & Colten, M E (1993) Gender, social-relational involvement, and depression Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 101–125 Gore, S., Farrell, F.,... intensification of gender-related role expectations during References 259 early adolescence In J Brooks-Gunn & A C Petersen (Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial perspectives (pp 201–228) New York: Plenum Hoffman, L W (19 74) Effects of maternal employment on the child: A review of the research Developmental Psychology, 10, 2 04 228 Holt, C L., & Ellis, J B (1998) Assessing the current validity of. .. for the development of sexual orientation Developmental Psychology, 31, 31 42 Berndt, T J., & Heller, K A (1986) Gender stereotypes and social inferences: A developmental study Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 889–898 Bettencourt, B A., & Miller, N (1996) Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, 119, 42 2 44 7 Binion, V J (1990) . Developmental Psychol- ogy, 30, 46 7 48 3. Gold, D., & Andres, D. (1978). Comparisons of adolescent children with employed and nonem- ployed mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 24, 243 –253. Gore, S.,. Television and adolescents’ sex-role stereotypes: A longitudinal study. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 , 947 –955. Morgan, M. (1987). Television, sex-role attitudes, and sex-role behavior (2001). Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear and sep- arated families. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 535– 548 . Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (19 94) . The emergence of gender differences