MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The development of spontaneous gender stereotyping in childhood: relations to stereotype knowledge and stereotype flexibility

2009· article· en· W2095154991 on OpenAlexaff
Rainer Banse, Bertram Gawronski, Christine Rebetez, Hélène Gutt, J. Bruce Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStereotype (UML)Flexibility (engineering)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStereotype threat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of spontaneous gender stereotyping in children was investigated using the newly developed Action Interference Paradigm (AIP). This task consists of assigning gender-stereotypical toys as quickly as possible to boys and girls in either a stereotype-congruent or a stereotype-incongruent manner. A pilot study with 38 children (mean age 5.1 years) provided evidence for spontaneous gender stereotyping in the AIP, which was reflected in higher latencies for stereotype-incongruent compared with stereotype-congruent toy assignments. The main study, with 66 children (aged 5, 8 and 11 years), compared the development of spontaneous stereotyping with established measures of stereotype flexibility and stereotype knowledge. Stereotype flexibility showed a strong increase from age 5 to 11. In contrast, stereotype knowledge and spontaneous stereotyping remained stable at high levels. The results provide evidence for a dissociation between stereotype flexibility and spontaneous stereotyping, suggesting that spontaneous stereotyping may be more closely related to stereotype knowledge than to stereotype flexibility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental ScienceSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207