Who cares about caring? Gender stereotypes about communal values emerge early and predict boys’ prosocial preferences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".