Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Interventions in which people are exposed to counter-stereotypical role models are often used for breaking gender stereotypes. Most gender role-model interventions focus on adolescents and emerging adults. Yet, middle childhood might be a highly effective period for changing gender stereotypes because children are still learning about gender and gender roles. Therefore, this study examined the effects of a newly developed educational program with counter-stereotypical female heroines, on children’s gender schemas and self-esteem. Differences between boys and girls in the effects of the intervention were also investigated. A sample of 125 Dutch children (53% girls, 7–11 years old) completed a quantitative survey (assessing gender schemas, self-esteem) in class before and after completing the Heroines program with their teachers. Results showed that the program reduced children’s gender stereotypes about activities, but did not lead to change in five other gender schemas or self-esteem. Thus, the Heroines program had modest effects on some gender schemas, whereas most gender schemas did not change. This limited change might be due to the relatively short duration of the program, its broad nature, and the possible resistance of gender schemas to change as they have been formed over years in environments that are filled with gender-stereotypical information.

Keywords

role models gender stereotypes middle childhood intervention school

Introduction

Middle childhood, usually defined as the period between age 6 and 12 years old, is an important period for the development of multiple interrelated gender schemas, that is children’s thoughts about themselves and others in terms of gender (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002). There is ample evidence that from about age 6 to 8, children start reporting gender-typed career and family aspirations and expectations (Block et al., 2018; Croft et al., 2014; Polavieja & Platt, 2014). For instance, boys desire to become an athlete, mechanic, or soldier, whereas girls desire being an actor, hairdresser, or teacher (Polavieja & Platt, 2014). Moreover, girls expected themselves to be more family than career oriented in the future, whereas boys expected themselves to be more career oriented than family oriented (Block et al., 2018; Croft et al., 2014). In this period, children also begin to internalize gender-role dimensions of agency (e.g., assertiveness, dominance, competitiveness) and communion (e.g., warmth, nurturance, concern for others) in their self-concepts, with boys endorsing less communal and more agentic values than girls do (Block et al., 2018). Additionally, children’s gender stereotypes, a socially shared set of expectations about the roles, behaviors, interests, and traits of men and women, peak between age 5 to 7, and become more flexible thereafter (Trautner et al., 2005). In the same period children develop a more complex and multidimensional gender identity, that is their sense of self as boy or girl (Halim & Ruble, 2010). Furthermore, school-aged children have strong positive attitudes and preferences for their own gender (and negative attitudes about the other gender), which tend to decrease somewhat during middle childhood for boys in particular (Halim et al., 2017; Xiao et al., 2021).

Importantly, these gender schemas each have been found to be key explanatory factors for occupational gender inequality, specifically women’s underrepresentation in some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers (Diekman et al., 2017), and men’s underrepresentation in careers in health and elementary education, and in the domestic sphere (HEED; Croft et al., 2015; Block et al., 2018). Childhood career aspirations and expectations are also linked over time with the actual (gender-typed) careers of adults (Lawson et al., 2018). In addition, children’s attitudes about same- and other-gender individuals appear to be important for positive interactions or a sense of inclusion with individuals of the other gender (Halim et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2021). Furthermore, research has revealed a consistent link between children’s gender identity and social-emotional functioning and well-being, with favorable effects found particularly for more androgynous children who can identify with both genders (Martin et al., 2017). In order to foster greater occupational gender equality, positive intergroup contact between the genders, and well-being regardless of one’s gender, more insight is needed in how to effectively change children’s gender schemas. Middle childhood is suggested to be a highly effective period for changing gender schemas because at this age children are still learning about gender and gender roles (Bigler & Liben, 2006). In the current study, the effects of a new educational program with female role models were tested on children’s gender schemas.

The Importance of Gender Role Models

Children do not develop gender schemas in a vacuum. Gender-schema theorists argue that children actively construct schemas about gender on the basis of gender information that can be found in the world around them (Martin & Halverson, 1987), for instance via the gender role models they are exposed to. For example, parents are gender role models for children via their own work, task division, and work hours, which has been associated with children’s gender-typical views about their future career and family involvement (Endendijk & Portengen, 2022). Gender schemas also influence the way children perceive, attend to, and process newly incoming gender information. For instance, a child will selectively attend to gender information that confirms their preconceptions (Martin et al., 2002; Martin & Halverson, 1987). This transactional process may help explain why it appears so difficult to change gender schemas once in place during childhood. Gender schema theories also predict that gender schemas provide social standards that guide children’s behavior and choices. As such, a certain degree of congruence between children’s gender schemas and gender-related behaviors is expected. For instance, children’s gender stereotypes about STEM are linked to gender-typical educational and career choices and interests (Master et al., 2017).

Previous Research on the Effects of Gender-Role Model Interventions

Building on the premises of gender schema theories, interventions to reduce gender stereotypes and promote gender equality often make use of exposure to counter-stereotypical role models who break or diversify traditional gender roles. Surprisingly, most role-model interventions focus on adolescents and emerging adults, whereas only a few specifically target gender schemas and gender-related behavior in middle childhood (Olsson & Martiny, 2018). A review of the available literature in middle childhood concluded that exposure to counter-stereotypical role models via books or magazines appears to change children’s gender stereotypes in the short-term (Olsson & Martiny, 2018). However, less was known about the effects on children’s aspirations and other gender schemas and the longevity of role-model effects.

More specifically, regarding changes in gender stereotypes, six-year-old children from the US reported less gender stereotypes about occupations after a 2-month program in which teachers read books with counter-stereotypical models and children completed accompanying activities (e.g., role-play, group discussions) (Trepanier-Street & Romatowski, 1999). Similarly, Israelian first-graders exposed to basal readers with diverse presentations of males and females had less gender stereotypes about activities than first-graders who were exposed to more gender-stereotypical basal readers (Karniol & Gal-Disegni, 2009).

There is also some research examining the effects of counter-stereotypical role models on a broad range of gender schemas, not solely gender stereotypes, as well as on gender-related behavior. For instance, viewing a magazine page with peers playing with counter-stereotypical toys reduced UK children’s (4–8 years) gender stereotypes about toys, gender-typed playmate choices, and gender-based exclusion among boys, but did not change children’s gender-typed toy preferences (Spinner et al., 2018). Moreover, a 4-month stereotype-reducing educational program for 6- to 10-year-old UK children that also included exposure to counter-stereotypical role models effectively increased felt similarity to peers of the other gender, perceived unfairness of gender norms in boys, and diversity of occupational aspirations (Spinner et al., 2021).

A few studies specifically examined the effects of interventions with female role models. One study found that exposure to female scientists (through a lesson plan with trading cards, comic books, guest scientists) lead to less stereotypical drawings of scientists by 6-grade girls and boys from the US (Meaders et al., 2023). Similarly, being exposed to a book or short stories with female STEM role models increased girls’ interest in STEM careers (Bonus et al., 2022) and reduced girls’ gender stereotypes about intellectual ability, but not their beliefs of females as nice (Buckley et al., 2022).

A three-year longitudinal program in which Zimbabwean students (grade 4-7) used readers with females in counter-stereotypical careers combined with direct encouragement (e.g., “anybody can do any job they like”) demonstrated that girls became more interested in counter-stereotypical occupations (Nhundu, 2007). Although, at the same time, these girls still thought it was important to prioritize family over career. For boys, no changes in occupational aspirations were found, which could suggest that female role models might have a stronger effect on girls’ gender schemas than on boys’ gender schemas. Indeed, for 8- to 12-year-old boys, reading a book with a counter-stereotypical male character was more effective in reducing gender stereotypes than a book with a counter-stereotypical female character (Kneeskern & Reeder, 2020). Boys might be less able to identify with female role models than girls, and better able to identify with male role models instead. In sum, although the evidence for the gender-specific effects of counter-stereotypical female role models is not entirely consistent, there are at least some indications that such female role models might have a stronger effect on certain gender schemas of girls compared to boys.

Gaps in Previous Research

The above body of research on role-model interventions highlights several important gaps. First, most research focused on the effects of role-model interventions on children’s gender stereotypes and to a lesser extent on other gender schemas. As such, it remains unclear whether counter-stereotypical role models are able to change children’s views of themselves and others in terms of gender (Martin et al., 2002). The current study therefore assessed the effects of a role model intervention on a wide range of gender schemas, both about oneself (e.g., gender identity, gendered self-concept, occupational aspirations) and about others (e.g., gender stereotypes, attitudes about boys and girls). This is important as the predictive ability of gender cognitions about others for one’s own behavior is somewhat limited (Meissner et al., 2019). The internalization of changed gender stereotypes about others into children’s gendered views about themselves (after role model interventions) might be a more relevant indicator of children’s subsequent behavior (Olsson & Martiny, 2018).

Second, most previous research with gender-role models has made use of role models that are of the same gender as the target children, mostly female role models to change gender stereotypes, interests, and behavior of girls. This is often based on the idea that individuals who perceive a role model to be similar to themselves are more likely to be influenced by the model (Olsson & Martiny, 2018). However, children can identify with the role models on multiple grounds, as similarity can be demographical (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) or psychological (e.g., traits, values, struggles) (Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021). Therefore, it is interesting to examine whether female counter-stereotypical role models can change boys’ gender schemas to a similar extent as girls’ gender schemas. This can provide insight into the generalizability of the effects of role models from groups with less power (e.g., women) on members of groups with more power (e.g., men, boys). In addition, this can provide some indications as to whether boys are able to identify with the female role models on other grounds than gender.

Third, research has not yet examined effects of gender-role model interventions on self-esteem. Yet, self-esteem is an essential part of an interrelated set of social cognitions about gender (i.e., identity, attitudes, stereotypes, self-concept, self-esteem) that are organized in a balanced affective-cognitive system (Greenwald et al., 2002). This might indicate that when one gender cognition in the system changes because of an intervention, one or multiple of the other cognitions change as well in order to restore balance. Disbalance between cognitions is thought to elicit discomfort and stress, providing pressure toward further change and to renew balance (Greenwald et al., 2002). The current study therefore also examined effects of a role model intervention on self-esteem to provide insight in other positive side-effects.

A Newly Developed Role Model Intervention: The Heroines Program

Recently, a new educational program called Heroines! was developed for children between the ages of 6 and 10 that centers around the book Het begint met een droom (It starts with a dream). The Heroines program consists of fifteen one-hour lessons and an introductory and closing lesson. Each lesson features a counter-stereotypical heroine from the Dutch Kingdom (e.g., Rocky, Anouk, Ewine van Dishoeck, Lilian Gonçalves). Children learned about each heroine’s occupation or career, the activities they engage(d) in that make them a heroine, and about a specific character trait of the heroine. The lessons focus on agentic (e.g., strong, assertive), communal (e.g., nurturing, compassionate) as well as more gender-neutral character traits (e.g., sincere, truthful). Each lesson has a similar structure, starting with reading the story of a specific heroine from the book, sometimes followed by a short video of the heroine. Subsequently, children engage in a teacher-led class discussion about the accompanying character trait (e.g., “What does ‘hard-working’ mean?”, “Do you know somebody who is hard-working?”, “What would you work hard for?”). Next, children participate in an activating exercise in which they can use or become familiar with a specific character trait (e.g., make protest signs to practice with ‘being critical’). The program is flexible in that schools can make their own decisions on how they integrate the project into their curriculum. The maximum recommended length of the program is three months.

Several rationales were underlying the intervention development. The first and most important rationale based on gender schema theory (Martin & Halverson, 1987) was that exposure to counter-stereotypical female role models would lead to more diverse or flexible gender schemas and less gender-typical behavior. The female role models in the Heroines intervention were selected for being antithetical to gender stereotypes by their occupation or career, the activities they employed that made them a heroine, and/or their character traits.

Second, in general children’s books and learning material contains many stereotypical role models with little diversity in terms of ethnicity. A literature review concluded that in textbooks (1) males are overrepresented, and (2) males and females primarily engage in stereotypical occupational and domestic roles, and exhibit stereotypical communal and agentic traits (Blumberg, 2007). Similarly, a content analysis of popular books for children (4–8 years) revealed that male characters were more often portrayed as adventurous and active and female characters more as domestic and passive (Pownall & Heflick, 2023). In addition, the vast majority of characters in popular Dutch children’s book where White, even though Dutch society is much more ethnically diverse (de Bruijn et al., 2021). This highlighted the importance of developing a book with counter-stereotypical female models from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The goal was to balance out the stereotypical, male, and ethnically non-diverse models children are frequently exposed to. In addition, the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the heroines was considered to facilitate identification with the heroines for children from diverse backgrounds (Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021; Olsson & Martiny, 2018).

Third, the intervention was designed specifically for a school setting. Because schools reach many children at once, they provide a more efficient driving force for changing children’s gender schemas, compared to the family context. Moreover, in the school context children can also be reached that are less likely to be exposed to counter-stereotypical role models by their parents, for instance children from lower-educated families (Polavieja & Platt, 2014). The choice of an intervention centered around a book was also fitting in the school context because children spend as much as 80 to 95% of classroom time using physical or online books. An additional advantage was that after the intervention ended the book remained available to the children in the class, thereby extending the possible exposure to counter-stereotypical role models.

Current Study

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the Heroines program on children’s gender schemas (i.e., gender stereotypes, self-concept, gender identity, gendered expectations about their future career and family involvement, gender attitudes) and their self-esteem. The following preregistered hypothesis was formulated (see Methods for link to preregistration): The Heroines intervention would lead to more egalitarian and balanced gender schemas in children, as well as increased self-esteem (pre-post intervention comparison) (Greenwald et al., 2002; Olsson & Martiny, 2018). More specifically, regarding the gender schemas, children were expected to report (1) less gender-typical expectations about their future occupation and involvement with career and family, (2) less strong gender-role stereotypes and gender stereotypes about activities, (3) less gender-typical trait endorsement, (4) more similarity to other-gender peers, less similarity to same-gender peers, (5) perceiving boys and girls as more similar, and (6) less ingroup favoritism, less outgroup derogation. A secondary aim of the study was to investigate differences between boys and girls in the effects of the intervention. It was hypothesized (preregistered) that the intervention would have a stronger effect on girls’ gender schemas and self-esteem than on boys’ gender schemas and self-esteem, because the book featured female role models (Kneeskern & Reeder, 2020; Nhundu, 2007).

Methods

Design

This study had a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. Data were collected via online surveys (including quantitative questions and one open question) administered to children in class before and after the Heroines program. Through these methods, changes in children’s self-reported gender beliefs and self-esteem could be assessed. This study was preregistered (https://osf.io/wyb2u). Originally, a comparison of children’s pretest and posttest drawings of themselves as hero(ine) was also part of the preregistration. Yet, the subset of pretest-posttest drawings that teachers handed in was too small (n = 17) to make any relevant statistical comparisons. Therefore, this part of the preregistration was left out of the study. It should be noted that the researchers conducting this study were not involved in the development of the Heroines intervention, thereby ensuring a certain degree of objectivity.

Participants

All 18 schools that were going to administer the Heroines program between February 2023 and July 2023 were contacted by a research assistant to participate in the study. Schools could participate in either a pretest-posttest survey, teacher interviews, or in both parts. The focus of the current study was on the survey data only. Six schools (1 to 3 school classes within each school) agreed to participate in the survey part of the study. In total, 125 children completed both the pretest and posttest survey. Two of these children defined their gender as ‘other’, whereas the rest of the children identified as boy (n = 57) or girl (n = 66). Child age was distributed as follows: five 7-year-olds (4%), 27 8-year-olds (22%), 71 9-year-olds (56%), 20 10-year-olds (16%), two 11-year olds (2%). According to the teachers of these classes, student populations in their schools were diverse, with some schools including primarily White students, other schools included primarily students with non-Dutch ethnical backgrounds, and yet other schools included primarily students with a lower socioeconomic status. See Table 1 for characteristics of the participating schools.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Schools Participating in the Pretest-Posttest Child-Surveys

	School type^b	School area^b	N classes	N children	Child age	Weeks between pretest-posttest
School 1	Public	Urban	1	21	9–10	7
School 2	Religious (Christian)	Suburban	2^a	16	7–10	13
School 3	Religious (Christian)	Urban	1	22	9–10	4
School 4	Religious (Christian)	Urban	1	9	9–10	5
School 5	Religious (Christian)	Suburban	3^a	41	8–11	4
School 6	Public	Rural	1	16	7–11	5

^aThese classes within one school were taught by the same teacher.

^bSee supplementary materials for exploratory interaction effects between the Heroines program and School type and school area.

Procedure

Participating children and their parents provided written informed consent before the start of the study. Children completed an online survey via Qualtrics in class before and after the Heroines program (pretest: 1–7 days before start program, posttest: 1–7 after program end). On average there were 6.3 weeks between the pretest and posttest (min = 4; max = 13). The pretest and posttest surveys included the same questionnaires (see Measures). The surveys were completed under supervision of a trained research assistant and the teacher of the class (duration: 1 hour). The research assistant instructed children on each questionnaire. The teacher was instructed to not comment on the content of the questions and only assist with keeping the order in class and ensure that children completed the survey quietly by themselves. Children received no compensation for their participation. This study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Utrecht University (number: 22-0331).

The Heroines Program

Table 2 provides an overview of the content of the 15 lessons in the Heroines program. Each lesson has the same format, starting with reading the story of the heroine from the book ‘It starts with a dream’, followed by a class discussion about the central characteristic of the Heroine, and subsequently an activating exercise that is linked to this characteristic.

Table 2.

Content of the Lessons in the Heroines Program

Lesson	Heroine (occupation)	Central characteristic of Heroine	Exercises
Intro	-	-	- Class discussion: What is a hero(ine)? What are heroic characteristics?
Intro	-	-	- Draw yourself as a hero(ine)
1	Faiza Oulahsen (Greenpeace activist)	Critical	- Class discussion: What topic are you critical about? What would you fight for?
1	Faiza Oulahsen (Greenpeace activist)	Critical	- Make protest sign about something children are critical about (small-groups)
2	Rahma el Mouden (CEO)	Hard working	- Class discussion: Do you know someone who works hard?
2	Rahma el Mouden (CEO)	Hard working	- Write down what you would work hard for
3	Maria Liberia-Peters (prime-minister)	Uniting	- Class discussion: Do you feel united with someone who is far away?
3	Maria Liberia-Peters (prime-minister)	Uniting	- Small-group exercise to identify what children have in common
4	Annie M.G. Schmidt (writer)	Imaginative	- Class discussion: What is imagination?
4	Annie M.G. Schmidt (writer)	Imaginative	- Create the cover of your own book
5	Bet van Beeren (Owner inclusive bar)	Inclusive	- Class discussion: When do you feel included? What can you do to make others feel included?
5	Bet van Beeren (Owner inclusive bar)	Inclusive	- Develop your own inclusive child cafe
6	Harriette Verwey (Cardiologist)	Caring	- Class discussion: What does it mean to be caring? When did you care for somebody?
6	Harriette Verwey (Cardiologist)	Caring	- Develop a short play in which a person is caring
7	Rocky (Soccer player)	Motivating	- Class discussion: What does it mean to motivate someone? When did somebody motivate you?
7	Rocky (Soccer player)	Motivating	- Together develop a motivational wall with quotes
8	Ewine van Dishoeck (Professor of astronomy)	Curious	- Class discussion: What does it mean to be curious? What are you curious about?
8	Ewine van Dishoeck (Professor of astronomy)	Curious	- In pairs, draw a job that fits the curiousness/interests of the fellow student
9	Lilian Gonçalves (Lawyer, human rights activist)	Just/fair	- Class discussion: What does it mean to be righteous? What do you think is unfair in this country?
9	Lilian Gonçalves (Lawyer, human rights activist)	Just/fair	- Agreement with statements about unfairness (cross the line if you agree)
10	Gerda Havertong (Actor, singer, presenter)	Teaching	- Class discussion: What do you need to teach someone? Can you teach somebody? About what?
10	Gerda Havertong (Actor, singer, presenter)	Teaching	- Write your own rap about a topic you can teach somebody about
11	Lucia Rijker (Professional boxer)	Assertive	- Class discussion: What does it mean to be assertive? Give example of a situation in which you were assertive?
11	Lucia Rijker (Professional boxer)	Assertive	- Standing solid as a rock to be assertive
12	Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer (wood merchant)	Courageous	- Class discussion: When do you need courage? When were you courageous?
12	Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer (wood merchant)	Courageous	- Together create a story about a courageous person (students one-by-one add a sentence)
13	Nikkie de Jager (make-up artist)	Beautiful	- Class discussion: What can make people beautiful? What makes you beautiful?
13	Nikkie de Jager (make-up artist)	Beautiful	- Each student writes down something that makes a fellow classmate beautiful (on a paper attached to their backs)
14	Anouk (singer, songwriter)	Honest	- Class discussion: What is honesty? When is honesty important?
14	Anouk (singer, songwriter)	Honest	- Guess the lie: each students writes down a ‘truth’ and a ‘lie’. Other students have to guess which one is the truth and which one is a lie
15	Wilhelmina Drucker (politician, feminist)	Persistence	- Class discussion: How can you be persistent? Do you know someone who is persistent?
15	Wilhelmina Drucker (politician, feminist)	Persistence	- Students are invited to gossip in a positive to each other about instances in which fellow classmates were persistent
End	-	-	- Draw yourself as a hero(ine)

Measures

The effects of the Heroines program were examined on multiple gender schemas because the intervention and the role models in the book addressed gender-schematic content in different domains, i.e., occupation/career, activities, and character traits. The first five measures estimate the effect of exposure to this specific content on children’s beliefs about occupations, roles, career, activities, and character traits. A second reason for the focus on multiple gender schemas was that gender cognitions (i.e., identity, attitudes, stereotypes, self-concept, self-esteem) are interrelated and organized in a balanced affective-cognitive system (Greenwald et al., 2002). This might indicate that when one gender cognition in the system changes because of an intervention, one or multiple of the other cognitions change as well in order to restore balance. The last four measures estimate this more indirect effect of the Heroines program on gender schemas that are not specifically addressed in the program.

Occupational Aspirations

First, to assess children’s desired future occupation, children were asked the following question: “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Children’s free responses to this question were coded by using the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics data from 2023 that provides information on the proportion of men and women in an extensive list of occupations (Endendijk & Portengen, 2022). The proportion of men in a certain occupation that corresponded with the occupation mentioned by the child was used for our analyses. Proportions above .50 indicated more men than women in a certain occupation, proportions below .50 indicated more women than men in an occupational domain. When children indicated multiple occupations, the proportions were averaged. In case children answered the question with “I don’t know” (or something similar) a proportion of 0.5 (i.e., neutral score) was used for this child¹. Forty (16%) of the total number of reported occupations by children were double coded independently by a second coder. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.93) demonstrated excellent coder reliability. This scale was used to assess the effect of exposure to women in counter-stereotypical occupations in the Heroines program on children’s own occupational aspirations.

Family Versus Career Orientation

To assess children’s expectations about relative future involvement with family versus career, children were presented with two own-gender individuals and a description of their career and family life (Croft et al., 2014; non-binary children were presented with both genders). For each pair of individuals (i.e., two pairs were used), a person who worked full time was contrasted with a person who stayed at home caring for the children. Children were asked to indicate for each pair of individuals who they think they will be more like when they are grown up. They rated their similarity on a slider ranging from 0–100 (0 = most similar to career-oriented target, 50 = equally similar to both targets, 100 = most similar to the family-oriented target). Children were explained the end points of the slider (i.e., highly similar to left or right individual), the midpoint (i.e., equally similar to both individuals), and that they could use the entire range of the slider to indicate the degree of similarity to either one of the individuals. See Figure 1 in Supplementary Materials for an example item. Scores were averaged over the two items, so that higher average scores indicated more expected involvement with family than with career in the future. As all role models in the Heroines program were career women, this scale was used to assess whether exposure to career women would lead to increased career orientation in girls and reduced career orientation in boys.

Gender-Role Stereotypes

Children completed five items asking which person in a heterosexual couple would do more of a given household task (dishes, cleaning, child care, cooking, and laundry) (Croft et al., 2014). For each item, children indicated their response by sliding a scale toward either the person on the left (0) or on the right (100), with 50 representing 50/50 sharing of the task between the couple. The gender of the person depicted on each side of the scale was randomly counterbalanced. Children’s scores were averaged and recoded so that higher scores indicated more traditional gender-role stereotypes (i.e., women do more domestic work than men). Internal consistency of this scale was deemed unsatisfactory (α′s = 0.03; 0.26). In the Supplementary Materials (Table S1 and S2) outcomes of a factor analysis on this scale can be found, as well as (non-significant) results of an analysis testing the intervention’s effect on item level.

Gender Stereotypes About Activities

To measure children’s gender stereotypes about activities a short version (Fast & Olson, 2018) of the activity subscale of the COAT-AM (Children’s Occupations, Activities, and Traits-Attitude Measure) was utilized. Children were presented a list of 10 activities that people can do (e.g., do gymnastics, play video games), and to say who they think should do each activity: boys, girls, or both boys and girls. The activities were relevant for school-aged children and as such were different from the activities of the role models in the Heroines program. Scores were recoded and averaged (Cronbach’s α pretest = 0.74; α posttest = 0.77) in such a way that positive scores reflected stronger prescriptive gender stereotypes about activities (e.g., boys should play video games, girls should do gymnastics), scores around zero reflected egalitarian gender stereotypes (e.g., both boys and girls should do gymnastics), and negative scores reflected counter-stereotypical beliefs (e.g., girls should play videogames, boys should do gymnastics). This scale was used to assess the effect of exposure to women engaging in counter-stereotypical activities in the Heroines program on children’s gender stereotypes about activities.

Communal and Agentic Traits

To measure how important communal and agentic character traits are to children’s views of themselves (i.e., self-concept) a scale of communal and agentic value endorsement was used (Block et al., 2018). Children were asked to rate the importance of four communal values (“How important do YOU think it is to be kind to others?”) and four agentic values (“How important do YOU think it is to win?”) on a 5-point slider scale ranging from 1 (not very important) to 5 (super important). Scores were averaged in separate scales for endorsement of communal values (Cronbach’s α pretest = 0.66; α posttest = 0.73) and endorsement of agentic values. Internal consistency of the agentic scale was unsatisfactory (α′s = 0.51; 0.53). In the Supplementary Materials (Table S3 and S4) outcomes of a factor analysis on the agentic subscale can be found, as well as (non-significant) results of an analysis testing the intervention’s effect on item/subscale level.

The role models in the Heroines program were linked with a combination of (stereotypical) communal traits, (counter-stereotypical) agentic traits, and neutral traits, and children engaged in discussions and exercises about all these traits. Therefore, this scale was used to assess whether the gender-diverse content about character traits in the Heroines program lead to reduced communal and/or increased agentic trait endorsement in girls and increased communal and/or decreased agentic trait endorsement in boys.

Gender Identity: Felt Similarity to Boys and Girls

Next, children’s gender identity was assessed by a dual gender identity measure (Martin et al., 2017) measuring children’s felt similarity to both boys and girls. Children answered 10 questions regarding how similar they felt to both boys (e.g., “How similar do you feel to boys?”, “How much do you like to do the same things as boys?”) and girls (e.g., “How similar do you feel to girls?”, “How much do you like to do the same things as girls?”). A graphical response scale was used with two circles, one representing oneself and one representing either boys or girls (Martin et al., 2017). The closer the two circles were together, the greater the perceived similarity. Responses ranged from 1 (two circles farthest apart) to 5 (two overlapping circles). Children’s responses on the five male and five female items were averaged separately, with higher scores representing more similarity to respectively boys and girls (similarity to boys: Cronbach’s α pretest = 0.91; α posttest = 0.92, similarity to girls: α pretest = 0.93; α posttest = 0.94). This scale was used to assess whether exposure to counter-stereotypical female role models would lead to increased felt similarity to girls in boys in particular (i.e., experiencing that they have things in common with these role models).

Similarity of Boys and Girls

Children also reported how similar they thought boys and girls were using a similar graphical response scale as the gender identity measure with the distance between two circles indicating the level of similarity (adapted from Martin et al., 2017). The instruction they received was the following: “Click on the circles that show how similar you think boys and girl are.” Responses ranged from 1 (circles representing boys and girls farthest apart) to 5 (overlapping circles representing boys and girls). Higher scores represent stronger perceived similarity of boys and girls. This scale was used to assess whether exposure to female role models that are counter-stereotypical in their occupation/career, activities, and/or character traits would enhance the belief in children that boys and girls are similar.

Intergroup Attitudes

Finally, as a measure of intergroup attitudes children were asked how they felt about boys and girls by using a feeling thermometer (1 = very negative emotions, 3 = neutral, 5 = very positive emotions). Feeling thermometers are often used to assess intergroup attitudes and demonstrate satisfactory psychometric properties across different age groups (Lolliot et al., 2004). This scale was used to assess whether exposure to female heroines would enhance children’s positive feelings about girls in particular.

Self-Esteem

Child self-esteem, defined as a general positive perception of the self, was measured with the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Grades 3–8) global self-worth scale (Harter, 2012). This subscale is similar to Rosenberg's (1965) measurement of self-esteem but the wording is more appropriate for children (Harter, 2012). In this 6-item subscale, children are asked to choose which of 2 kinds of children they are most like (e.g. “some kids like the kind of person they are BUT other kids wish they were different”, “Some kids are often unhappy with themselves BUT Other kids are pretty pleased with themselves.”). After making a choice, children were asked whether this was “sort of true” or “really true.” Responses were recoded and averaged to a scale from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem (Cronbach’s α pretest = 0.80; α posttest = 0.82).

Analyses

Three-level multilevel models were not fitted to the data as preregistered because ICCs for school level were zero for all outcomes. In addition, the number of clusters was too small for unbiased fixed effects in three-level models (Kerkhoff & Nussbeck, 2023). Therefore, multilevel modeling was not warranted and regular analyses of variance with repeated-measures (RM-ANOVA) were used with child outcomes on pretest and posttest as repeated measures. Separate RM-ANOVAs were conducted for each outcome, except for outcomes that were assessed in the same questionnaire (i.e., similarity to boys and similarity to girls; attitudes about boys and attitudes about girls), which were included in the same RM-ANOVA as separate within-subject factors. As the sample included two children who did not identify as either boy or girl, main effects of the Heroines program and interaction effects with child gender were tested in two separate steps. In the first step, the main effect of time was examined in RM-ANOVAs on the whole sample including the two non-binary children. In the second step, interactions between child gender (boy vs girl) and time were included in the RM-ANOVAs. In both steps child age was included as covariate. Interactions with the covariate child age and main effects of child gender were also included in the models, but these effects were not hypothesized and preregistered and can therefore be found in the Supplemental Materials.

Power analysis with G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) showed that a sample of 90 would have enough power (.80) to detect small-to-medium sized main effects of the intervention or interactions between child gender and the intervention effect (f = .15) in a RM-ANOVA with 2 measurements, 2 groups, and a correlation of .5 between repeated measures. However, the power for this interaction refers to a complete cross-over interaction (e.g., intervention effect positive for one group and negative for the other group) (Brysbaert, 2019). In the current study, a cross-over interaction was not hypothesized, but it was expected that the intervention would have a stronger effect on girls than on boys. Such a simple slopes design would require at least 90 participants per group to detect a small-to-medium sized main effect of the intervention (f = .15) in a RM-ANOVA in one group and not in the other (Brysbaert, 2019). So, for detecting interactions between child gender and the intervention effect this study was somewhat underpowered.

Results

Effects of Heroines Program on Children’s Self-Reported Gender Schemas and Self-Esteem

Table 3 presents means and standard deviations for children’s gender schemas and self-esteem before and after the Heroines program, for the whole sample and separately for boys and girls. Results of scales with insufficient reliability (i.e., gender-role stereotypes, agentic traits) are presented for transparency as they were pre-registered, but they are not further discussed and interpreted in the Discussion.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics for Children’s Gender Schemas and Self-Esteem before and after the Heroines Program

Variable	Whole sample		Girls		Boys
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Aspired occupations: proportion men	0.52 (0.19)	0.53 (0.18)	0.43 (0.17)	0.44 (0.16)	0.63 (0.16)	0.62 (0.15)
Family vs. career orientation	58.34 (22.37)	61.84 (21.23)	57.36 (18.62)	62.28 (20.74)	60.28 (26.13)	60.74 (21.69)
Gender stereotypes: Activities	0.46 (0.28)*	0.42 (0.29)*	0.39 (0.28)	0.39 (0.29)	0.54 (0.26)	0.45 (0.30)
Gender-role stereotypes	59.73 (14.23)	58.93 (15.15)	61.38 (13.05)	58.57 (13.88)	58.14 (15.47)	59.78 (16.68)
Endorsing communal traits	4.11 (0.67)	4.07 (0.77)	4.19 (0.65)	4.25 (0.56)	4.00 (0.68)	3.86 (0.92)
Endorsing agentic traits	2.81 (0.75)	2.75 (0.84)	2.75 (0.72)	2.64 (0.82)	2.85 (0.77)	2.84 (0.86)
Similarity to boys¹	3.02 (1.27)	3.15 (1.32)	2.09 (0.74)	2.15 (0.75)	4.10 (0.82)	4.32 (0.74)
Similarity to girls¹	2.89 (1.45)	2.90 (1.38)	4.03 (0.91)	3.96 (0.83)	1.56 (0.48)	1.66 (0.64)
Similarity of boys and girls	2.22 (0.83)	2.44 (1.03)	2.35 (0.83)	2.56 (1.03)	2.09 (0.81)	2.28 (1.01)
Attitudes about boys²	3.94 (1.08)	3.98 (1.02)	3.36 (1.06)	3.40 (0.95)	4.61 (0.62)	4.65 (0.61)
Attitudes about girls²	3.84 (1.22)	3.88 (1.15)	4.53 (0.59)	4.45 (0.69)	3.07 (1.25)	3.21 (1.24)
Self-esteem	3.25 (0.57)	3.41 (0.56)	3.23 (0.61)	3.46 (0.54)	3.28 (0.52)	3.36 (0.58)

Note. N = 125 for whole sample (including 2 children identifying as other-gender). Sample of girls: n = 66. Sample of boys: n = 57. * significant difference between pretest and posttest (p < .05). Variables with the same superscripts, i.e. ¹ or ², were combined in the same RM-ANOVA.

Main Effects of Heroines Program

First, analyses on the whole sample revealed a significant decrease in gender stereotypes about activities from pretest to posttest (Pillais F (1, 123) = 5.43, p = .021, η_p = .04). There were no significant changes from pre-to posttest on the other outcome variables (aspired occupations: Pillais F (1, 123) = 0.05, p = .818, η_p < .01; felt similarity to boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 123) = 0.03, p = .855, η_p < .01; self-esteem: Pillais F (1, 123) = 2.40, p = .124, η_p = .02; family-career orientation: Pillais F (1, 123) = 1.07, p = .304, η_p = .01; gender-role stereotypes, Pillais F (1, 123) = 0.10, p = .747, η_p < .01; communal values: Pillais F (1, 123) = 1.07, p = .303, η_p = .01; agentic values: Pillais F (1, 123) = 0.56, p = .455, η_p < .01; similarity of boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 123) = 3.42, p = .067, η_p = .03; attitudes about boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 123) = 0.43, p = .513, η_p < .01).

Effects of Heroines Program for Boys and Girls

Second, analyses with child gender as moderator revealed there were no significant differences between boys and girls in pre-to posttest change on any of the outcome variables (aspired occupations: Pillais F (1, 120) = 1.35, p = .247, η_p = .01; gender stereotypes about activities: Pillais F (1, 120) = 2.39, p = .124, η_p = .02; family-career orientation: Pillais F (1, 120) = 1.94, p = .167, η_p = .02; gender-role stereotypes, Pillais F (1, 120) = 1.56, p = .214, η_p = .01; communal values: Pillais F (1, 120) = 3.57, p = .061, η_p = .03; agentic values: Pillais F (1, 120) = 0.14, p = .714, η_p < .01; similarity to boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 121) = 3.38, p = .068, η_p = .03; perceived similarity of boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 120) = 0.06, p = .801, η_p < .01; attitudes about boys and girls: Pillais F (1, 120) = 1.07, p = .303, η_p = .01, self-esteem: Pillais F (1, 120) = 3.17, p = .077, η_p = .03).

Discussion

This pretest-posttest study examined the effects of an intervention featuring counter-stereotypical female role-models (i.e., Heroines program) on children’s gender schemas and self-esteem. The quantitative survey revealed that the program reduced both boys’ and girls’ gender stereotypes about activities, thereby providing support for one of the pre-registered hypotheses. Other child-reported gender schemas (i.e., occupational aspirations, family vs. career orientation, endorsement of communal traits, perceived similarity to/of boys and girls, intergroup attitudes, self-esteem) did not change from pretest to post-intervention for boys as well as girls. This was not in line with the seven remaining pre-registered hypotheses. Publishing limited, non-significant, or unexpected effects of stereotype-reducing interventions is important as this body of literature is hampered by publication bias, with many low-power studies with nonsignificant results remaining unpublished (Paluck et al., 2021).

Limited Main Effects of the Heroines Program on Children’s Gender Schemas

Only one change towards more egalitarian or diverse gender schemas was identified in children after the Heroines program. However, this effect was small-to-medium sized and not consistently found across all gender schemas. The limited effects might be due to the broad nature of the Heroines program. More precise interventions, targeting specific psychological processes that contribute to a social or health problem might be particularly effective in reaching their goal (Kok et al., 2016; Walton, 2014). For instance, interventions specifically aimed at re-framing stereotypes that disadvantaged (i.e., lower-status) groups lack strength and agency can have powerful effects on the confidence and motivation of members from these groups to successfully pursue life goals (Bauer & Walton, 2024). In the context of promoting more egalitarian or diverse gender schemas in children via role models, repeated positive contact with counter-stereotypical peers of the other gender, for instance in an AI context (Hermann et al., 2025), might be particularly effective in increasing knowledge of and perceived similarity to individuals of the other gender, which in turn can have positive effects on other gender schemas as well (Boin et al., 2021).

The limited effects of the Heroines program could also be attributed to the diversity of the gender schemas that were assessed in this study. Some of the assessed gender schemas might be more closely aligned to the content of the Heroines intervention (e.g., occupational aspirations, gender stereotypes about activities, career-family orientation, communal values) than others (e.g., intergroup attitudes, similarity of boys and girls, gender identity).

Alternatively, the limited effects can be explained in light of gender schema theories, which state that gender schemas are formed over years in environments that are generally filled with gender-stereotypical information (Martin et al., 2002; Martin & Halverson, 1987). This overwhelming and accumulating exposure to gender-stereotypical information over the years might be difficult to counteract by short-term exposure to counter-stereotypical role models. Especially because gender schemas also shape the perception of this new information.

Converging with previous research, a small-to-moderate role-model effect was found for children’s gender stereotypes about activities (Buckley et al., 2022; Olsson & Martiny, 2018). It is not surprising that role-model interventions might have the most direct effects on children’s gender stereotypes because counter-stereotypical role models per definition break or diversify gender stereotypes by their behavior, roles, or characteristics. Also, the Heroines program specifically addressed the often counter-stereotypical activities the heroines engaged in, thereby stimulating more diverse beliefs in children about the appropriateness of certain activities for boys and girls. Even though this effect is limited, changes in one cognition might over time trickle down to other gender cognitions and behaviors as well because gender stereotypes are part of an interrelated and balanced system of gender cognitions (Greenwald et al., 2002).

No changes were found in children’s self-reported occupational aspirations as well as their expectations about future family versus career involvement. It has been suggested that in middle childhood children are particularly rigid in their orientation to gender-typical careers, being concerned primarily with which jobs are appropriate for one’s gender (Gottfredson, 2002). As such children’s career aspirations at this age might be quite resistant to change by short-term exposure to counter-stereotypical role models. During the program’s lessons children might have been temporarily inspired to think about alternative future occupations, which might not have generalized to the post-intervention assessment of children’s aspirations for career and family life.

Also, a change in endorsement of communal values was not found in the children’s self-concept. The program did include activating exercises in which children could practice specific communal (e.g., helping) and agentic behaviors (e.g., being assertive). Yet, the communal and agentic characteristics might have been linked too little to the role models in the book for them to have a specific effect on children’s communal characteristics. In addition, self-concept can be operationalized and measured in different ways, with the survey focusing on an evaluative aspect of children’s self-concept, by asking how important certain communal and agentic characteristics are to them. Maybe role models might have more influence on non-evaluative aspects of children’s self-concept, for instance associations between the self and communal or agentic characteristics (Greenwald et al., 2002). Moreover, the internal consistency of the agentic self-concept scale was not acceptable and barely acceptable for the communal scale, which might be another explanation for the lack of change in self-concept found with this measure.

Further, no effects of the Heroines program were found for children’s perceived similarity to, and of, other boys and girls, which might be because these beliefs were not specifically addressed in the program. Alternatively, the sole focus on female role models in the intervention might have created a context with little opportunities for children to directly observe and internalize similarities between the genders.

Moreover, there were no changes in intergroup attitudes after the Heroines program. Even though the program included successful female role models, this did not increase children’s positive feelings about girls. Although according to anecdotal evidence from teachers that children were generally positive about the adult female role models in the Heroines program this might not have generalized to children’s attitudes about female children. Alternatively, intergroup attitudes were measured by two single items, whereas in previous research more extensive measures were used including feelings and thoughts, allocation of resources, and difference in seating distance regarding same-gender and other-gender individuals (Halim et al., 2017). Maybe more comprehensive measurement of intergroup attitudes would have captured changes following the intervention.

Finally, no effect of the Heroines program was found on self-esteem. Even though the Heroines program focuses on strong, successful, and accomplished female role models, neither girls nor boys internalized the success experiences of the role models in their own self-esteem (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). It is possible that the success of the role models in the Heroines program was seen by children as too difficult to attain or too abstract to have a positive effect on their self-esteem (Betz & Sekaquaptewa, 2012). The lack of effect on children’s self-esteem also provides no support for the idea that the Heroines program might have a positive side-effect on self-esteem via changes in other gender schemas (Greenwald et al., 2002). Although children might have developed more egalitarian stereotypes about the appropriateness of certain activities for boys and girls after the role-model intervention, children did not necessarily feel better about themselves (self-esteem) because of these more egalitarian beliefs about gender. Possibly more time is needed for children to realize that having more egalitarian beliefs about boys and girls activities, reduces the pressure to behave in gender conform ways, which could subsequently contribute to higher self-esteem regardless of whether their activity preferences are gender-typical or not (Skinner et al., 2018).

No Gender-Specific Effects of the Heroines Program for Boys and Girls

A secondary aim of the study was to investigate differences between boys and girls in the effects of the Heroines program. Overall, no significant interactions were found between child gender and the effect of the Heroines program on children’s gender schemas and self-esteem. This might be due to the study being somewhat underpowered to detect interactions between child gender and the effects of the intervention.

That the effect of the Heroines program on gender stereotypes about activities was the same for boys and girls was not in line with the preregistered hypothesis. The counter-stereotypical nature of the role models might have been more important than the female gender of the role models for changing children’s gender stereotypes. Indeed, feeling similar to, or identification with, role models can be achieved on many demographical (e.g., age, ethnicity) or psychological (e.g., traits, values, struggles) grounds other than gender (Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021), which might explain the influence of female role models on boys’ gender stereotypes. The ability to identify with role models is an important underlying working mechanism of role-model interventions, as interventions that fail to facilitate identification with the role model may not result in role-model effects on children’s beliefs and behaviors (Olsson & Martiny, 2018). Because of the diversity of role models in the Heroines program both boys and girls could find similarities with the role models on many grounds, such as ethnicity, gender identity, socioeconomic status, values, traits, and interests. An important next step is to directly explore whether children’s ability to identify with role models indeed can be considered a mechanism or mediator that underlies the effects of the role models on children’s gender schemas and gendered behavior.

The effect of the Heroines program on boys’ gender stereotypes about activities also indicates that effects of female role-models on gender schemas might generalize to other-gender children. This fits with previous research in which female college students mentioned the specific importance of a female role model from their childhood for their motivation to pursue university education, whereas for male college students the gender of the role model did not matter (Lockwood, 2006). Role models from underrepresented groups (e.g., women, Black people) also were found to have the broadest positive effects on students’ STEM motivation and stereotypes, regardless of students’ own gender or ethnicity (Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021). When designing interventions solely with role models from underrepresented groups, or groups with less power, it is however important to consider possible initial resistance of the individuals from the majority or higher-powered group. Such initial resistance of boys to the Heroines program was also mentioned anecdotally by some of the teachers of the classes that participated in this study. Interventions to promote gender equality often elicit resistance in boys and men which may result from the male privileges associated with gender inequality, fears about identity change, or a need to defend male supremacy (Connell, 2003). Some ‘framing’ on the importance of the focus on underrepresented groups, or ‘re-framing’ of the intervention can be effective to lower resistance and enhance support (Flood et al., 2021).

Limitations

An important limitation of this research was the absence of a control group. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the effect of the Heroines program on children’s gender stereotypes about activities is completely due to the intervention or due to other changes. However, more non-significant than significant effects were found for the Heroines program. Therefore, the absence of a control group might be less problematic here than in studies with many significant effects, which could be due to other factors apart from the intervention. Additionally, we would expect minimal ‘natural’ change in children’s gender schemas during the brief period between the pretest and posttest measurement (e.g., maximum of 3 months). This is due to the moderate-to-strong short-term stability typically found for gender schemas and gender-typing (Delay et al., 2018; Martin & Ruble, 2010). So, if a control group had been included in this study, the effects of the Heroines program on children’s gender schemas would likely have been contrasted with minimal or no mean-level change in the control group.

Second, multiple analyses were conducted in this study, which increases the chance of Type 1 error (i.e., effects emerging by chance). The significant effect of the Heroines program on children’s gender stereotypes would not survive adjustment for multiple comparisons (i.e., p-value adjusted to .006). Thus, this effect needs to be interpreted with caution.

Third, the Heroines program did not solely consist of exposing children to counter-stereotypical role models, but also of class discussions and exercises about communal and agentic character traits. As a consequence, it is unclear whether the limited change in children’s gender stereotypes is a pure role-model effect or whether other elements of the intervention contributed to this change as well. In addition, the participating schools might not be representative for all schools in the Netherlands, as they might already value and foster gender equality more than non-participating schools. Yet, the participating schools were at least diverse in background characteristics and the scores of children gender schemas were not indicative of any bottom- or ceiling effects. Thus, it seems unlikely that the limited effects of the Heroines program found in this study are completely due to selection effects. Furthermore, in the child-reported survey the focus was mostly on gender schemas and not on gender-related behaviors. For this reason it was not possible to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms of a role-model effect, i.e., direct observation and imitation (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) or changes in gender schemas guiding children’s behavior (Martin & Halverson, 1987).

Conclusion

In sum, this study found limited effects of a newly developed role model intervention, the Heroines program, on children’s gender schemas and self-esteem. The limited effects might be due to the relatively short duration of the program, its broad nature, and the accumulating impact of other gender-stereotypical input from the environment on children’s gender schemas. Longitudinal role-model intervention studies are now needed to examine whether these small changes, if supported in children’s social environment, might contribute to changes in other gender schemas and behavior, and ultimately greater gender equality in the long term.

This research also revealed some important areas for improvement of the Heroines program, or role-model interventions more broadly, that might increase their effectiveness. This includes the framing of the importance of the focus on female role-models in order to reduce resistance among boys. In addition, the activating exercises of the Heroines program could be more explicitly linked to the communal and agentic characteristics of the heroines to foster children’s active exploration of their self-concept. Finally, more research is necessary on the mediators and moderators (e.g., child age, child ethnicity, religiosity, degree of urbanization) of role-model effects on children’s gender schemas and behavior, to further elucidate which role models are effective for which children and why.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Heroines: Limited Effects of an Educational Program With Counter-Stereotypical Female Role Models on Gender Schemas in Middle Childhood

Supplemental Material for Heroines: Limited Effects of an Educational Program With Counter-Stereotypical Female Role Models on Gender Schemas in Middle Childhood by Joyce J. Endendijk in Psychological Reports

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Femke Visser for her invaluable assistance with data collection, and the schools, teachers, and children for participating in this research.

ORCID iD

Joyce J. Endendijk

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of Utrecht University (FETC22-0331).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the study.

Author Contributions

The author of this paper was solely responsible for Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision of data collection, Formal Analysis, and Writing.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

Author Biography

Joyce J. Endendijk, PhD, is an associate professor in Child and Adolescent Studies. With her research she aims to contribute to a world in which all children, regardless of their gender, reach their full potential. To this end she conducts research on gender socialization, norms, and stereotypes in relation to the gender development and sexual development of children and adolescents. She serves as an associate editor for Psychology of Men and Masculinities and the British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

References

Bauer

C. A.

Walton

(2024). Identity‐reframing interventions: How to effectively highlight individuals’ background‐specific strengths. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1), Article e12830. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12830

Betz

D. E.

Sekaquaptewa

(2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612440735

Bigler

R. S.

Liben

L. S.

(2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In Kail

R. V.

(Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (34, pp. 39–89). San Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2

Block

Gonzalez

A. M.

Schmader

Baron

A. S.

(2018). Early gender differences in core values predict anticipated family versus career orientation. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1540–1547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618776942

Blumberg

R. L.

(2007). Gender bias in textbooks: A hidden obstacle on the road to gender equality in education. Unesco.

Boin

Rupar

Graf

Neji

Spiegler

Swart

(2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419

Bonus

J. A.

Lynch

Nathanson

Watts

(2022). Counter-stereotypical, yet counterproductive? How families at a science museum respond to narratives that defy gender stereotypes. Media Psychology, 25(3), 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.1971093

Brysbaert

(2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72

Buckley

Farrell

Tyndall

(2022). Brief stories of successful female role models in science help counter gender stereotypes regarding intellectual ability among young girls: A pilot study. Early Education & Development, 33(4), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1928444

10.

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

11.

Connell

R. W.

(2003). Role of men in achieving gender equality. UN (Brasilia).

12.

Croft

Schmader

Block

(2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789

13.

Croft

Schmader

Block

Baron

A. S.

(2014). The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents’ gender roles at home predict children’s aspirations? Psychological Science, 25(7), 1418–1428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533968

14.

de Bruijn

Emmen

R. A. G.

Mesman

(2021). Ethnic diversity in children’s books in the Netherlands. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(3), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01080-2

15.

DeLay

Lynn Martin

Cook

R. E.

Hanish

L. D.

(2018). The influence of peers during adolescence: Does homophobic name calling by peers change gender identity? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(3), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0749-6

16.

Diekman

A. B.

Steinberg

Brown

E. R.

Belanger

A. L.

Clark

E. K.

(2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 21(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141

17.

Endendijk

J. J.

Portengen

C. M.

(2022). Children’s views about their future career and family involvement: Associations with children’s gender schemas and parents’ involvement in work and family roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 789764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.789764

18.

Fast

A. A.

Olson

K. R.

(2018). Gender development in transgender preschool children. Child Development, 89(2), 620–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12758

19.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.114

20.

Flood

Dragiewicz

Pease

(2021). Resistance and backlash to gender equality. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.137

21.

Gladstone

J. R.

Cimpian

(2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. International journal of STEM education, 8(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00315-x

22.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. In Brown

Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development, 4th ed. (pp. 85–148). Jossey-Bass.

23.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

Rudman

L. A.

Farnham

S. D.

Nosek

B. A.

Mellott

D. S.

(2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3

24.

Halim

M. L.

Ruble

(2010). Gender identity and stereotyping in early and middle childhood. In Chrisler

J. C.

McCreary

D. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 495–525). Springer.

25.

Halim

M. L. D.

Martin

C. L.

Andrews

N. C.

Zosuls

K. M.

Ruble

D. N.

(2021). Enjoying each other’s company: Gaining other-gender friendships promotes positive gender attitudes among ethnically diverse children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(12), 1635–1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984407

26.

Halim

M. L. D.

Ruble

D. N.

Tamis‐LeMonda

C. S.

Shrout

P. E.

Amodio

D. M.

(2017). Gender attitudes in early childhood: Behavioral consequences and cognitive antecedents. Child Development, 88(3), 882–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12642

27.

Harter

(2012). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. University of Denver.

28.

Hermann

De Freitas

Puntoni

(2025). Reducing prejudice with counter‐stereotypical AI. Consumer Psychology Review, 8(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1102

29.

Karniol

Gal-Disegni

(2009). The impact of gender-fair versus gender-stereotyped basal readers on 1st-grade children's gender stereotypes: A natural experiment. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594670

30.

Kerkhoff

Nussbeck

F. W.

(2023). Estimation quality and required sample sizes in three-level contextual analysis models. Methodology, 19(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.9775

31.

Kneeskern

E. E.

Reeder

P. A.

(2020). Examining the impact of fiction literature on children’s gender stereotypes. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1472–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00686-4

32.

Kok

Gottlieb

N. H.

Peters

G. J. Y.

Mullen

P. D.

Parcel

G. S.

Ruiter

R. A.

… Bartholomew

L. K.

(2016). A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an intervention mapping approach. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155

33.

Lawson

K. M.

Lee

Crouter

A. C.

McHale

S. M.

(2018). Correlates of gendered vocational development from middle childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.002

34.

Lockwood

(2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x

35.

Lolliot

Schmid

Hewstone

AlRamiah

Tausch

Swart

(2004). Generalised effects of intergroup contact: The secondary transfer effect. In Hodson

Hewstone

(Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 81–112). London: Psychology Press.

36.

Martin

C. L.

Andrews

N. C.

England

D. E.

Zosuls

Ruble

D. N.

(2017). A dual identity approach for conceptualizing and measuring children's gender identity. Child Development, 88(1), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12568

37.

Martin

C. L.

Halverson

C. F.

(1987). The roles of cognition in sex role acquisition. In Carter

D. B.

(Ed.), Current conceptions of sex roles and sex typing: Theory and research (pp. 123–137). Praeger.

38.

Martin

C. L.

Ruble

D. N.

(2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511

39.

Martin

C. L.

Ruble

D. N.

Szkrybalo

(2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 903–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903

40.

Master

Cheryan

Moscatelli

Meltzoff

A. N.

(2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013

41.

Meaders

Gardiner

Wynns

Nigam

Harris

(2023). A comic-based conservation lesson plan diversifies middle school student conceptions of scientists. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 9(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2023.127

42.

Meissner

Grigutsch

L. A.

Koranyi

Müller

Rothermund

(2019). Predicting behavior with implicit measures: Disillusioning findings, reasonable explanations, and sophisticated solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2483. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02483

43.

Nhundu

T. J.

(2007). Mitigating gender-typed occupational preferences of Zimbabwean primary school children: The use of biographical sketches and portrayals of female role models. Sex Roles, 56(9-10), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9204-6

44.

Olsson

M. I. T.

Martiny

S. E.

(2018). Does exposure to counterstereotypical role models influence girls’ and women’s gender stereotypes and career choices? A review of social psychological research. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02264

45.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

46.

Polavieja

J. G.

Platt

(2014). Nurse or mechanic? The role of parental socialization and children's personality in the formation of sex-typed occupational aspirations. Social Forces, 93(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou051

47.

Pownall

Heflick

(2023). Mr. Active and little miss passive? The transmission and existence of gender stereotypes in children’s books. Sex Roles, 89(11-12), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01409-2

48.

Rosenberg

(1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Measures Package, 61, 52.

49.

Skinner

O. D.

Kurtz-Costes

Wood

Rowley

S. J.

(2018). Gender typicality, felt pressure for gender conformity, racial centrality, and self-esteem in African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418764244

50.

Spinner

Cameron

Calogero

(2018). Peer toy play as a gateway to children’s gender flexibility: The effect of (counter) stereotypic portrayals of peers in children’s magazines. Sex Roles, 79(5), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0883-3

51.

Spinner

Tenenbaum

H. R.

Cameron

Wallinheimo

A. S.

(2021). A school-based intervention to reduce gender-stereotyping. School Psychology International, 42(4), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211009944

52.

Tenenbaum

H. R.

Leaper

(2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children's gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.615

53.

Trautner

H. M.

Ruble

D. N.

Cyphers

Kirsten

Behrendt

Hartmann

(2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.399

54.

Trepanier-Street

M. L.

Romatowski

J. A.

(1999). The influence of children's literature on gender role perceptions: A reexamination. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(3), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022977317864

55.

Walton

G. M.

(2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512856

56.

Xiao

S. X.

Martin

C. L.

DeLay

Cook

R. E.

(2021). A double-edged sword: Children’s intergroup gender attitudes have social consequences for the beholder. Developmental Psychology, 57(9), 1510–1524. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001065

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.31 MB