Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01113-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Under Pressure: Differentiating Adolescents’ Expectations

Regarding Stereotypic Masculine and Feminine Behavior
Emma F. Jackson 1 & Kay Bussey 1

Published online: 6 January 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The present study provided a novel way to compare the pressure felt by adolescents to engage in same gender behavior and other
gender behavior. A new scale of felt pressure was developed which measured the reactions participants anticipated from others if
they were to engage in masculine or feminine stereotyped behaviors. The scale was tested on a sample of 297 Australian
adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17. Factor analysis indicated two factors which corresponded to Masculine-Typed and
Feminine-Typed behaviors. Items related to feminine-typed behaviors were designated as same gender for young women and
other gender for young men, and vice versa for masculine-typed items. Analyses indicated that young men reported higher felt
pressure to conform to same gender behavior than did young women, and young women reported felt pressure to conform to
other gender behavior whereas young men reported pressure to avoid other gender behavior. In addition, high same gender felt
pressure was associated with higher self-perceived same gender typicality and lower other gender typicality. Conversely, high
other gender felt pressure was associated with high levels of other gender typicality and lower levels of same gender typicality.
The presence of same and other gender felt pressure encourages theorists and practitioners to be mindful of the impact of both
these influences on adolescents’ gender identity development and psychosocial adjustment.

Keywords Adolescence . Gender identity . Masculinity . Femininity . Gender typicality . Felt pressure . Sex differences

Gender is a central component of personal identity, influenc-
ing appearance, professional and personal activities, academic
choices, and relationships (Egan and Perry 2001; Ruble et al.
2006). The pressure felt by individuals to engage in specific
behaviors associated with their gender has a wide impact on
adolescents’ behavior and mental health. In adolescents, pres-
sure to avoid or conform to specific gendered activities is
linked to peer acceptance, school activities, academic choices,
and negative mental health outcomes (Braun and Davidson
2017; Bussey and Bandura 1999; Carver et al. 2003;
Kornienko et al. 2016). Interest in gender has been growing
in recent psychological research (Morgenroth and Ryan
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01113-0) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Emma F. Jackson
emma.jackson3@hdr.mq.edu.au
1
Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie
University, 4 First Walk, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
2018), including the search for a comprehensive model of
gender identity (Egan and Perry 2001; Perry et al. 2019;
Schmader and Block 2015; Tobin et al. 2010).
Gender identity is a widely researched and conceptualized
construct (Bussey 2011). Traditional approaches to measuring
gender identity assessed individual’s self-perceived identifica-
tion with gender stereotypic behaviors and traits (Liben et al.
2002). However, Spence (1993) noted that this method of
assessment did not generalize across other domains of
gender-related cognitions. Further, Egan and Perry (2001) ob-
served that researcher-defined stereotypes did not necessarily
reflect individual participant’s stereotype knowledge. Egan
and Perry (2001) therefore proposed the multidimensional
model of gender identity to address these concerns. The mul-
tidimensional model theorized that gender identity was multi-
faceted with distinct cognitive components, in contrast to tra-
ditional approaches which measured only identification with
gender stereotypes.
The components of the multidimensional model include
gender typicality, felt pressure to conform to gendered behav-
ior and intergroup bias. According to Egan and Perry, gender
typicality refers to an individual’s self-perceived similarity to
304
their gender group, without reference to specific gendered
behaviors or traits. Intergroup bias is the attitudes and beliefs
regarding gender groups, particularly with respect to positive
regard for one’s own gender group. Felt pressure is the pres-
sure felt by individuals to engage in gendered behaviors, mea-
sured as an individual’s anticipated consequences for enacting
different gendered behaviors, where gendered behaviors are
the masculine or feminine behaviors stereotypically assigned
to genders. Masculinity is associated with agentic traits such
as being independent, assertive, and aggressive (Dean and
Tate 2016; Spence 1993) and is reflected in masculine-typed
behaviors such as sport. Femininity is associated with expres-
sive traits such as being nurturing and supportive (Dean and
Tate 2016; Spence 1993) and is reflected in feminine-typed
behaviors such as ballet dancing. The components of gender
identity manifest differently in each person and interact to
influence mental health, processing of new experiences, peer
choice, behavior, and other gender-related domains (Carver
et al. 2003; Corby et al. 2007; DeLay et al. 2018; Egan and
Perry 2001; Jewell and Brown 2014; Patterson 2012; Yunger
et al. 2004).
Recently, Martin et al. (2017) extended the multidimen-
sional model to measure individuals’ self-perceived typicality
to the other gender alongside typicality to their own gender.
This extension aligns with the view that normative popula-
tions possess gender cognitions beyond identification with
their own gender (Joel et al. 2014). The present study aims
to extend consideration of other gender identification to an-
other of the components of gender identity: felt pressure for
gendered behavior. The aim of the present study was therefore
first to develop a new measure for felt pressure and secondly
to examine felt pressure for same and other gender behavior
and its relationship with gender typicality.
Dual Approach to Gender Typicality and Felt
Pressure
An important contribution of Egan and Perry’s (2001) multidi-
mensional approach was the separation of self-perceived gen-
der identity from specific gender traits and behaviors. Previous
approaches to gender often assessed gender identity by measur-
ing individual engagement in gendered behaviors specified by
established scales (Liben et al. 2002; Spence 1993), thus mea-
suring gendered behavior rather than self-perceived gender. In
contrast, gender typicality is assessed as an individual’s self-
perceived similarity to a gender category (Egan and Perry
2001). Self-perceived similarity is measured by the endorse-
ment of how true statements such as “My personality is similar
to boys/girls’ personality” are for the individual. By measuring
gender typicality as self-perceived similarity, individuals pro-
ject their own knowledge of gender traits and behaviors onto
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
the gender categories of male and female, creating a personal-
ized measure of gender identification (Egan and Perry 2001).
This concept was further developed by Martin et al. (2017),
who examined the differences between individual’s perceived
similarity to their own gender (same gender typicality) and
their perceived similarity to the other gender (other gender
typicality). In their study, measures of same gender typicality
did not significantly correlate with other gender typicality,
indicating that gender typicality is better conceptualized by
considering both same and other genders. This reconceptual-
ization is in line with research outside Egan and Perry’s (2001)
multidimensional approach, which has suggested that mascu-
linity and femininity are associated with unique cognitive fac-
tors (Liben et al. 2002; Spence 1993). However, the other
components of gender identity identified by Egan and Perry,
such as felt pressure, have yet to be considered with respect to
the separation of same and other genders.
Examining the component of felt pressure in Egan and Perry’s
(2001) model, there are inconsistencies in defining felt pressure,
resulting in discrepancies in interpreting previous research. In
Egan and Perry’s initial conceptualization of felt pressure, it
was defined as the felt pressure for gender conformity. It was
proposed this pressure emanated from parents, peers and the self
to conform to gender stereotypes (Carver et al. 2003).
Subsequent research by Pauletti et al. (2014) critiqued how felt
pressure was measured in the original model and observed that in
Egan and Perry, felt pressure was operationalized as expected
negative reactions to gender non-conforming behavior.
Therefore, when Pauletti et al. used Egan and Perry’s measure
of felt pressure, their results were interpreted as felt pressure to
avoid gendered behavior, contrasting previous interpretations as
felt pressure to conform to gendered behaviors. An interpretation
that defines felt pressure as conformity to gendered behaviors
infers an individual’s cognitive relationship with same gender
behaviors. Whereas an interpretation that defines felt pressure
as avoidance of gendered behaviors infers individuals’ cognitive
relationship with other gender behaviors. This is an important
distinction as demonstrated by Martin et al.’s (2017) dual ap-
proach, showing that there are separate cognitions and expecta-
tions for same gender knowledge and other gender knowledge.
Pauletti et al. (2014) reinterpretation points to a problem in
how felt pressure has been understood and measured because
existing research has interpreted felt pressure both as
conformity to and avoidance of gendered behaviors. Yunger
et al. (2004) and Corby et al. (2007) interpreted felt pressure as
conformity, and Perry et al. (2019) interpreted felt pressure as
avoidance. Thus, existing research is currently confounded by
contrasting interpretations of the same scale of felt pressure.
Additionally, based on research findings regarding gender
differences in gender typicality (Carver et al. 2003; Corby et al.
2007; Jewell and Brown 2014), similar gender differences in felt
pressure may be present. Existing studies report that children
differ in same and other gender typicality because boys reported
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
higher same gender typicality than girls, whereas girls reported
higher other gender typicality than boys (Martin et al. 2017;
Pauletti et al. 2017). Previous research has also found that boys
reported higher felt pressure for gendered behavior than did girls
(Carver et al. 2003; Egan and Perry 2001; Kornienko et al. 2016;
Pauletti et al. 2014). Thus, reconceptualizing felt pressure regard-
ing both same and other gender behavior may clarify gender
differences in felt pressure.
A reanalysis of felt pressure is clearly required to separate
cognitions regarding same and other gender behaviors.
Therefore, the first aim of the present study is to develop a
new measure of felt pressure that distinguishes same and other
gender behavior and to examine gender differences in felt
pressure. The separation of same and other gender felt pres-
sure is of further value to research because masculinity and
femininity can be analyzed separately.
Conformity or Avoidance of Femininity
and Masculinity
The desirability of in-group traits leads to increased conformi-
ty to in-group traits and avoidance of out-group traits
(Schmader and Block 2015); however, this effect is different
for males and females across ages due to perceived devalua-
tion of femininity. Indeed, Messerschmidt (2012), in a com-
prehensive review of research on masculinity, reports that
avoidance of femininity is often core to men’s gender identity.
However, conformity and avoidance of traits may be con-
founded for women because out-group masculine traits are
socially desirable (Messerschmidt 2012), and thus women
may feel less pressure to avoid other gender behaviors. The
gender differences in felt pressure noted previously are con-
sistent with these social theories because during childhood
boys reported higher felt pressure to avoid feminine-typed
conduct compared to girl’s felt pressure to avoid masculine
conduct (Carver et al. 2003; Cooper 2014; Egan and Perry
2001; Pauletti et al. 2017). It would therefore be expected that
the inverse would be evident regarding same gender felt pres-
sure: Female adolescents would report less felt pressure to
conform to same gender behavior than male.
Differences in felt pressure between males and females of
different ages may also impact gender typicality. Halim et al.
(2011) suggest that throughout middle childhood, the social
valuation of masculinity and femininity differentially impacts
girls’ and boys’ gender identity development. Pre-school and
kindergarten girls go through a phase of strong adherence to
same gender behavior, often termed the “Pink Frilly Dress”
phase after their choice of clothing (Halim et al. 2011). Then,
in primary school, adherence to femininity transforms into a
strong preference for masculine-typed activities. Such a
change does not occur for boys, and Halim et al. posited this
to be due to girls’ increasing awareness of the devaluation of
305
femininity, thereby encouraging them to engage in socially
advantageous masculine-typed behaviors.
Changes in young girl’s behavior described by Halim et al.
(2011) could be interpreted through the lens of the relationship
between felt pressure and gender typicality. Felt pressure is
operationalized as individuals’ anticipated reactions from
others regarding gendered behavior. In the case of the “Pink
Frilly Dress” phase, young girls may anticipate positive reac-
tions from others and themselves regarding feminine-typed
behavior, which then corresponds to greater same gender typ-
icality. Subsequently as they age, girls may begin to expect
less pressure to avoid other gender behavior due to social
valuation of masculinity and thus become more other gender
typical. It is therefore possible that felt pressure may influence
the decrease in same gender typicality across girls’ childhood.
Recent research on the multidimensional model provides
cross-sectional evidence in line with this possibility because
same gender felt pressure was found to be positively associ-
ated with same gender typicality and negatively associated
with other gender typicality (Pauletti et al. 2017).
Participants’ gender may further moderate the relationship
of felt pressure and gender typicality. As noted by Halim et al.
(2011), girls’ awareness of social devaluation of femininity
impacts their other gender behavior; however, such a change
is not evident in boys. Therefore, the association of felt pres-
sure and gender typicality may vary across participants’ gen-
der because for women, other gender characteristics are so-
cially valued, whereas for men, other gender characteristics
are devalued. Thus, the second aim of the present study was
to examine the relationship between dual felt pressure and
gender typicality, as well as how gender might moderate this
relationship.
The Present Study
Building on the dual approach proposed by Martin et al.
(2017), the first aim of our study was to examine the reliability
and factor structure of a new measure of felt pressure for
gendered behavior which measured same and other gendered
behavior. The development of the new scale followed existing
definitions and operationalization of felt pressure as pressure
from parents, peers, and the self. Same and other gender felt
pressure were distinguished by asking all participants to re-
spond to items regarding both masculine and feminine stereo-
typed behaviors, which could then be coded as same or other
dependent on participants’ gender.
Alongside measuring felt pressure regarding same and oth-
er gender behavior, our new scale also sought to distinguish
felt pressure to avoid gendered behavior from pressure to con-
form to gendered behavior. Felt pressure has previously been
operationalized by measuring the negative responses partici-
pants anticipate from others if they engaged in specified
306
behaviors (Jewell 2015). In these existing measures of felt
pressure, participants indicated whether they themselves or
others would be upset if they engaged in gendered behaviors,
thus measuring felt pressure to avoid the behavior (Pauletti
et al. 2014). In order to measure pressure to avoid or conform
to behaviors, the new scale gave participants the option to
indicate anticipated pleased reactions or upset reactions.
Thus, felt pressure to avoid gendered behavior would be pres-
ent when participants indicated they expected upset reactions
to gendered behavior. Conversely, felt pressure to conform to
gendered behavior would be present when participants indi-
cated they expected pleased reactions to gendered behavior.
In line with the dual approach by Martin et al. (2017), we
expected that the new measure of felt pressure would reveal
two factors that would correspond to masculine-typed and
feminine-typed behaviors (Hypothesis 1). Additionally, due
to gender differences in felt pressure reported across
existing literature (Carver et al. 2003; Cooper 2014;
Egan and Perry 2001; Pauletti et al. 2017), we expected
that female and male adolescents would differ in scores
on the new measure of felt pressure (Hypothesis 2).
Specifically, we expected that due to devaluation of fem-
ininity, female adolescents would report less felt pressure
to conform to same gender behavior than male adoles-
cents (Hypothesis 2a), and male adolescents would report
more felt pressure to avoid other gender behavior com-
pared to female adolescents (Hypothesis 2b).
Our second aim was to examine associations between gen-
der typicality and felt pressure. Building on previous research
suggesting that the pressure felt by individuals impacts their
gender typicality (Halim et al. 2011), we hypothesized that
there would be a systematic relationship between felt pressure
and gender typicality (Hypothesis 3). Previous research also
indicated a positive association between same gender typical-
ity and same gender felt pressure, as well as a negative asso-
ciation of other gender typicality with same gender felt pres-
sure (Pauletti et al. 2017). Drawing on this research to consid-
er how gender typicality may then relate to other gender felt
pressure, the inverse relationship was expected. We predicted
that at higher levels of other gender felt pressure, same gender
typicality would be low (Hypothesis 3a) and that at higher
levels of same gender felt pressure, same gender typicality
would be high (Hypothesis 3b). Regarding other gender typ-
icality, higher levels of other gender typicality were expected
when participants reported higher levels of other gender felt
pressure (Hypothesis 3c), and lower levels of other gender
typicality were expected when participants reported high
levels of same gender pressure (Hypothesis 3d).
Additionally, we hypothesized that gender would moderate
the relationship between felt pressure and gender typicality
(Hypothesis 3e). Specifically, the association between these
variables was expected to be stronger for young men than
for young women.
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
Method
Participants
Fully 297 Australian high school students participated in the
present study and were recruited from nine independent, co-
educational schools in New South Wales as part of a larger
longitudinal study. The sample comprised 197 Grade 8 stu-
dents (66.3%; 115 [58.38%] female, Mage = 13.8, SD = .43),
and 100 Grade 10 students (33.7%; 50 [50%] female, Mage =
15.8, SD = .35). The sample was largely of upper middle-class
socioeconomic status (Australian Curriculum Assessment and
Reporting Authority 2016). Students selected all ethnicities
which applied to them, and identified as Anglo-Celtic (212,
73.5%), European (53, 20.5%), East/Southeast Asian (20,
7.4%), Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander (14, 5.4%), Middle
Eastern (12, 4.0%), South Asian (11, 3.7%), and Pacific
Islander (4, 1.3%) with five selecting “other”.
Measures
Gender Typicality
Gender typicality was measured with the scale adapted from
Jewell (2015) which was based on Egan and Perry (2001). In
Jewell’s study, participants rated only their self-perceived typ-
icality to their own gender, such that male adolescents were
asked to rate similarity to other male peers, and female ado-
lescents to other female peers. To assess other gender typical-
ity alongside same gender typicality in the present study, each
participant rated their similarity to both male and female peers
(e.g., “I fit in with boys” and “I fit in with girls”). The final
measure included 10 items, five relating to males and five to
females, and students rated on a 4-point scale the extent to
which each item was true for them: 0 (Definitely not true for
me) to 3 (Very true for me).
Following the procedure detailed in Martin et al. (2017),
items were recoded to create the subscales of same and other
gender typicality. For participants identifying as female, as
determined by self-reported demographic information, items
regarding “girls” were coded as “same gender,” and items
regarding “boys” were coded as “other gender” with five
items corresponding to same gender and five for other gender.
The recoding process was then repeated in reverse for partic-
ipants identifying as male. Final scores were calculated by
summing ratings for items within subscales of same and other
gender typicality (with a possible range of 5–42). Higher
scores indicated stronger same or other gender typicality.
Internal consistency was good in the present study, with al-
phas of .87 and .89 for same gender typicality and with alphas
of .83 and .82 for other gender typicality (for female and male
adolescents, respectively).
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
Felt Pressure for Gendered Behavior
A new measure of felt pressure for gendered behavior was
developed for the present study: Felt Pressure for Gendered
Behavior Scale (FP-GBS). The scale was developed from def-
initions and operationalization of felt pressure described in the
introduction. Items required participants to rate how they an-
ticipated their parents, peers, and themselves would feel if
they engaged in specified gendered behaviors. Each rating
was done on a 7-point scale from 1 (Very pleased) through 4
(Wouldn’t care) to 7 (Very upset). Six behaviors, three of
which were feminine-stereotyped and three of which were
masculine-stereotyped, were included in the scale which were
based on highly gender stereotypic behaviors identified by
Liben et al. (2002) for children and adults. The six items
related to feminine-typed appearance, feminine-typed activi-
ties, selection of female friends, masculine-typed appearance,
masculine-typed activities, and selection of male friends. For
example, the item assessing pressure from parents to engage
in a feminine-typed activity was: “If I started a girly activity
like ballet my parent would be ….” The corresponding item
assessing pressure regarding masculine-typed activities was:
“If I joined a boys’ sports club, my parent would be ….” Each
of the six items was repeated, substituting “my friends would
be …” and “I would be…” in place of “my parent would
be…” to assess pressure from peers and the participant them-
selves. (The measure is reported in the Appendix, and a ready-
to-use version is available to download in the online
supplement.)
To facilitate interpretability, items were rescored such that
−3 corresponded to a response of “Very upset,” zero
corresponded to a response of “Wouldn’t care,” and + 3
corresponded to a response of “Very pleased.” To calculate
subscales, items were coded to distinguish same and other
gender behavior, wherein masculine-typed items were desig-
nated same gender for male adolescents and other gender for
female adolescents, and vice-versa for feminine-typed items.
Lastly, items were summed within subscales for a total same
gender felt pressure score and other gender felt pressure score,
with each possibly ranging from −27 to +27. Scores below
zero indicate expected negative responses or felt pressure to
avoid the specified behavior. Scores above zero indicated ex-
pected positive responses or felt pressure to conform to the
specified behavior. Scores close to zero indicate less felt pres-
sure because zero corresponds to expected neutral reactions
from parents, peers, and themselves.
Procedure
Ethics approval was granted by the authors’ institutional re-
view board prior to commencement of data collection.
Consent was obtained from school principals and parents prior
to survey administration. Students completed the survey either
307
online or with a paper copy of the survey under the supervi-
sion of a researcher or teacher, and they provided consent prior
to commencing the survey. Sixteen students completed a pa-
per version of the survey due to insufficient access to com-
puters. Demographic information was collected including
grade, age, gender, date of birth, and ethnicity. All scales were
ordered into two fixed survey forms to counterbalance presen-
tation of measures. At completion of the survey, students were
provided with a debriefing statement including advice on how
to make an appointment with school counsellors if they had
experienced distress during the survey.
Missing Data
The proportion of missing data was small and ranged from
0%–3.3%. The expectation maximization (EM) method in
SPSS was used to manage missing data because EM has the
advantage of non-random imputation compared to other
methods (Allison 2001). Of the 317 students who participated
in the study, 20 were removed due to <80% completion of the
relevant measures, and missing data estimation was performed
on the remaining 297 participants.
Results
Prior to analyses, the potential clustering of school and
age were assessed using a linear mixed model analysis.
School and grade were included as random factors and
found to have no significant impact on felt pressure so
that they were not controlled in subsequent analyses.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for felt pressure
and gender typicality for male and female adolescents,
separately, are reported in Table 1. Correlations showed
that for both young men and women, same gender typi-
cality and same gender felt pressure were significantly
positively correlated, as was other gender typicality and
other gender felt pressure. Same gender felt pressure and
other gender felt pressure were significantly positively
correlated for only young women, whereas same gender
typicality and other gender felt pressure were significantly
negatively correlation for only young men. Correlations
indicate that there are systematic relationships between
dual felt pressure and gender typicality and that these
differ between genders.
Results are presented in three sections. In the first
section, the results of an exploratory factor analysis
which tested Hypothesis 1 are presented. The second
section presents the results from a mixed design
ANOVA which tested Hypothesis 2. Finally, the results
from two linear regression models that tested Hypothesis
3 are presented.
308 Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables

ns (Male/Female) Male Adolescents Female Adolescents Actual Correlations

Variables M (SD) M (SD) Range 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Same gender pressure 132/165 9.76 (8.83) 5.90 (8.46) −14 – +27 – .54** .37** −.15
2. Other gender pressure 132/165 −7.79 (10.23) 3.77 (7.42) −27 – +27 −.11 – .10 .25**
3. Same gender typicality 132/165 10.87 (3.75) 10.59 (3.21) 0–15 .31** −.22* – .04
4. Other gender typicality 132/165 4.33 (3.42) 6.87 (3.47) 0–15 −.12 .23** .06 –

Note: Correlations for female adolescents are above the diagonal of the correlation matrix; for male adolescents, below the diagonal
*p < .05. ***p < .001

Hypothesis 1 subjects variable with the levels of male and female and felt
pressure was included as a within-subjects variable of same
An Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted to test and other gender felt pressure.
Hypothesis 1, which predicted that the FP-GBS would be con- Results revealed a main effect for felt pressure, with higher
sistent with a two-factor structure that corresponded to masculine same gender felt pressure (M = 7.62, SD = 8.83) than other
and feminine stereotyping. Principal axis factoring (PAF) with no gender felt pressure (M = −1.37, SD = 10.51), F(1, 295) =
rotation was conducted on the 18 items developed. Factors with 230.32, p < .001, ηp2 = .44. There was also a main effect for
no rotation best approximated simple structure, and therefore gender because there was a significant difference in felt pres-
unrotated factor loadings were interpreted. The Kaiser–Meyer– sure reported by young men (M = .99, SD = 6.40) and young
Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy (KMO = .81), and
individual items had KMO values above .74, which is greater
Table 2 Factor loadings for the two-factor structure of the felt pressure
than the acceptable limit of .50 (Kaiser 1974). scale
The PAF revealed four factors with eigenvalues above 1.
Examination of the scree plot in accordance with the process Factor
outlined by Costello and Osborne (2005) indicated an elbow Item 1 2
after Factors 1 and 2. Thus, the two-factor solution was
interpreted, which accounted for 54.76% of the variance. Parental reaction
Factor loadings for the two-factor structure are displayed in Feminine-typed appearance .72 .14
Table 2, and the full four-factor loadings and eigenvalues are Feminine-typed activity .80 .12
presented in Table 1s of the online supplement. Female friend selection .52 .27
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, examination of the two-factor Masculine-typed appearance .08 .60
solution showed items regarding feminine-typed behaviors load- Masculine-typed activity −.33 .57
ed onto Factor 1 and masculine-typed items loaded onto Factor 2. Male friend selection −.30 .60
The two-factor structure also generalized across source of pres- Peer reaction
sure, including parents, peers, and self, indicating these combined Feminine-typed appearance .80 .13
to contribute to the overarching factors of Masculine-Typed and Feminine-typed activity .80 .07
Feminine-Typed behaviors. The internal consistency of the scales Female friend selection .64 .24
was good as indicated by Cronbach’s alphas for same gender Masculine-typed appearance −.02 .72
behavior (αmales = .89; αfemales .85) and for other gender behavior Masculine-typed activity −.29 .72
(αmales = .88; αfemales .81). Male friend selection −.29 .59
Self reaction
Hypothesis 2 Feminine-typed appearance .81 .12
Feminine-typed activity .74 .12
We conducted a two-factor mixed-design ANOVA to test Female friend selection .55 .27
Hypothesis 2 which predicted that female and male adoles- Masculine-typed appearance −.03 .56
cents would differ in their levels of same and other gender felt Masculine-typed activity −.26 .60
pressure. Assumptions were tested, and although tests of nor- Male friend selection −.16 .63
mality were violated, skew and kurtosis statistics indicated Eigenvalues 5.54 4.32
normal distribution, thus analyses continued without transfor-
mations. Participants’ gender was included as a between- Note. Factor loadings above .40 are bolded
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
women (M = 4.84, SD = 6.97), F(1, 295) = 24.03, p < .001,
ηp2 = .08. Consistent with Hypotheses 2, these main effects
were qualified by a significant interaction involving felt pres-
sure and participants’ gender, F(1, 296) = 141.32, p < .001,
ηp2 = .33. To fully explore the interaction and Hypotheses 2a
and 2b, t-values were examined against p < .025 (.05/2) as the
Bonferroni adjustment.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that female adolescents would re-
port less pressure to conform to same gender behavior than
male adolescents. Consistent with this hypothesis, results in-
dicated that young men (M = 9.76, SD = 8.83) reported higher
same gender felt pressure than did young women (M = 5.90,
SD = 8.46), t(296) = 3.83, p < .001, ηp2 = .05. One sample t-
tests against zero were conducted to determine whether scores
were significantly different from a score of zero which indi-
cated neutral felt pressure. Results revealed that both young
men’s, t(296) = 12.7, p < .001, and young women’s, t(296) =
8.96, p = <.001, scores significantly differed from zero, sug-
gesting that both reported felt pressure to conform to same
gender behavior, but this pressure, on average, was signifi-
cantly lower for young women than for young men.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that male adolescents would re-
port more felt pressure to avoid other gender behavior than
female adolescents. Results indicated that young men (M =
−7.79, SD = 10.29) reported lower other gender felt pressure
than did young women (M = 3.77, SD = 7.42), t(296) =
−11.23, p < .001, ηp2 = .30. Again, one sample t-tests were
conducted to determine whether these scores differed signifi-
cantly from a neutral score of zero. Results showed that that
both young men’s, t(296) = −8.70, p < .001, and young
women’s, t(296) = 6.53, p = <.001, scores significantly dif-
fered from zero. These findings give support to Hypothesis
2b because the mean score for young men was significantly
below zero, indicating felt pressure to avoid feminine-typed
behavior, whereas female adolescents reported felt pressure to
conform to other gender behavior because their mean score
was significantly above zero.
Hypothesis 3
Two regression models tested Hypothesis 3 which predicted a
systematic relationship between felt pressure and same and
other gender typicality. The two step-wise regression models
were two-step models. Participants’ gender, same gender felt
pressure, and other gender felt pressure were entered in Step 1
to assess main effects. Hypothesis 3e predicted that partici-
pants’ gender would moderate the relationship between felt
pressure and gender typicality. Thus, the interactions of par-
ticipants’ gender with felt pressure were entered in Step 2 to
assess the moderating effect of participants’ gender.
Assumptions were tested, with no violations, and
multicollinearity was not of concern. Table 3 presents the
standardized regression parameters and R 2 values.
309
(Additionally, Table 2s in the online supplement presents the
alternative analysis regressing gender typicality onto felt
pressure.) Alternative analysis found a similar pattern of asso-
ciation as is described in the following. Of note, both same and
other gender typicality were significant predictors of same
gender felt pressure, but no significant interactions with par-
ticipant gender were present. Whereas same gender typicality
was not a significant predictor of other gender felt pressure,
the interaction of other gender typicality and participant gen-
der did significantly predict other gender typicality.
Hypotheses 3a And 3b
Hypothesis 3a predicted that higher levels of other gender felt
pressure would be associated with lower same gender typical-
ity, and conversely Hypothesis 3b predicted that higher levels
of same gender felt pressure would be associated with higher
same gender typicality. To test these hypotheses, same and
other gender felt pressure were regressed onto same gender
typicality. Participants’ gender was also included as a moder-
ating variable to test Hypothesis 3e.
Consistent with Hypothesis 3a, examination of coefficients
showed that high levels of same gender felt pressure were
associated with high levels of reported same gender typicality
(see Table 3a). In line with Hypothesis 3b, high levels of other
gender felt pressure were associated with low levels of report-
ed same gender typicality. The main effect of gender was also
significant. Female adolescents reported higher same gender
typicality than male adolescents at average levels of felt pres-
sure. However, results from the second step of the regression
were inconsistent with Hypothesis 3e because the interaction
of felt pressure and participants’ gender did not significantly
increase R2.
Hypotheses 3c and 3d
Hypothesis 3c predicted that higher levels of other gender felt
pressure would be associated with higher other gender typi-
cality, and conversely Hypothesis 3d predicted that higher
levels of same gender felt pressure would be associated with
lower other gender typicality. To test these hypotheses, same
and other gender felt pressure were regressed onto other gen-
der typicality. Again, participants’ gender was included as a
moderating variable to test Hypothesis 3e.
Consistent with Hypothesis 3c, examination of coefficients
showed that high levels same gender felt pressure were asso-
ciated with lower levels of reported other gender typicality
(see Table 3b). In addition, in line with Hypothesis 3d, high
levels of other gender felt pressure were associated with
higher levels of reported other gender typicality. The main
effect of gender was significant with female adolescents
reporting more other gender typicality than male adolescents
at average levels of felt pressure. Further, consistent with
310 Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314

Table 3 Regression of gender and felt pressure predicting gender typicality

Step 1 Step 2

Predictors β b t β b t

(a) Same gender typicality

Same gender felt pressure .38 .15 6.65*** .44 .17 4.83***
Other gender felt pressure −.19 −.06 −2.84* −.20 −.07 −1.64
Participant gender −.14 −1.00 −2.14* −.10 −.71 −1.28
Same gender felt pressure x gender −.11 −.05 −1.01
Other gender felt pressure x gender −.01 −.00 −.08
F 15.80*** 9.69***
df 3 5
dferror 293 291
R2 .14 .14
ΔR2 .00
(b) Other gender typicality
Same gender felt pressure −.18 −.08 −3.37* −.40 −.17 −4.65***
Other gender felt pressure .31 .11 4.80*** .62 .22 5.38***
Participant gender −.14 −1.01 −2.10* −.24 −1.74 −3.14*
Same gender felt pressure x gender .26 .13 2.63*
Other gender felt pressure x gender −.31 −.15 −2.95*
F 24.22*** 17.47***
df 3 5
dferror 293 291
R2 .20 .48
ΔR2 .03*

*p < .05. ***p < .001

Hypothesis 3e, two significant two-way interactions involving
participants’ gender and felt pressure were obtained.
Hypothesis 3e
Results provided partial support for Hypothesis 3e which pre-
dicted that participants’ gender would moderate the relation-
ship of felt pressure and gender typicality. Inconsistent with
Hypothesis 3e, the regression model testing Hypotheses 3a
and 3b indicated that participants’ gender did not moderate
the relationship of felt pressure and same gender typicality
(see Table 3a).
However, the model testing Hypotheses 3c and 3d provid-
ed support for Hypothesis 3e (see Table 3b). Here, partici-
pants’ gender was a significant moderator of the relationship
between same and other gender felt pressure and other gender
typicality. Two significant interactions were present: (a) par-
ticipants’ gender with same gender felt pressure and (b) par-
ticipants’ gender with other gender felt pressure. These inter-
actions were further investigated by examining simple slopes
computed using PROCESS.
Analysis of the simple slopes revealed that the negative
association between same gender felt pressure and other
gender typicality was significant for female adolescents (β =
−.07, p < .046), but not for male adolescents (β = −.04,
p = .251) (see Fig. 1a). Additionally, the positive association
between other gender felt pressure and other gender typicality,
although significant for both young women and men, was
stronger for female adolescents (β = .11, p < .001) than for
male adolescents (β = .07, p = .011) (see Fig. 1b).
Discussion
The present study extended the current understanding of gen-
der identity under Egan and Perry’s (2001) multidimensional
model by reconceptualizing felt pressure to include other gen-
der behavior and same gender behavior. Factor analysis of our
new measure of felt pressure revealed that felt pressure
encompassed two distinct factors that corresponded to stereo-
typic masculine- and feminine-related items. Examination of
differences in reported felt pressure between young men and
young women gave further support for the reconceptualization
because greater insight was gained by distinguishing felt pres-
sure for same and other gender behavior. Young men reported
significantly more overall felt pressure and felt pressure to
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314 311

7.5
Female adolescents identification with only one gender (Joel et al. 2014). Further
7
consistent with existing literature, results of the present study
Other gender typicality

Male adolescents
6.5 revealed gender differences in felt pressure for same gender
6 behavior (Carver et al. 2003; Egan and Perry 2001; Kornienko
et al. 2016). The present study extended prior research by
5.5
examining gender differences in a dual approach to felt pres-
5 sure and found that male adolescents reported more felt pres-
4.5 sure to conform to same gender behavior than did female
4
adolescents and that female adolescents reported more felt
-1.206 7.617 16.441 pressure to conform to other gender behavior than did male.
Same gender felt pressure The gender differences in felt pressure for other gender
behavior reported in the present study gives new insight into
(a) Same Gender Felt Pressure the kinds of pressure that young men and young women ex-
perience. In line with predictions, young men reported pres-
sure to avoid feminine-typed behavior, consistent with social
7.5 Female adolescents theories which suggest that males perceive a core part of gen-
7 Male adolescents der identity to be avoidance of feminine-typed behaviors
Other gender typicality

6.5 (Messerschmidt 2012). In contrast, young women reported

6
5.5
5 research indicating that young children cite masculine-typed
4.5
4
-11.8743 -1.3661 9.1421
Other gender felt pressure
(b) Other Gender Felt Pressure
Fig. 1 Moderation effect of participants’ gender on the relationships
between other gender typicality and (a) same gender felt pressure and
(b) other gender felt pressure. In both panels, pressure is graphed at −1
SD below the mean, the mean, and + 1 SD above the mean. Black lines,
whether dashed or solid, indicate significant relationships between pres-
sure and typicality whereas the grey, dashed line for male adolescents in
Fig. 1a is not significant
conform to same gender behavior than young women did.
Comparatively, young women reported felt pressure to
conform to other gender behavior whereas young men report-
ed felt pressure to avoid other gender behaviors. Results fur-
ther indicated that felt pressure was systematically associated
with gender typicality. Specifically, same and other gender felt
pressure were independently associated with same gender typ-
icality and other gender typicality. Gender then moderated the
associations of same and other gender felt pressure with other
gender typicality such that the associations were significant
only for young men. The following discusses thee results in
greater detail.
The exploratory factor analysis of the FP-GBS supported
the two proposed subscales of same gender behavior and other
gender behavior. This separation of same and other genders
supports research which shows that within gender-conforming
populations, an individual’s experience of gender goes beyond
felt pressure to conform to masculine-typed behavior. These
results shift the focus toward the value placed on masculine-
typed attributes for women and girls, in line with previous
characteristics as the reason they like other classmates (Braun
and Davidson 2017).
The present study’s demonstration of gender differences in
other gender felt pressure is of particular interest when viewed
together with previous research regarding felt pressure and
psychological outcomes. Using a scale of felt pressure that
only measured avoidance of other gender behavior, Carver
et al. (2003) reported that, in childhood, felt pressure to avoid
other gender behavior had a significant negative relationship
with global self-worth, social competence, and achievement-
oriented characteristics for girls. Conversely, for boys, higher
felt pressure was only associated with lower levels of
relationship-oriented characteristics. Examining previous re-
search in parallel with the present study, the relationship of felt
pressure and psychological outcomes becomes clearer. If
women are pressured to avoid masculine-typed behavior, neg-
ative self-worth may be linked to an inability to engage in
socially valued masculine-typed behaviors that might improve
their social competence and self-worth. However, the present
study suggests that many young women report felt pressure to
conform to other gender masculine-typed behaviors that pro-
mote increased self-worth. The FB-GBS opens opportunities
to further examine how the different types of felt pressure may
aid in unravelling the impact of the different values of femi-
nine and masculine stereotyping on psychological adjustment.
Of key interest in our results regarding the association of
felt pressure and gender typicality is the moderating effect of
gender on the relationship between felt pressure and other
gender typicality. Our results suggested that female adoles-
cents are more susceptible to felt pressure than male adoles-
cents are. One explanation is that the mean level of other
312
gender typicality is lower in males than in females (Egan and
Perry 2001). Perhaps by adolescence low other gender typi-
cality in young men is consolidated from high same gender
felt pressure throughout childhood. Intensification of gender
identity has been observed in adolescence as male and female
adolescents’ gender identities become increasingly differenti-
ated (Hill and Lynch 1983).
Alternatively, the effect may lie with young women.
Masculine-typed behavior is socially acceptable for women
(Braun and Davidson 2017), and there is strong potential for
them to be other gender typical because they may want to
engage in socially advantageous masculine-typed behaviors.
Indeed, the present study indicated that young women’s other
gender typicality was more strongly impacted by felt pressure.
Thus, when young women expect negative reactions to other
gender behavior, there may be a larger impact on their other
gender typicality than is observed in men, although the con-
verse effect could also be true. Examination of the relationship
of felt pressure and gender typicality longitudinally would
allow for the identification of developmental stages and for
causal patterns to be detected. Further, felt pressure has the
potential to be experimentally tested because participant’s ex-
pectations of other’s reactions to gendered behavior could be
manipulated. Such a manipulation would allow the impact of
higher or lower felt pressure on gender typicality to be tracked.
The current study had many strengths, the largest being the
development of a new scale to measure felt pressure and the
demonstration by the FP-GBS that felt pressure comprises
separate knowledge regarding same and other gender behav-
iors. The sample used in the present study was also of value
due to its large size and also in drawing from a novel popula-
tion outside the United States. However, some limitations to
the present study warrant comment.
Limitations
First, restrictions were placed on the present study due to the
lack of opportunity for gender-diverse participants to identify
themselves. Inclusion of a gender diverse option alongside the
male and female options in demographic information was not
included due to wishes of some school administrations. It
could be argued that demographic information assesses a gen-
der binary, failing to provide an opportunity for participants to
volunteer gender diverse identities. Although this restriction
may have not directly impacted the results of our study, it
promoted ideas of a gender binary and possibly that genders
outside this binary are deviant. The implication that transgen-
der and gender-diverse children are deviant is not the aim of
the present study, and therefore it is important to note the
reason behind the lack of recognition of these individuals.
Second, study sampling and design were limitations. The
study was cross-sectional and quasi-experimental because
participants’ gender could not be randomly allocated. Thus,
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
study design prevented clear causal statements to be made
about the relationships among felt pressure, gender, and gen-
der typicality. The sample was also restricted to independent
schools that have an over-representation of higher socioeco-
nomic families, which may directly impact the negative ex-
pectations around masculine-typed behaviors. According to
Marasco (2018) the perception of what is a desirable
masculine-typed behavior changes across contexts, influenced
by race/ethnicity, social class, and age. For adolescents, school
becomes a self-contained social environment in which the
definition of masculinity responds to the social norms within
each school (Marasco 2018; Messerschmidt 2012). Although
there was not a significant clustering effect of school in the
current sample, future research should remain aware of the
possible effect of contextual masculinity.
Future Directions
The present study provides a basis for future research by giv-
ing a description and analysis of how felt pressure for gen-
dered behavior presented within a sample of predominantly
gender-conforming Australian adolescents. A longitudinal
study design would aid in unravelling the impact of felt pres-
sure on gender typicality over time, along with the impact of
felt pressure on other psychological processes and outcomes.
Extending the sample to include gender-diverse participants,
potentially as a majority, would reveal how felt pressure may
differentially impact gender-diverse individuals compared to
gender-conforming individuals. The construction of the FP-
GBS as measuring felt pressure from parents, peers, and the
self also provides the opportunity to consider each of these
sources of pressure individually and in comparison to one
another.
Furthermore, although the current study developed a new
measure of felt pressure for gendered behavior, the underlying
factor structure is yet to be confirmed in an independent sam-
ple. Although the current study was able to show that the
measure showed gender differences, as expected based on
theory and previous research, further validation studies of
the measure should be conducted to confirm the validity (both
convergent and discriminant) and reliability of the measure.
Practice Implications
Movement toward a dual approach broadens the scope of the
multidimensional model of gender identity. Understanding the
interplay of same and other gender-related cognitions opens the
conversation for mental health professionals to better untangle
the influences of gender identity on adolescents’ adjustment,
along with how to increase their resilience. Further, the finding
that adolescents experience both same and other gender felt
pressure encourages parents and teachers to be cognizant that
pressure to avoid or conform to masculine and feminine
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
stereotypic behavior applies to both males and females. For
example, in considering the underrepresentation of women in
STEM, Liben (2016) notes how field interventions have primar-
ily focused on increasing the feminine-typing of STEM subjects
and careers, but that these interventions do not achieve their
goals. The dual approach instead suggests that equal attention
should be paid to the impact of felt pressure for masculine-
typed behavior because the relationship of other gender felt pres-
sure was significantly associated with other gender typicality for
female adolescents in our study.
Conclusion
The present study provides compelling evidence that the mul-
tidimensional model of gender identity’s component of felt
pressure needs to include both same and other gender cogni-
tions. This reconceptualization of felt pressure provides the
opportunity to more closely examine the relationship of felt
pressure with adjustment. Further, in moving towards a more
comprehensive model of gender identity, the present study
makes an important contribution. Alongside conceptualizing
same and other gender typicality (Martin et al. 2017; Pauletti
et al. 2017), the present study suggests that multiple compo-
nents of gender identity extend beyond cognitions regarding
only our own gender to the other gender, thereby allowing
gender identity to be understood by jointly considering both
same and other gender cognitions and behaviors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards Authors declare that
there is no conflict of interests or external funding for this research.
Authors declare that the study complied with the ethical standards of
the Authors’ institution, including participant consent and adherence to
the APA ethical guidelines.
Appendix
Felt Pressure for Gendered Behavior Scale
There are three portions to this 18-item measure, varying the
six items in each to target a parent, friends, and one’s self. The
instructions for each section then are: (a) “Think about your
mother, father or someone else who looks after you a lot. For
the following questions, think about that person as your par-
ent.”; (b) “Now think about how your friends would be if you
did these activities.”; and (c) “Now think about how you
would be if you did these activities.”
1. If I wore a skirt and makeup my parent [my friends; I]
would be …
2. If I started a girly activity like ballet my parent [my
friends; I] would be …
3. If I was spending a lot of time with girls, my parent [my
friends; I] would be …
313
4. If I wore the jersey of the sports team I support, my parent
[my friends; I] would be …
5. If I joined a boys’ sports club, my parent [my friends; I]
would be …
6. If I was spending a lot of time with boys, my parent [my
friends; I] would be…
Note. Each item is rated on a 7-point scale where 1 = Very
pleased, 2 = Quite pleased, 3 = A little pleased, 4 = Wouldn’t
care, 5 = A little upset, 6 = Quite upset, 7 = Very upset. For
analysis, items are recoded from −3 (Very pleased) to +3
(Very upset). The first three items measure feminine stereo-
typed behavior; the last three, masculine stereotyped.
References
Allison, P. D. (2001). Quantitative applications in the social sciences:
Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781412985079.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). My
school website. Retrieved from http://www.myschool.edu.au.
Braun, S. S., & Davidson, A. J. (2017). Gender (non)conformity in mid-
dle childhood: A mixed methods approach to understanding gender-
typed behavior, friendship, and peer preference. Sex Roles, 77(1–2),
16–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0693-z.
Bussey, K. (2011). Gender identity development. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (pp. 603–628). New York: Springer.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4),
676–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.
Carver, P., Yunger, J., & Perry, D. (2003). Gender identity and adjustment
in middle childhood. A Journal of Research, 49(3), 95–109. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1024423012063.
Cooper, P. (2014). Gender self-discrepancies in middle childhood: influ-
ences on children’s personal and social adjustment (doctoral disser-
tation, Florida Atlantic University). Available from ProQuest disser-
tations and theses database. (UMI no. 3647552)
Corby, B. C., Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Gender identity and
adjustment in black, Hispanic, and white preadolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.43.1.261.
Costello, B. A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor
analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Dean, M. L., & Tate, C. C. (2016). Extending the legacy of sandra bem:
Psychological androgyny as a touchstone conceptual advance for
the study of gender in psychological science. Sex Roles, 76(11–
12), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0713-z.
DeLay, D., Lynn Martin, C., Cook, R. E., & Hanish, L. D. (2018). The
influence of peers during adolescence: Does homophobic name call-
ing by peers change gender identity? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 47(3), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-
0749-6.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional
analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.37.4.451.
314
Halim, M. L., Ruble, D. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2011). From pink frilly
dresses to “one of the boys”: A social-cognitive analysis of gender
identity development and gender bias. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5(11), 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2011.00399.x.
Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of gender-related
role expectations during early adolescence. In J. Brooks-Gunn & A.
Petersen (Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial
perspectives (pp. 201–228). New York: Plenum.
Jewell, J. A. (2015). Adolescents' gender typicality, psychological well-
being, and experiences with teasing, bullying, and rejection (doctor-
al dissertation, University of Kentucky). Available from ProQuest
dissertations and theses database. (UMI no. 3731455)
Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typicality,
peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social
Development, 23(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12042.
Joel, D., Tarrasch, R., Berman, Z., Mukamel, M., & Ziv, E. (2014).
Queering gender: Studying gender identity in ‘normative’ individ-
uals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(4), 291–321. https://doi.org/10.
1080/19419899.2013.830640.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,
39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 .
Kornienko, O., Santos, C. E., Martin, C. L., & Granger, K. L. (2016). Peer
influence on gender identity development in adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 52(10), 1578–1592. https://doi.org/10.
1037/dev0000200.
Liben, L. (2016). We've come a long way, baby (but we're not there yet):
Gender past, present, and future. Child Development, 87(1), 5–28.
Liben, L. S., Bigler, R. S., Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Powlishta, K. K.
(2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation:
Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and path-
ways [monograph]. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 67(2, serial no. 231), 1-183.
Marasco, V. M. (2018). Addressing hegemonic masculinity with adoles-
cent boys within the counseling relationship. Journal of Child and
Adolescent Counseling, 4(3), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23727810.2017.1422647.
Martin, C. L., Andrews, N. C., England, D. E., Zosuls, K., & 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.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge. Men
and Masculinities, 15(1), 56–76.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychol-
ogy: How can butler's work inform experimental social
Sex Roles (2020) 83:303–314
psychologists' conceptualization of gender? Fronteirs in
Psychology, 9, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320.
Patterson, M. (2012). Self-perceived gender typicality, gender-typed at-
tributes, and gender stereotype endorsement in elementary- school-
aged children. A Journal of Research, 67(7), 422–434. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11199-012-0184-9.
Pauletti, R. E., Cooper, P. J., & Perry, D. G. (2014). Influences of gender
identity on children's maltreatment of gender-nonconforming peers:
A person x target analysis of aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 106(5), 843–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0036037.
Pauletti, R. E., Menon, M., Cooper, P. J., Aults, C. D., & Perry, D. G.
(2017). Psychological androgyny and children’s mental health: A
new look with new measures. Sex Roles, 76(11–12), 705–718.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0627-9.
Perry, D. G., Pauletti, R. E., & Cooper, P. J. (2019). Gender identity in
childhood: A review of the literature. International Journal of
Behavioral Development. Advance online publication. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1177/0165025418811129
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender devel-
opment. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons Inc..
Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). Engendering identity: Toward a clear-
er conceptualization of gender as a social identity. Sex Roles, 73(11–
12), 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0536-3.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence
for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64(4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
64.4.624.
Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. V., &
Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-
socialization. Psychological Review, 117(2), 601–622. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0018936.
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity
influence children's psychological well-being? Developmental
Psychology, 40(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.
40.4.572.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.