P1: JLS

Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

Sex Roles, Vol. 49, Nos. 3/4, August 2003 (°

C 2003)

Gender Identity and Adjustment in Middle Childhood

Priscilla R. Carver,1,2 Jennifer L. Yunger,1 and David G. Perry1,3

This article has two purposes. The first is to present a brief (and speculative) account of the
developmental origins of the several components of gender identity featured in the multidi-
mensional model of gender identity proposed by Egan and Perry (2001). The second is to offer
additional empirical support for the construct and discriminant validity of the various gender
identity dimensions. Children (M age = 11.5 years) were assessed for 4 components of gender
identity: (a) felt gender typicality, (b) contentment with gender assignment, (c) felt pressure
for gender conformity, and (d) intergroup bias (the sentiment that one’s own sex is superior).
Gender typicality, gender contentedness, and felt pressure (but not intergroup bias) related
to indexes of psychosocial adjustment in specific and theoretically meaningful ways. The case
for a multidimensional approach to gender identity is strengthened.

KEY WORDS: gender identity; gender typing; gender roles.

Gender identity is a central construct in many
accounts of psychosocial development (e.g., Harris,
1995; Maccoby, 1998), yet it has been defined in di-
verse ways. Kohlberg (1966) and Zucker et al. (1993)
viewed gender identity as knowing that one is a mem-
ber of one sex rather than the other; Kagan (1964)
regarded gender identity as the degree to which one
perceives the self as conforming to cultural stereo-
types for one’s gender; Bem (1981) saw gender iden-
tity as the degree to which one internalizes societal
pressures for gender conformity; Green (1974) and
Spence (1985) viewed gender identity as a fundamen-
tal sense of acceptance of, and of belonging to, one’s
gender.
It is conceivable that all of the foregoing (and
still other) conceptualizations of gender identity have
merit but that different varieties or facets of gender
identity serve different psychological functions or af-
fect adjustment in different ways. Thus, it may be fruit-
ful to regard gender identity as a multidimensional
1 Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, Florida.
2 Present address: Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania
State University, Pennsylvania.
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department
of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
33431; e-mail: perrydg@fau.edu.
construct and to define gender identity as the col-
lection of thoughts and feelings one has about one’s
gender category and one’s membership in it. A re-
cent study by Egan and Perry (2001) was built on this
premise. Egan and Perry proposed that gender iden-
tity is composed of five major components: (a) mem-
bership knowledge (knowledge of membership in a
gender category); (b) gender typicality (the degree to
which one feels one is a typical member of one’s gen-
der category); (c) gender contentedness (the degree
to which one is happy with one’s gender assignment);
(d) felt pressure for gender conformity (the degree
to which one feels pressure from parents, peers, and
self for conformity to gender stereotypes); and (e) in-
tergroup bias (the extent to which one believes one’s
own sex is superior to the other).
Egan and Perry (2001) measured the last four
of these components of gender identity in preadoles-
cent children and found the components to be rela-
tively independent, to be fairly stable over a school
year, and to relate to adjustment (i.e., self-esteem and
peer acceptance) in different ways. Gender typicality
and gender contentedness were favorably related to
adjustment, whereas felt pressure and intergroup bias
were negatively associated with adjustment. Links be-
tween the gender identity constructs and the adjust-
ment indexes remained significant when children’s

95 0360-0025/03/0800-0095/0 °
C 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
96
perceptions of self-efficacy for a wide variety of
sex-typed activities were statistically controlled. This
suggests that the gender identity constructs carry im-
plications for adjustment beyond self-perceptions of
specific sex-linked competencies.
The purposes of the present report are twofold.
The first is to offer a brief, and somewhat specula-
tive, account of the development of the various gender
identity components. The second purpose is empirical
and represents an attempt to substantiate the valid-
ity of the gender identity constructs by demonstrat-
ing theoretically meaningful links between measures
of the constructs and multiple indexes of psychoso-
cial functioning in preadolescent children. Note that
although the developmental account provided in the
first part of the article deals with development across
a rather broad age span (i.e., the preschool years
through early adolescence), the empirical part of the
article is based on data collected only from preadoles-
cent children. Thus, the empirical part is not intended
as a test of the developmental model presented in the
first part. We begin with the developmental account
and then turn to the present study.
GENDER IDENTITY IN
DEVELOPMENTAL CONTEXT
It is likely that the earliest emerging of the gender
identity components is membership knowledge. This
aspect of gender identity develops in a sequence of
steps (Slaby & Frey, 1975). By the age of 2.5 or 3 years,
most children evidence basic membership knowledge
by correctly answering the question “Are you a boy
or a girl?”, but it is not until several years later that
children attain gender constancy, or understand that
their sex remains invariant across time and changes
in surface appearance (e.g., hair length). By age 6
or 7, nearly all children attain full gender constancy,
thereby eliminating within-sex variability on this facet
of gender identity. Thus, beyond this age, membership
knowledge cannot account for within-sex individual
differences in other variables, such as psychosocial ad-
justment. This aspect of gender identity, then, is not a
focus of the present study.
Although full gender constancy is not attained
until age 6 or 7, the basic membership knowledge
usually achieved by age 3 may be sufficient to set
in motion a number of “intergroup processes” that
prompt preschoolers to interact predominantly in
same-sex groups, a phenomenon known as sex segre-
gation (Maccoby, 1998). It appears that when children
(or adults) believe that they share membership in a
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
group, a number of identity validation processes come
into play. These include attraction to the in-group,
preferential treatment of the in-group, and devalua-
tion and homogenization of the out-group (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). The sex segregation that derives from
these intergroup processes is important, largely be-
cause boys’ and girls’ groups socialize different be-
haviors and social rules (Maccoby, 1998).
Preschool children’s basic knowledge of their
gender and the intergroup processes it inspires prob-
ably provide the roots for development of three of
the gender identity components proposed by Egan
and Perry (2001)—intergroup bias, felt pressure, and
gender contentedness. Individual differences in these
components may be slight at first. During preschool,
intergroup bias may be a normative, natural con-
sequence of intergroup processes. However, with
advancing age and socialization, strong same-sex
favoritism is likely to become increasingly imma-
ture, inappropriate, and socially problematic (Egan &
Perry, 2001; Powlishta, 1995). Strong felt pressure
for gender conformity also is normative for young
children, who tend to regard gender stereotypes as
moral imperatives. This early sense of pressure is dif-
ficult to trace to specific social learning experiences
(Maccoby, 1998). As children make the transition into
elementary school, they relax their rigidly held gender
rules, gender conformity is seen more as a matter of
choice, and felt pressure for gender conformity sub-
sides. However, for some older children felt pressure
remains strong. Post-preschool felt pressure may be
due to developmental delay, but additional factors,
such as introjection of socially imposed values, prob-
ably also contribute (Bem, 1993; Bussey & Bandura,
1999). Gender contentedness also begins during the
preschool period. For most children, contentment
with one’s gender is high, probably because of inter-
group cognitions and the gratifying same-sex affilia-
tions they promote. However, some preschoolers are
gender dysphoric. In extreme cases, such children may
be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, especially
if they also exhibit strong cross-gender-typed behav-
ior (Bradley & Zucker, 1990; Green, 1987; Rekers,
1985). Early gender dissatisfaction may continue for
many years. In addition, some children may develop
gender discontentment at a later age, perhaps if they
find a strongly desired activity to be off limits because
it is deemed gender inappropriate.
As children move into the elementary school
years, the same-sex peer group continues to be a
major context for social interaction and socialization,
but advances in cognitive development—improved
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
Gender Identity and Adjustment
social comparison skills, the ability to infer stable
traits in the self, and the ability to imagine what the
collective other is thinking about the self—set the
stage for emergence of the fifth component of gender
identity—an estimate of one’s gender typicality. Judg-
ments of gender typicality are of great importance to
preadolescents (Kagan, 1964; Kohlberg, 1969; Spence
& Buckner, 1995), despite the fact that felt pressure
for gender conformity is subsiding at this age. In mid-
dle childhood, children have a strong intrinsic desire
to “join in,” to feel they belong, and to see themselves
as not terribly different from same-sex others.
Despite the importance that children attach to fit-
ting in with their same-sex peers, within each sex there
is ample room for children to reach different con-
clusions about their gender typicality (Kagan, 1964;
Spence, 1985). Although children’s groups remain
strongly segregated by sex throughout childhood,
within each sex children vary greatly with respect
to how much they exhibit prototypical gender-typed
behaviors (Harris, 1995; Maccoby, 1998). Such within-
sex variations in gender typing provide the raw ma-
terial on which children cognitively operate to es-
timate their gender typicality. Presumably, children
reach a summary judgment of their typicality by in-
tegrating several kinds of information, including self-
observation of salient gender-typed attributes, social
comparison, and appraisals communicated by signif-
icant others. Thus, a sense of gender typicality is
cognitively constructed.
It is important to note that a child’s sense of
overall gender typicality cannot be assumed to be
isomorphic with the child’s self-perception of any
specific gender-typed attribute (e.g., agentic or com-
munal traits). The degree to which children exhibit
attributes typical of their gender is only modestly
correlated across different domains of gender typing
(e.g., personality traits, toy and activity preferences,
relationship partner preferences, academic pursuits,
occupational preferences, fantasy life, and nonverbal
characteristics such as styles of speech, gesture, and
dress; Huston, 1983; Ruble & Martin, 1998). There-
fore, self-perceived gender typing in any single do-
main cannot be taken as a stand-in for overall felt gen-
der typicality. A child’s estimate of his or her overall
gender typicality represents an idiosyncratic weight-
ing and integrating of self-perceptions of diverse
gender-typed attributes (Egan & Perry, 2001; Spence,
1993; Spence & Buckner, 1995). The specific gender-
typed attributes that contribute most strongly to one’s
overall sense of gender typicality will vary from child
to child, though at some points in development certain
97
aspects of self-perceived gender typing are likely to be
influential for many children (e.g., a typical or atypical
sexual orientation may contribute strongly to most
early adolescents’ sense of gender typicality). Impor-
tantly, the fact that multiple gender-typed attributes
contribute to children’s sense of gender typicality pro-
vides some flexibility to children in how a sense of
gender typicality can be achieved. Furthermore, the
cognitive skills that come with the advent of Piage-
tian concrete operations (e.g., compensation and con-
servation) allow children to engage in compensatory
identity “repair work.” For example, a boy who ques-
tions his gender typicality because of poor athletic
ability might restore his sense of typicality by succeed-
ing in an alternate male-typed arena, such as math or
science (Spence & Buckner, 1995). Nonetheless, some
children will be unable to perceive in themselves a
salient and valued same-gender-typed attribute that
imparts a sense of gender typicality, or will perceive
in themselves a salient cross-gender-typed attribute
that undermines a sense of gender typicality. These
children may be prone to a persistent sense of gender
atypicality that lasts perhaps many years.
This brief synopsis of the development of the
components of gender identity suggests that the pe-
riod of middle childhood presents important chal-
lenges to children on the gender identity develop-
ment front. During this period, it is normative and
expected that children relinquish or suppress certain
once-cherished but now developmentally immature
components of gender identity, namely, intergroup
bias and felt pressure for gender conformity. At the
same time, children are struggling to achieve and con-
solidate a new kind of gender identity—a sense of
gender typicality. For some children, this will not be
easy, because, as noted, processes of within-group dif-
ferentiation and social comparison present children
with ample opportunity to question their typicality
on gender-prototypical dimensions, and not all chil-
dren will succeed in the compensatory identity repair
work needed to achieve a stable and confident sense
of gender typicality. Moreover, for some children, the
same factors that undermine a sense of gender typ-
icality are likely also to threaten a sense of gender
contentedness.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The present research was designed to garner fur-
ther support for Egan and Perry’s multidimensional
model of gender identity (Egan & Perry, 2001).
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
98
Relations between the gender identity constructs
and a broad array of adjustment indexes were
examined. Egan and Perry found predictable associa-
tions between the gender identity components and
two indexes of adjustment—self-esteem and peer
acceptance—but the inferences that could be drawn
from using only these two measures of adjustment
were limited. The self-esteem assessment was limit-
ing because the gender identity and self-esteem mea-
sures were all self-reported, and shared method vari-
ance may have contributed to associations between
them. The peer acceptance assessment was also lim-
ited because children may be liked or disliked by peers
for many different reasons. For example, children are
about as likely to be rejected by peers for exhibit-
ing externalizing problems (e.g., aggression) as they
are for displaying internalizing symptoms (e.g., so-
cial withdrawal; Hodges & Perry, 1999). Because an
omnibus index of peer acceptance imparts no infor-
mation about the social behaviors exhibited by chil-
dren, using such an index precludes testing hypothe-
ses about links between the various components of
gender identity and specific behaviors (e.g., high felt
pressure for gender conformity might predict high ag-
gression and low communal behavior for boys but the
opposite pattern for girls).
Ultimately, the validity of a conceptual model
that specifies that gender identity is composed of mul-
tiple components, each with unique effects on ad-
justment or behavior, requires supportive longitudi-
nal evidence. However, before expensive longitudinal
work is undertaken, it would be advisable to have ev-
idence that the various gender identity components
relate concurrently to a more informative set of cri-
terion adjustment variables than that used by Egan
and Perry (2001). Gathering such evidence was the
purpose of the present study. Our strategy was to
see whether the gender identity dimensions relate
in specific ways to indexes of adjustment within the
peer group. Social adaptation among one’s peers has
been suggested by numerous theorists to be affected
by gender identity (e.g., Bugental & Goodnow, 1998;
Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Harris, 1995; Pollack, 1998;
Sroufe, Bennett, Englund, Urban, & Shulman, 1993),
and thus peer adaptation seemed a reasonable con-
text for assessing the putative effects of gender iden-
tity. It should be stressed that although our hypothe-
ses were derived from causal models that specify that
gender identity influences (or, in some cases, is influ-
enced by) peer adaptation, it was not the purpose of
this study to provide evidence for causal influence; in-
deed, the concurrent correlational design precluded
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
such inferences. Our objective was more modest—
simply to see whether sufficient evidence exists for
the construct and discriminant validity of the gender
identity components to make subsequent longitudinal
investigation a sensible investment.
In this study, the primary measures of adjust-
ment were peer reports of five dimensions of so-
cial behavior and adaptation: internalizing problems,
victimization by peers, externalizing problems, agen-
tic traits, and communal traits. For comparison with
the peer-reported internalizing problems measure, we
also included two self-reported measures of internal-
ized distress: global self-worth and self-perceived peer
social competence. Global self-worth is very highly
correlated (negatively) with self-report measures of
depression (Harter, 1998); self-perceived peer social
competence captures children’s sense that they are
liked by peers, have friends, and are otherwise faring
well in the peer group. Hypotheses for each gender
identity measure follow.
Gender Typicality
Numerous theorists have suggested that chil-
dren evaluate themselves on a dimension of gender
typicality and suffer discomfort, even despair, when
they come up wanting. Various bases for the expected
link between gender typicality and psychological
well-being have been suggested. Children who
appraise themselves to be gender atypical may fear
ostracism, denial of privileges, or a loss of protection
by the group (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Caporael
& Brewer, 1991). They may also experience a loss
of self-esteem (Tajfel, 1982), negative self-sanctions
(Bussey & Bandura, 1999), or simply a sense of being
inadequate as group members (Kohlberg, 1969).
Thus, children with a low sense of gender typicality
should be prone to anxiety, sadness, social withdrawal,
self-deprecation, and other signs of internalized dis-
tress. Furthermore, because children who display
these characteristics are seen as easy prey by aggres-
sive children (Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges, Malone,
& Perry, 1997), those who feel gender atypical should
be more likely than other children to be victimized by
peers.
It is likely that some children are more prone
to the ill effects of felt gender atypicality than oth-
ers. In particular, low gender typicality should be
more disturbing for children who feel strong pres-
sure for gender conformity than for children who feel
no mandate to conform to gender stereotypes. That
is, children who believe it is important to be gender
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
Gender Identity and Adjustment
conforming yet appraise themselves as atypical should
be maximally distressed.
A final prediction for the gender typicality con-
struct is based on the idea that estimates of gen-
der typicality are, at least in part, reflections of
self-perceptions of salient gender-linked characteris-
tics. As pointed out, a sense of gender typicality is
not based exclusively on self-perceived gender typ-
ing in any single domain (e.g., personality traits) but
rather is a more abstracted, integrated assessment
about the self reached by synthesizing diverse infor-
mation about one’s gender typing. Despite the fact
that gender identity is multiply determined, there are
reasons for thinking that self-perceptions of agen-
tic and communal traits assume importance during
middle childhood in many children’s assessment of
their male typicality or female typicality. Maccoby
(1998) pointed out that preadolescent boys, espe-
cially when interacting in same-sex groups, tend to
exhibit agentic traits such as competitiveness, dar-
ing, and assertion, whereas preadolescent girls tend
to exhibit communal behaviors such as intimate ex-
change, cooperation, and efforts to maintain social
harmony. Maccoby stressed that although peer in-
teraction remains strongly segregated by sex dur-
ing this age period, there exist considerable within-
sex differences in children’s tendencies to exhibit the
traits typical of their sex. Thus, gender-typed person-
ality traits may be one, although certainly not the
only, determinant of felt gender typicality in middle
childhood.
Gender Contentedness
Young children who are dissatisfied with their
gender to the point of being diagnosed with gender
identity disorder are decidedly unhappy and socially
maladjusted, in part because of the negative social
reactions they incur (Ruble & Martin, 1998). Older
children under treatment at clinics for strong gender
dissatisfaction also tend to be distressed (Zucker &
Bradley, 1995; Zucker, Owen, Bradley, & Ameeriar,
2002). Even among nonclinic samples, variations in
gender contentment exist and are likely to affect ad-
justment. The feeling of being at home or not at home
in one’s body is almost certain to affect satisfaction
with the self. Furthermore, the internalizing problems
of children with low gender contentedness should be
greatest for children who experience strong felt pres-
sure for gender conformity. That is, children who wish
they were the other sex or who desire to engage in
cross-sex activities should be distressed mainly when
99
they perceive their social environment to be telling
them that they cannot be whom they wish to be.
Felt Pressure
In addition to serving as a moderator of the de-
gree to which low gender typicality or low gender
contentedness contributes to internalized distress, felt
pressure should be a negative influence on psycholog-
ical well-being in its own right. As emphasized by Bem
(1981) and by Bussey and Bandura (1999), children
who feel strong pressure for gender typing should be
less likely to explore a wide range of options when de-
ciding what interests to pursue or talents to cultivate,
and therefore they should be less likely to settle on op-
tions that are maximally fulfilling. This straightjacket-
ing of self should result in less satisfaction with the self.
Thus, children who are experiencing high felt pres-
sure for gender conformity should show more signs
of internalized distress than children who are freer of
gender stereotypes.
The measures used in the present study also per-
mitted evaluation of the possibility that felt pressure is
associated with specific gender-typed social behaviors.
Bem (1993) proposed that internalized societal pres-
sure for gender conformity disposes men and boys to
use power to achieve dominance and disposes women
and girls to subordinate their own needs, desires, and
interests to those of others. In a similar vein, in his
treatise on “real boys,” Pollack (1998) argued that
felt pressure disposes boys to suppress communal be-
haviors and to hide feelings of weakness, sadness,
fear, and tenderness. These considerations suggest
the hypothesis that felt pressure causes children not
only to take on negative components of same-gender
stereotypes (e.g., antisocial tendencies for boys, sub-
servience for girls) but also to shun positive compo-
nents of other-gender stereotypes (e.g., communal be-
havior for boys, agentic traits for girls).
Intergroup Bias
As suggested by Powlishta (1995), intergroup
bias may cause preadolescents to experience difficulty
with peer interaction. Children who espouse negative
attitudes toward the other sex at a time when hetero-
sexual contacts are becoming more accepted and nor-
mative may be perceived by peers as high in hostility
(i.e., externalizing problems) or as low in communal
tendencies.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
100
METHOD
Participants
All children in the third through eighth grades
of a state university laboratory school were invited to
participate. Of the 336 children in these grades, 206
(61%; 93 boys and 113 girls) received written parental
consent for participation; the children also signed an
assent form. The admissions procedures of the school
are designed to ensure that the demographic compo-
sition of the student body reflects that of the state
of Florida as a whole (68% European American,
18% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 1% Asian
American, with annual household income distributed
as follows: 6% $0–$17,499; 12% $17,500–$32,499;
22% $32,500–$52,499; and 60% $52,500 or more). Ap-
proximately equal numbers of children came from
each grade (31, 42, 40, 30, 28, and 35 third through
eighth graders, respectively). Children averaged 11
years 6 months of age.4
Measures
Two instruments, a Self-Concept Questionnaire
and a Peer Nomination Inventory, were administered.
These are described next. Both instruments may be
obtained from the authors.
Self-Concept Questionnaire
This 46-item questionnaire contained six scales.
All items of this questionnaire (as well as all items
on all remaining questionnaires, except for the PNI)
were written in the format developed by Harter (1985)
to minimize the influence of response biases (see ex-
ample item below). Scale scores were computed by
averaging across items and could range from 1 to 4.
The first 12 items of the questionnaire were items
developed by Harter (1985) to measure global self-
worth (6 items) and self-perceived peer social compe-
tence (6 items). The Cronbach α coefficients for these
scales were .81 and .79, respectively.
4 This project was conducted 2 years after the Egan and Perry (2001)
study but was conducted at the same school. Thus, there is some
overlap in the participants of the two studies. This overlap should
not pose a problem, because the present project was not designed
as a replication of the Egan and Perry study but rather was in-
tended simply to identify additional adjustment correlates of gen-
der identity. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that the two
samples are not entirely independent.
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
Items 13–46 of the questionnaire were items de-
veloped by Egan and Perry (2001) to assess gender
typicality (6 items), gender contentedness (6 items),
felt pressure (14 items), and intergroup bias (8 items).
The items of these scales were randomly interspersed.
The Cronbach α coefficients for the four scales, re-
spectively, were .70, .70, .83, and .70. The gender typ-
icality scale assessed the degree to which children
think that their interests, personalities, and competen-
cies are typical of their gender. Here is a sample item
from the gender typicality scale (all sample items from
the gender identity scales are from the girls’ form):
Some girls don’t BUT Other girls do feel
feel they’re just they’re just like
like all the other all the other girls
girls their age their age
Very true Sort of true Sort of true Very true
for me for me for me for me
Other sample items from the gender typicality scale
are “Some girls’ don’t feel that their personality is
similar to most girls’ personalities BUT other girls
do feel . . .” and “Some girls feel that the kinds of
things they’re good at are similar to what most girls
are good at BUT Other girls’ don’t feel . . .” The gen-
der contentedness scale measured the extent to which
children are happy with their gender and rarely wish
to participate in cross-sex activities. Sample items are
“Some girls like being a girl BUT Other girls don’t . . .”
and “Some girls sometimes think it might be more
fun to be a boy BUT Other girls never think . . .” The
felt pressure scale captured the degree to which chil-
dren feel pressure from their parents, their peers, and
themselves for gender conformity.5 Sample items are
“Some girls think their parents would be upset if they
wanted to play with boys’ toys BUT Other girls don’t
think . . .” and “Some girls think it would be OK for
them to participate in boys’ activities BUT Other girls
think it would be wrong to . . .” The intergroup bias
scale assessed the degree to which children are more
likely to attribute positive qualities, and less likely to
attribute negative qualities, to their own sex than to
the other. Sample items are “Some girls don’t think
5 Egan and Perry’s felt pressure scale contained 10 items (Egan &
Perry, 2001). We added 4 items to improve the scale’s reliability
and to include more items assessing felt pressure from the self for
gender conformity. The 14-item scale contained 5 items assessing
felt pressure from parents, 5 items assessing felt pressure from
peers, and 4 items assessing felt pressure from self.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

Gender Identity and Adjustment 101

that girls are more truthful than boys BUT other girls Table I. Means and Standard Deviations of Measures
do think . . .” and “Some girls think that boys are more Boys Girls
annoying than girls BUT other girls don’t think . . .”
Measure M SD M SD
Gender identity measure
Peer Nomination Inventory Gender typicality 3.02 0.63 2.81 0.62
Gender contentedness 3.23 0.46 2.70 0.61
Peer-reported social behavior and adjustment Felt pressure 2.45 0.43 1.71 0.39
Intergroup bias 2.25 0.52 2.52 0.57
were assessed with a modification of Wiggins and Adjustment measure
Winder’s Peer Nomination Inventory (Wiggins & Internalizing problems 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.15
Winder, 1961). The Inventory contained 53 items Externalizing problems 0.25 0.17 0.19 0.16
and included items that tap the following aspects of Agentic traits 0.53 0.22 0.47 0.19
social behavior: (a) internalizing problems (8 items); Communal traits 0.40 0.20 0.47 0.20
Global self-worth 3.30 0.58 3.33 0.58
(b) victimization (10 items); externalizing problems Self-perceived peer social competence 2.92 0.67 3.05 0.71
(13 items); agentic traits (5 items); and communal
traits (5 items). The remaining 12 items were positive
fillers (e.g., “He is a fast runner.”). Children checked questionnaires relevant to a project on attachment
off the names of same-sex classmates who fit the were also administered. All instruments except
behavioral description in each item (unlimited the Peer Nomination Inventory were administered
nominations); owing to the length of the inventory, individually to children in two 45-min testing ses-
children were not asked to nominate other-sex peers sions by one of several adult females who read the
for the items. A score for each item was calculated as items to the child. The Peer Nomination Inventory
the percentage of same-sex classmates who checked was group-administered to children in their class-
the children’s name for the item. An initial factor rooms in a 30-min session.
analysis on the 41 items of interest yielded four
easily interpretable factors that closely conform to
the original assignment of items to constructs, except RESULTS
that items that assess internalizing problems loaded
along with victimization items on a single factor. In Results are presented in three sections. First,
addition, three items cross-loaded. A second analysis sex and age differences in the measures are summa-
without these three items was run, and it yielded rized. Second, intercorrelations among the measures
four pure factors: internalizing problems (this scale are presented. The third section reports tests of hy-
included victimization items and was composed of potheses about relations between gender identity and
18 items; e.g., from the boys’ form: “He says bad adjustment.
things about himself.”; “He gets picked on by other
kids.”); externalizing problems (12 items ; e.g., “He
always has to have his own way.”; “He hits and pushes Sex and Age Differences in Measures
others around.”); agentic traits (3 items; e.g., “He tries
hard to win games and contests.”; “He is brave.”); and Means and standard deviations of the measures
communal traits (5 items; e.g., “He tries to get along are given in Table I, separately by child sex. To discern
with everyone.”; “When a kid is sad, he tries to make significant sex and age differences, each measure was
him feel better.”). A score on each scale was calcu- treated as a dependent variable in a multiple regres-
lated for each child by averaging the scores the child sion analysis with sex and age entered as simultaneous
received on the items of the scale. The Cronbach α predictors. With age controlled, the effect of sex was
coefficients were .96, .93, .79, and .89 for the inter- significant for eight measures at p < .05 or better.6
nalizing, externalizing, agentic, and communal scales, With respect to gender identity, boys scored higher
respectively. than girls on gender typicality, gender contentedness,
and felt pressure, but boys scored lower than girls on
Procedure intergroup bias. As for the adjustment indexes, boys
scored higher than girls on internalizing problems,
The two instruments were administered to
children in the spring of the school year. Other 6 All p values in this article are two-tailed unless otherwise noted.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

102 Carver, Yunger, and Perry

Table II. Correlations Among Gender Identity Measures Table III. Correlations Among Adjustment Measures (Peer-
Report and Self-Esteem Measures)
Gender identity measure 1 2 3 4
Adjustment
1. Gender typicality — .25∗∗ .00 .20
measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Gender contentedness .31∗∗ — .17 .06
3. Felt pressure −.01 .16 — .16 1. Internalizing — .16 −.65∗∗ −.35∗∗ −.13 −.29∗∗
4. Intergroup bias .04 .19∗ .41∗∗ — problems
2. Externalizing .48∗∗ — .10 −.68∗∗ −.29∗∗ .05
Note. Correlations for boys are above the diagonal; those for girls
problems
are below the diagonal. Entries are partial correlations with age
3. Agentic −.40∗∗ −.01 — .22∗ −.08 .20∗
controlled.
∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. traits
4. Communal −.36∗∗ −.67∗∗ .25∗∗ — .17 .04
traits
externalizing problems, and agentic traits, but lower 5. Global −.08 −.20∗ .00 .22∗ — .39∗∗
self-worth
than girls on communal traits.
6. Self-perceived −.33∗∗ −.07 .25∗∗ .15 .45∗∗ —
With sex controlled, the effect of age was sig- peer social
nificant for six measures at p < .05 or better. With competence
increasing age, children reported greater gender typ-
Note. Correlations for boys are above the diagonal; those for girls
icality and greater gender contentedness but reduced are below the diagonal. Entries are partial correlations with age
felt pressure and reduced intergroup bias. Of the ad- controlled.
∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.
justment measures, only two showed an association
with age: older children reported higher global self-
worth and higher self-perceived peer social compe- ations are significant and several are strong, it will be
tence than younger children. Because of these sundry seen that significant associations between the gender
effects of age, we controlled for age in subsequent identity measures and the adjustment measures are
analyses. mostly quite specific and theoretically meaningful.

Intercorrelations of Measures Relations of Gender Identity to Peer-Reported

This section reports the intercorrelations among
the gender identity variables and among the adjust-
ment indexes. Relations between the gender identity
and adjustment measures are given in a later section.
Correlations Among Gender Identity Variables
Relations among the gender identity variables
are given for each sex in Table II. Most associations
are low, but some are significant. For both sexes, gen-
der typicality and gender contentedness are positively
correlated, but it will be seen that the two measures
relate to adjustment in different ways. It is interesting
that the two “immature” forms of gender identity—
felt pressure and intergroup bias—are correlated for
girls but not for boys, although reasons for this are not
clear.
Correlations Among Adjustment Measures
(Peer-Report and Self-Esteem Measures)
Relations among the adjustment indexes are
given for each sex in Table III. Although many associ-
Adjustment and to Self-Esteem
The relation of each gender identity mea-
sure to each adjustment index was evaluated in a
separate multiple regression analysis (4 gender iden-
tity measures × 6 adjustment indexes = 24 analyses).
In each analysis, one of the adjustment indexes served
as the dependent variable. Sex and age were entered
as first-step predictors; a gender identity measure was
entered on the second step; the 3 two-way interactions
(age × sex, age × gender identity, and sex × gen-
der identity) were tested on the third step; the three-
way interaction was examined on the fourth step. In
no analysis was the three-way interaction significant.
However, because sex differences in certain relations
of gender identity to adjustment had been predicted,
and because several interactions of sex with gender
identity measure were indeed significant or nearly so
(sex moderated the relation between gender typical-
ity and agentic traits, p < .05; the relation between
felt pressure and externalizing problems, p < .05; and
the relation between felt pressure and global self-
worth, p < .09), the relations of gender identity to
adjustment were examined separately for each sex.
These relations are given in Table IV. The entries in
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002

Gender Identity and Adjustment 103

Table IV. Relations of Gender Identity to Peer-Reported Adjustment (and to Self-Esteem)

Gender identity measure
Gender typicality Gender contentedness Felt pressure Intergroup bias
Adjustment index Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Internalizing problems −.35∗∗∗ −.36∗∗∗ .02 −.14 .04 −.02 −.01 −.03
Externalizing problems −.07 −.09 −.04 −.20∗ .16 −.12 .11 −.03
Agentic traits .33∗∗∗ .05 −.09 −.12 −.03 −.22∗ .18 −.08
Communal traits .14 .21∗ −.11 .06 −.21∗ −.11 −.14 −.03
Global self-worth .13 .26∗∗ .24∗ .36∗∗∗ .05 −.20∗ .06 .05
Self-perceived peer social competence .44∗∗∗ .48∗∗∗ .22∗ .23∗ −.07 −.21∗ −.03 .07
Note. Entries are partial correlations with age controlled.
∗p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Table IV are partial correlations that control for age
and thus indicate, for each sex, the significance of the
relation of the gender identity measure to the adjust-
ment measure with age controlled. The significance of
the partial correlation is identical to the significance
that would be obtained on the second step of a multi-
ple regression analysis (conducted on either the boys’
data alone or the girls’ data alone) in which the ad-
justment index is treated as the dependent variable,
age is entered as a first-step predictor, and the gender
identity variable is tested on the second step. Results
concerning the relations between gender identity and
adjustment are summarized next, with each gender
identity measure considered in turn.7
Gender Typicality
As may be seen in the first two columns of
Table IV, both boys and girls who perceive themselves
to be different from others of their sex are distressed.
Not only do their peers perceive them to possess in-
ternalizing problems, but the children themselves re-
port distress, especially dissatisfaction with their so-
cial lives.
It was hypothesized that the internalized distress
of children who feel gender atypical would be great-
est if the children also felt strong pressure for gender
conformity. To test this hypothesis, three regression
analyses were run—one for each measure of distress
(internalizing problems, global self-worth, and self-
perceived peer social competence). Sex and age were
7 Significantinteractions involving participant age were few, did
not qualify the major findings of the study, and conformed to no
particular pattern. That is, certain effects described ahead were
somewhat stronger for younger children, whereas other effects
were somewhat stronger for older children. Because we did not
advance predictions about moderator effects of age, and to save
space, interactions involving age are not described in this report.
entered on the first step; on the second step, gen-
der typicality and felt pressure were entered; on the
third step, the 3 two-way interactions of sex × gen-
der typicality, sex × felt pressure, and gender typical-
ity × felt pressure were evaluated; on the fourth step,
the three-way interaction of sex × gender typical-
ity × felt pressure was tested. Interactions involving
age were not included, because including them would
have resulted in testing more terms than warranted by
the N.
Of particular interest was the significance of the
gender typicality × felt pressure interaction when
tested on the third step. This was significant ( p < .01)
only in the analysis on internalizing problems (in no
analysis was the three-way interaction significant).
We explored the nature of the two-way interaction
of felt pressure and gender typicality using the pro-
cedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991).
Results confirmed that the size of the negative as-
sociation between gender typicality and internaliz-
ing problems was a direct function of the degree to
which children reported pressure for gender confor-
mity. As the level of felt pressure moved from low
(−1 SD) to medium (0 SD) to high (+1 SD), gender
typicality became increasingly associated (negatively)
with internalizing problems, respective Bs = −.24,
p < .05; −.47, p < .001; and −.69, p < .001. Thus, as
felt pressure increased, self-perceived gender atypi-
cality became increasingly paired with internalizing
problems.
It was hypothesized that during middle childhood
self-perceptions of agentic traits and of communal
traits contribute, respectively, to a sense of male typ-
icality or female typicality. Consistent with this ex-
pectation, the relation of agentic traits to gender typ-
icality was indeed significant only for boys, whereas
communal traits was significantly related to gender
typicality only for girls (Table IV).
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
104
Gender Contentedness
Gender contentedness was positively associated
with the two self-reported measures of self-esteem
for both boys and girls (Table IV). It might ap-
pear from Table IV that gender contentedness is
unrelated to peer-reported internalizing problems,
but it will be recalled that the relation of gender
contentedness to internalized distress was expected
mainly for children who experience strong pressure
for gender conformity (because felt pressure should
cause gender-dysphoric children the most distress).
To examine this hypothesis, three regression analyses
(one for each of the three measures of internalized
distress) were run (the regression analysis was similar
in form to that used to test the hypothesis that felt
pressure and gender typicality interactively influence
distress).
The interaction of gender contentedness and felt
pressure was indeed significant for all three depen-
dent variables (internalizing problems, p < .01; global
self-worth, p < .005; and self-perceived peer social
competence, p < .01), and this interaction did not de-
pend on child sex (because in no analysis was the
three-way interaction of sex × gender contented-
ness × felt pressure significant). Results from follow-
up tests using Aiken and West’s procedures (Aiken
and West, 1991) confirmed that the degree to which
low gender contentedness was associated with signs
of distress was a direct function of the degree of felt
pressure. As felt pressure moved from low (−1 SD) to
medium (0 SD) to high (+1 SD), low gender content-
edness became increasingly associated with distress:
for internalizing problems, respective Bs = −.05, ns;
−.33, p < .01; and −.61, p < .01; for global self-worth,
respective Bs = .31, p < .01; .58, p < .001; and .85,
p < .001; and for self-perceived peer social compe-
tence, respective Bs = .19, p < .05; .48, p < .001; and
.78, p < .001.
An unexpected finding was that gender content-
edness was significantly related to externalizing prob-
lems for girls (but not for boys). That is, gender-
dysphoric girls were perceived by peers as more ag-
gressive, disruptive, and antisocial than other girls.
Felt Pressure
As noted, felt pressure was a powerful modera-
tor of the association between internalized distress
and gender contentedness (and gender typicality).
Felt pressure also was, as a main effect, negatively
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
related to both global self-worth and self-perceived
peer social competence, but this was true only for girls
(Table IV).8
In addition, the hypothesis that felt pressure
leads children to shun positive cross-sex attributes re-
ceived support. Girls high in felt pressure were low in
agentic traits, and boys high in felt pressure were low
in communal traits (Table IV).
Although the interaction of felt pressure and sex
was significant when predicting externalizing prob-
lems, for neither sex alone was the association be-
tween felt pressure and externalizing problems signif-
icant. Nonetheless, the pattern shown in Table IV (felt
pressure and externalizing problems are positively
correlated for boys but negatively correlated for girls)
is consistent with the possibility that felt pressure
contributes to the commonly found sex difference in
externalizing conduct.9
Intergroup Bias
There were no significant associations between
intergroup bias and the adjustment indexes (see
Table IV).
Summary and Supplementary Analyses
Each of three components of gender identity
(gender typicality, gender contentedness, and felt
pressure) was associated with at least one peer-
reported index of adjustment for one or both sexes.
8 It will be recalled that the omnibus multiple regression analysis
predicting global self-worth from felt pressure (and sex and age)
yielded a nearly significant ( p < .09) interaction of felt pressure ×
sex. This interaction contributed to our decision to examine rela-
tions between the gender identity measures and the adjustment
variables separately for each sex. However, there is another way
to examine the interactive influence of felt pressure and sex on
global self-worth. This is to test the significance of the sex differ-
ence in global self-worth at each of several levels (e.g., −1 SD,
0 SD, and +1 SD) of felt pressure. When this is done, there is a
significant ( p < .05) sex difference in global self-worth, with boys
scoring higher than girls, only when felt pressure is high. This find-
ing may be important. It is known that in early adolescence girls
begin to score lower on global self-worth than boys (Harter, 1998).
The present result raises the possibility that it is predominantly
children who feel strong pressure for gender conformity who are
contributing to the sex difference in self-esteem.
9 Indeed, when the significance of the sex difference in externalizing
problems is tested at each of three levels (−1 SD, 0 SD, and +1
SD ) of felt pressure, a significant sex difference, with boys scoring
higher than girls, is found only when felt pressure is high ( p < .05).
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
Gender Identity and Adjustment
Moreover, for each sex, any given peer-reported ad-
justment index was associated with no more than one
gender identity measure. For boys, internalizing prob-
lems were associated only with low gender typicality;
externalizing problems were not associated with any
gender identity measure; agentic traits were linked
only with high gender typicality; and communal traits
were tied only to high felt pressure. For girls, internal-
izing problems were associated only with low gender
typicality; externalizing problems, only with low gen-
der contentedness; agentic traits, only with high felt
pressure; and communal traits, only with high gender
typicality. Most of these findings were predicted (all
except the link for girls between externalizing conduct
and gender contentedness).
Associations between the gender identity mea-
sures and the self-reported adjustment indexes, how-
ever, were more numerous (see Table IV). Because
certain of the gender identity measures were corre-
lated with one another (Table II), for each sex a mul-
tiple regression analysis was run on each self-esteem
measure in which all four gender identity measures
were entered as simultaneous predictors (with age
controlled). This strategy permits assessing the sig-
nificance of each gender identity variable with the ef-
fects of the other three controlled. For boys, global
self-worth was significantly predicted only by gender
contentedness (pr = .21, p < .05), and self-perceived
peer social competence was predicted only by gen-
der typicality (pr = .43, p < .001). For girls, however,
two gender identity measures made independent con-
tributions to each measure of self-esteem: gender con-
tentedness and felt pressure were both independent
predictors of global self-worth (pr = .34, p < .001 and
pr = −.29, p < .002, respectively), and gender typi-
cality and felt pressure both independently predicted
self-perceived peer social competence (pr = .45, p <
.001 and pr = −.30, p < .002, respectively). Collec-
tively, then, the gender identity variables accounted
for considerably more of the variance in the self-
esteem measures for girls than for boys.
DISCUSSION
The results go beyond the findings of Egan and
Perry (2001) by demonstrating that expected rela-
tionships exist between the gender identity measures
and specific social behaviors exhibited in peer interac-
tion. Three of the four gender identity measures (gen-
der typicality, gender contentedness, and felt pres-
sure for gender conformity) bore discriminated and
105
conceptually meaningful relations with one or more
of the indexes of psychosocial adjustment. Because
gender identity was self-reported and social behav-
ior was peer-reported, these associations cannot be
attributed to shared method variance. These results
strengthen the construct and discriminant validity of
the gender identity constructs (and scales) and indi-
cate that longitudinal work designed to reveal likely
directions of causal influence would be a worthwhile
next research step. Below we briefly highlight the sig-
nificance of the main findings for each gender identity
construct.
Gender Typicality
The hypothesis that perceiving the self to be a
typical member of the same-sex peer group is im-
portant to the psychological well-being of preadoles-
cent children was strongly supported. Children who
reported feeling different from same-sex peers not
only voiced distress over their peer relations but in-
deed were perceived by peers as depressed, anxious,
self-deprecating, and victimized. The association be-
tween low gender typicality and internalized distress
was magnified when children reported strong pres-
sure for gender conformity, but it was still evident for
children who reported relatively little felt pressure.
These results challenge the view that it is harmful
for children to view themselves as strongly gender-
typical. The belief that a perception of the self as
strongly gender-typical is harmful is probably rooted
in the mistaken assumption that a perception of the
self as gender-typical necessarily reflects strong inter-
nalized, self-limiting social pressure for gender con-
formity (Bem, 1981). The present data (as well as
the data of Egan & Perry, 2001) indicate not only
that gender typicality and felt pressure are uncorre-
lated but also that these two components of gender
identity relate to adjustment in opposite ways; high
gender typicality is associated with favorable adjust-
ment, and high felt pressure is associated with nega-
tive outcomes.
Consistent with expectation, gender typicality
was positively associated with agentic traits for boys
and with communal traits for girls. Although this pat-
tern supports the view that a sense of gender typi-
cality rests in part on the self-perception of salient
gender-linked attributes, longitudinal work is needed
to determine whether gender-linked personality traits
actually help shape feelings of gender typicality over
time.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
106
Felt Pressure
As pointed out above, the present results rein-
force the conclusion of Egan and Perry (2001) that
the real culprit where gender identity is concerned
is not the sense that one is similar to same-sex oth-
ers but rather the sense that one must avoid cross-
gender-typed activities. Harmful effects of felt pres-
sure for gender conformity were evident in three ways.
First, for both sexes, strong felt pressure appeared to
pathologize a low sense of gender typicality (and a low
sense of gender contentedness), because the associa-
tion between low gender typicality (and low gender
contentedness) and internalizing problems was con-
siderably stronger for children who reported high felt
pressure than for children who placed less emphasis
on gender conformity. Second, felt pressure bore a
direct negative relation with self-esteem, at least for
girls. It is likely that felt pressure causes girls to veer
away from masculine-typed activities and behaviors
(e.g., assertion, risk-taking) that bring prestige, excite-
ment, and self-efficacy for coping with challenge and
stress (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Third, and consis-
tent with the foregoing point, felt pressure was as-
sociated with reduced agentic behavior for girls and
with reduced communal behavior for boys. These re-
sults suggest that felt pressure for gender conformity
is potentially a damaging force in children’s (espe-
cially girls’) lives, at least in largely European Amer-
ican and middle-class populations of the sort stud-
ied here. Longitudinal work designed to corroborate
that felt pressure predicts deterioration in selected
aspects of children’s adjustment over time is clearly
warranted.
Another crucial task for future research is to
identify the determinants of felt pressure for gender
conformity. Several possibilities come to mind. First,
general developmental delay may cause some chil-
dren to be slow to outgrow the strong felt pressure that
is normative during the preschool years. Second, so-
cializing agents (e.g., parents) may place pressure for
gender typing on some children, which causes them
to introject the sanctions. However, it is important to
appreciate that the felt pressure measure is a unifacto-
rial scale that taps felt pressure from diverse sources
(parents, peers, and self; Egan & Perry, 2001). This
suggests that felt pressure does not necessarily mir-
ror specific social learning experiences but rather is
a cognitive construction “that goes beyond the data”
to take the form of a widely generalized rule about
the inappropriateness of engaging in cross-gender-
typed behavior. Third, adverse experiences in the peer
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
group, such as rejection or victimization by peers, may
cause children to search for ways to fit in; some chil-
dren may conclude that adhering more stringently to
gender roles is the answer.
Gender Contentedness
Two findings with the gender contentedness vari-
able are worth note. First, gender contentedness was
a robust predictor of global self-worth (when all four
gender identity measures were entered as simulta-
neous predictors). A sense of not being at home in
one’s body or a strong wish to engage in the activi-
ties, interpersonal roles, or even the nonverbal stylistic
behaviors (e.g., modes of speech, gesture, and dress)
associated with the other sex apparently is uniquely
depressing to children (and especially so if they feel
strong pressure for gender conformity).
A second noteworthy finding concerning gender
contentedness was that gender-dysphoric girls were
named by peers as more aggressive, disruptive, and ar-
gumentative (i.e., as having more externalizing prob-
lems) than other girls. It is unclear whether the girls’
aggression is a reaction to dissatisfaction with being a
girl or whether gender discontentment is a rational-
ization by aggressive girls (“If only I were a boy, it
would be okay for me to act like this.”). If this finding
replicates in subsequent research, it will be important
to untangle the direction of causality.
Intergroup Bias
Intergroup bias was unrelated to any adjustment
index. Egan and Perry (2001) found signs of poorer
adjustment (i.e., lower self-perceived peer social com-
petence and less acceptance by male peers) for chil-
dren who expressed the belief that their sex was su-
perior to the other, but there was no evidence in
the present study that ingroup favoritism was dis-
advantageous to adjustment. Although ingroup fa-
voritism may not be reliably linked directly with
the indexes of adjustment studied here, it may serve
as an important moderator of the effects of certain
contextual cues on children’s functioning. For ex-
ample, children with strong intergroup bias may be
less likely to cooperate, or more likely to compete,
with other-sex peers, or they may have more diffi-
culty resolving conflicts or forming intimate relations
with other-sex persons (Bigler, 1995; Powlishta, 1995).
These possibilities might be explored in subsequent
research.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
Gender Identity and Adjustment
Conclusions
This study yielded a rich set of theoretically
meaningful and discriminated relations between
the components of gender identity and multiple
indexes of personal and social adjustment within
the peer group. Many of the relations suggest the
operation of causal processes that, if confirmed in
subsequent longitudinal research, are of consider-
able social significance. The potentially deleterious
effects of felt pressure for gender conformity on
preadolescent girls’ self-esteem and agentic compe-
tencies is especially a matter for concern. However,
until the necessary longitudinal work is conducted,
it is important not to assume the operation of any
specific causal process. The results of the present
investigation indicate only that longitudinal work on
causal processes is warranted, not that the putative
causal processes are indeed responsible for the
associations.
Below we briefly restate the value of a multi-
dimensional model of gender identity and tell how
the results support such a model. We then com-
ment on how the present multidimensional per-
spective fits with other influential perspectives on
gender.
A multidimensional approach to gender iden-
tity is valuable because it draws attention to the fact
that gender identity development does not reduce to
the unfolding of a single entity but rather involves
the development of several component entities. Some
of these components are more normative at certain
developmental periods than at others. As early as
middle childhood, healthy gender identity develop-
ment entails a rebalancing act—letting go of develop-
mentally immature forms of gender identity (i.e., felt
pressure for gender conformity and intergroup bias),
consolidating one’s contentment with one’s gender
assignment, and grappling successfully with the chal-
lenges posed by the newly emerging ability and urge
to compare oneself with same-sex others on gender-
typical attributes (i.e., perceiving sufficient gender-
typed qualities in the self to feel comfortably gen-
der typical). Moreover, how certain gender identity
components are configured relative to one another in
the child’s psyche carries important implications for
mental health; the combination of high felt pressure
and low felt gender typicality (or low gender content-
edness) is particularly problematic for children’s psy-
chological well-being.
The data of the present study support key points
of the foregoing analysis. During the preadolescent
107
age period studied, intergroup bias and felt pres-
sure for gender conformity—normative components
of gender identity in earlier years—decreased with
age, whereas gender typicality and gender contented-
ness increased with age. Most of these components of
gender identity (all except intergroup bias) were dif-
ferentially associated in theoretically expected ways
not only with self-esteem but also with peer re-
ports of specific modes of adaptation within the peer
group.
For the past quarter century, theory and research
that link gender identity to adjustment have been
dominated by androgyny theory, or the notion that
mental health is promoted by a perception of the
self as both masculine and feminine (e.g., Bem, 1981).
Conceptual and methodological problems have char-
acterized this approach, however. These problems
have been reviewed extensively by Egan and Perry
(2001) and by Spence (1985, 1993; Spence & Buckner,
1995) and will not be reiterated here. Nonetheless,
it is worthwhile to underscore briefly several cen-
tral differences between the androgyny approach and
the present one. First, the androgyny perspective re-
gards an overall sense of same-gender typicality as
orthogonal to an overall sense of other-gender typi-
cality. For reasons discussed by Egan and Perry (2001,
pp. 460–461), it is unlikely that the two summary
senses of same- and other-gender typicality are or-
thogonal dimensions; it is more likely that they func-
tion as opposite ends of a single continuum (e.g., with
a strong sense of other-gender typicality implying re-
duced same-gender typicality). It is for this reason
that Egan and Perry developed only a single, uni-
dimensional measure of gender typicality. Second,
androgyny researchers believe that it is possible to
infer an individual’s overall senses of same- and other-
gender typicality (e.g., a boy’s felt “masculinity” and
“femininity”) from self-perceptions in a single do-
main of sex typing, namely, personality traits. That is,
self-perceived agentic traits presumably index one’s
overall felt masculinity, and self-perceptions of com-
munal traits presumably index one’s overall felt femi-
ninity. In contrast, in the present approach, children’s
self-perceived overall gender typicality reflects an id-
iosyncratic integration of diverse information about
one’s gender typing in multiple domains (e.g., one
child may assign great weight to self-perceived non-
verbal stylistic qualities but only little weight to self-
perceived agentic or communal traits, whereas an-
other child may employ a different calculus). Thus, in
the present approach, gender typicality is assessed in a
global summary sense, not in terms of self-perception
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
108
of any specific aspect of gender typing.10 Third, in the
androgyny approach, felt pressure for gender confor-
mity is believed to be inferable from the degree of bal-
ance between one’s overall felt masculinity and one’s
overall felt femininity, and therefore there is no need
to measure felt pressure independently of felt gender
typicality. In other words, it is assumed that people
who perceive themselves as highly same-sex typical
(and as low other-sex typical) are the way they are
because they are experiencing high felt pressure. Be-
cause of this reasoning, androgyny researchers predict
that persons high in gender typicality will be disadvan-
taged in development—they presumably are experi-
encing the high felt pressure for gender conformity
that straightjackets healthy development of self. In
the present perspective, there is no necessary rela-
tion between self-perceived gender typicality and felt
pressure for gender conformity, and thus it is clearly
important to assess felt pressure and gender typicality
using different measures. Moreover, gender typicality
and felt pressure are believed to have opposite effects
on mental health.
Despite their profound differences in concep-
tual assumptions and research methodologies, both
the androgyny perspective and the present one share
an important prediction—that felt pressure for gen-
der conformity is harmful, especially for girls. This
hypothesis has now received preliminary (concurrent
correlational) support from two studies that have used
a separate direct measure of felt pressure—the Egan
and Perry (2001) study and the present one. However,
confirmation of the hypothesis that felt pressure pro-
motes maladjustment—a hypothesis that originated
with androgyny theory—does not imply confirma-
tion of the androgyny theorists’ companion hypothe-
sis that perceiving the self to be strongly gender typi-
cal is also harmful. Results of the Egan and Perry and
present studies in fact are more consistent with the
10 The fact that self-perceived agentic traits are relatively uncorre-
lated with self-perceived communal traits encouraged androgyny
researchers to view overall same-sex typicality and overall other-
sex typicality as orthogonal dimensions. However, for many do-
mains of gender typing other than personality traits, male-typical
behavior and female-typical behavior may be strongly negatively
correlated rather than orthogonal. For example, among adults a
preference for female sex partners (male-typical sexual orienta-
tion) and a preference for male sex partners (female-typical sex-
ual orientation) tend to be strongly negatively correlated rather
than uncorrelated. In any case, for reasons summarized by Egan
and Perry (2001), self-perceptions of overall same-gender typi-
cality and of overall other-gender typicality are more likely to be
negatively related than to be orthogonal.
Carver, Yunger, and Perry
view that feeling gender typical is salutary rather than
harmful, at least among children of the ages studied
here.
In recent years, a trend in the study of gender ef-
fects in social cognition and social behavior has been
a focus on contextual influences (Deaux & LaFrance,
1998; Deaux & Major, 1987; Maccoby, 1998). For ex-
ample, the sex of one’s interaction partner(s), such as
the ratio of boys to girls in a play group or the ratio of
men to women in a work place, is a major influence
on gender-relevant cognitions and action tendencies.
The study of context effects is sometimes presented
as an approach to researching gender that is alter-
native to an approach that rests on the appreciation
of individual differences in gender identity. However,
advances in understanding gender are likely to derive
from researching contextual and identity factors con-
jointly rather than separately. There are various ways
that context and identity might work together to af-
fect behavior. Gender identity might affect the con-
texts that children choose or create for themselves.
Gender identity might also mediate or, more likely,
moderate contextual influences on children’s behav-
ior. For example, gender typicality might moderate
children’s tendencies to imitate, or to infer their self-
efficacy from, models of a particular sex; gender con-
tentedness or felt pressure might govern children’s
willingness to perform rewarding cross-gender op-
tions when pitted against lower-paying same-gender
options; intergroup bias might predict the degree
to which children engage in uncooperative or hos-
tile interactions with other-sex persons or groups. It
is also possible that combinations of gender iden-
tity components govern reactions to contextual cues.
For example, boys and men who experience high
felt pressure for gender conformity along with high
intergroup bias might be especially prone to have
hostile reactions to ambiguous provocations by girls
and women, thereby encouraging abuse of female
interaction partners (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller,
& Yoerger, 2001). Thus, the study of context and
the study of gender identity should proceed hand in
hand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the teachers and students of the A. D.
Henderson University School for their generous co-
operation with this project. This research was sup-
ported by Grant 1RO1HD38280 from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
P1: JLS
Sex Roles [sers] pp884-sers-466836 July 16, 2003 11:57 Style file version June 3rd, 2002
Gender Identity and Adjustment
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of
sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on
sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating en-
vironmental effects on children’s gender stereotyping: A study
of the functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Devel-
opment, 66, 1072–1087.
Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (1990). Gender identity disorder and
psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 477–486.
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In
N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. So-
cial, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 389–
462). New York: Wiley.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106,
676–713.
Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001).
Aggression toward a female partner by at-risk young men: The
contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 61–73.
Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1991). The quest for human
nature: Social and scientific issues in evolutionary psychology.
Journal of Social Issues, 47, 1–9.
Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 788–827). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An
interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological
Review, 94, 369–389.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite
victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimen-
sional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 451–463.
Green, R. (1974). Sexual identity conflict in children and adults. New
York: Basic Books.
Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development
of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group so-
cialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102,
458–489.
Harter, S. (1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children: Revi-
sion of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (manual).
Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (pp. 553–617). New
York: Wiley.
Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual
risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimiza-
tion in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1032–
1039.
Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interper-
sonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personal-
ity, and social development (4th ed., pp. 388–467). New York:
Wiley.
109
Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex typing and
sex role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.),
Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 137–168).
New York: Russell Sage.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of chil-
dren’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.),
The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive devel-
opmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.),
Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–380).
Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming
together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of
boyhood. New York: Random House.
Powlishta, K. K. (1995). Intergroup processes in childhood: Social
categorization and sex role development. Developmental Psy-
chology, 31, 781–788.
Rekers, G. A. (1985). Gender identity problems. In P. A. Bornstein
& A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Handbook of clinical behavior therapy
with children (pp. 658–699). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (pp. 933–1016). New
York: Wiley.
Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. S. (1975). Development of gender con-
stancy and selective attention to same-sex models. Child De-
velopment, 46, 849–856.
Spence, J. T. (1985). Gender identity and implications for concepts
of masculinity and femininity. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and gender
(Vol. 32, pp. 59–96). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology:
Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology , 64 , 624–635.
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity:
Defining the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody
(Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relation-
ships (pp. 105–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A., Bennett, C., Englund, M., Urban, J., & Shulman, S.
(1993). The significance of gender boundaries in preadoles-
cence: Contemporary correlates and antecedents of boundary
violation and maintenance. Child Development, 64, 455–466.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psy-
chology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Wiggins, J. S., & Winder, C. L. (1961). The Peer Nomination Inven-
tory: An empirically derived sociometric measure of adjust-
ment in preadolescent boys. Psychological Reports, 9, 643–677.
Zucker, K. J., & Bradley, S. J. (1995). Gender identity disorder and
psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. New York:
Guilford Press.
Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., Sullivan, C. B. L., Kuksis, M., Birkenfeld-
Adams, A., & Mitchell, J. N. (1993). A gender identity inter-
view for children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 443–
456.
Zucker, K. J., Owen, A., Bradley, S. J., & Ameeriar, L. (2002).
Gender-dysphoric children and adolescents: A comparative
analysis of demographic characteristics and behavior prob-
lems. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 398–
411.