Infuncy, 13(1), 1-29, 2008

Copyright 0Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1525-0008print I 1532-7078online
DOI: 10.1080/15250000701779360

\p Psychology Press
Taylor &Francis Cmup

Girls Most of the Time, Boys Some

of the Time: Gender Differences
in Toddlers Use of Maternal Proximity
and Comfort Seeking
Kristin A. Buss and Rebecca J. Brooker
Department of Psychology
The Pennsylvania State University

Melanie Leuty
Department of Psychology
University of Minnesota

How children experience, express, and regulate distress has important implications
for adjustment. Factors influencing individual differences in these aspects of affective behavior include temperament, context of situation, and parents, to name a few.
Gender differences in the expression of affective behaviors have also been implicated
in past research. However, differences are not always found, especially before preschool ages. This study examined the presence of gender differences and moderating
influences of gender on the expression of distress and mother-oriented behaviors
(e.g., comfort seeking and proximity to mother) in 24-month-old toddlers during a
series of situations designed to elicit either fear or frustration. Girls were more likely
to seek contact from mother and stay in closer proximity to her compared to boys
even after controlling for distress. However, the association between distress and
contact seeking or proximity was significant for boys but not for girls. The discussion
focuses on implications for biological and socialization effects of sex-typed behavior
and consequences for adjustment.

How infants, toddlers, and young children experience, express, and regulate emotions during distressing situations has been the focus of a great deal of research and
Correspondence should be addressed to Kristin A. Buss, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 417 Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: kbuss@psu.edu

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

theory of late (e.g., Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004). Emotional expression and regulation is important for adjustment as dysregulation is often linked with poor social competence, peer rejection, low self-esteem, depression, and repeated victimization (Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Mahady Wilton & Craig, 2000).
Factors influencing the expression and regulation of emotion include, but are
not limited to, a complex interaction of the following predictors: context of situation (e.g., Buss, Davidson, Kalin, & Goldsmith, 2004; Kahana-Kalman & Walker-Andrews, 2001), temperament (e.g., Goldsmith & Campos, 1986; Mangelsdorf,
Shapiro, & Marzolf, 1995), motivation (Stifter & Grant, 1993), physiological systems (e.g., Haley & Stansbury, 2003), type of regulatory strategy or behavior (e.g.,
Buss & Goldsmith, 1998; Zimmerman & Stansbury, 2003), attachment security
(Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Parritz, & Buss, 1996), and caregiver presence
and characteristics (e.g., Gunnar, Larson, Hertsgaard, Harris, & Broderson, 1992).
This study focuses on toddlers use of mother-oriented strategies (e.g., comfort
seeking and proximity) because the literature widely depicts mothers as the source
of regulation in infancy and the scaffold from which later attempts at self-regulation are recalled and modeled (Calkins, 1994; Calkins, Dedmon, Gill, Lomax, &
Johnson, 2002; Kopp, 1989; Spinrad, Stifter, Donelan-McCall, & Turner, 2004;
Thompson, 1994).
Despite the vast literature on factors influencing individual differences in emotional expression and emotion regulation, little is known about whether and how
gender influences emotional behaviors in infancy and toddlerhood. In fact, gender
differences are not consistently observed or reported before preschool. The goal of
his study was to examine gender as a contributing factor to the observed expression
of distress and use of mother as a putative resource for regulating distress in a sample of 24-month-old toddlers.

RELATI0NS BETWEEN DISTRESS

AN D MOTHER - 0RIENTED REGULATORY BEHAVI0RS
Before proceeding with a review of the gender difference literature, we briefly review literature supporting the role of behavioral strategies to down-regulate negative affect. Although a complete discussion of the emotion regulation literature in
infants and toddlers is beyond the scope of this article, we address the specific relation between distress and mother-oriented regulatory strategies. Mangelsdorf and
colleagues (1995) identified looking to mother as a coping event used to regulate
emotion and subsequently showed that infants use of these types of strategies during periods of distress with mothers predicted their use with fathers (Diener,
Mangelsdorf, McHale, & Frosch, 2002). When mothers are involved in the task,
infants can look away or retreat from the fearful stimulus and show reductions in
levels of distress and affect (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2004). Diener and Mangelsdorf (1999) found that across contexts of fear and anger, mother-oriented behav-

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

iors were effective at both decreasing distress and increasing displays of positive
affect. The role of mothers in regulating infant distress is further evident in findings from the still-face paradigm (e.g., Moore & Calkins, 2004), where the use of
mother-oriented strategies toward a responsive caregiver results in reductions of
displays of distress. Buss and Goldsmith (1998) found that for fear episodes in particular, toddlers who were higher in fear intensity showed more frequent displays
of regulatory behaviors such as looks to mother at both 6 months and 12 months.
Furthermore, this strategy was effective in reducing distress during anger or frustration episodes and was linked to the maintenance of distress levels (i.e., keeping
distress levels from escalating further) during fear episodes. In sum, there is evidence that using mothers as a source of comfort is a valuable strategy for reducing
distress in infancy.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT
Gender plays a significant role in socioemotional development, particularly in the
development of problem behaviors of school-aged children (e.g., Keenan & Shaw,
1997), with girls being more likely to develop internalizing symptoms and boys being more likely to develop externalizing symptoms. The exact mechanisms leading
to these differences are still under study. Gender differences in emotional expression, recognition, and competence seem to emerge in preschool. Girls have been
shown to display more anxious or sad emotions, whereas boys tend to display more
anger (e.g., Brody, 1999; Buntaine & Costenbader, 1997; Chaplin, Cole, & ZahnWaxler, 2005; Cole, 1986; Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994; Keenan & Shaw,
1997; Saarni, 1984). It is important to note that overall few gender differences in affective behavior are reported before preschool (e.g., Keenan & Shaw, 1994;Maccoby, Snow, & Jacklin, 1984; Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 1993; Simpson &
Stevenson-Hinde, 1985).Perhaps it is for this reason that socialization in the form of
modeling and reinforcement (Fagot, 1994; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006) are
believed to play a key mechanistic role. However, because these differences emerge
early in life and have been found cross-culturally,they suggest a biological influence
(Ruble et al., 2006). Hormonal differences during puberty are also believed to account for differential pathways to psychopathology for girls and boys (e.g., Angold,
Costello, Erkanli, & Worthman, 1999). So, despite strong socialization influences
on gender differences, biological influences cannot be ignored.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR:

INFANTS AND TODDLERS
Gender differences in emotional behavior have been reported in neonates. Newborn boys are less responsive to stimuli, have more difficulty regulating affect,

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

smile less, are more irritable, and cry more than do girls (e.g., Osofsky &
OConnell, 1977). The findings beyond the newborn period are mixed. Some have
reported that boys are more irritable in infancy and cry and fuss more (Moss,
1967), but this has not been reported consistently. Gender differences are also inconsistent in studies using the still-face paradigm to observe mother-infant dyads.
Some inquiries report no gender differences in levels of distress (Moore & Calkins,
2004; Toda & Fogel, 1993). Then again, infant girls have been found to display
more negative affect and be less organized in behavior (Mayes & Carter, 1990;
Stoller & Field, 1982).Still others have reported the opposite pattern, with 5- and 6
month-old boys becoming more distressed during the still-face (e.g., Haley &
Stansbury, 2003; Weinberg, Tronick, Cohn, & Olson, 1999). These differences
could be attributed to situational factors such as parent positive affect (e.g., Forbes,
Cohn, Allen, & Lewinsohn, 2004) rather than to constitutionally based gender differences per se. In fact, consistent with most studies of temperament (i.e., those
representing a biological or constitutionally based measure of individual differences in affective behavior), a recent meta-analysis of maternal-reported temperament from infancy through middle childhood (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, &
Van Hulle, 2006) revealed few gender differences in negative-affect dimensions of
temperament before age 3. The largest gender differences (in the moderate effect
size range) were reported for scales reflecting effortful control (e.g., inhibitory
control, perceptual sensitivity) and favored girls preschool-aged and older. In addition, few laboratory observations of temperament in infancy and toddlerhood report gender differences (cf. Rothbart & Bates, 1998) with one known exception.
Kagan (1998) reported that girls were more inhibited at every age although the
samples selected included an equal number of inhibited boys and girls. Moreover,
girls were more likely to maintain their inhibited status over time (Kagan, 1998) although this difference has not been reported by other investigators examining behavioral inhibition (e.g., Asendorpf, 1991; Davidson & Rickman, 1999).
There appears to be increasing evidence that gender differences exist in infancy
and toddlerhood for the use of regulatory strategies. Newborn boys engage in less
self-comforting behavior (Brazelton, Koslowski, & Main, 1974) than girls. In a
follow-up of infants with colic at 10 months, Stifter and Spinrad (2002) found that
boys in the excessive crying group showed lower levels of self-regulation even
though there was no difference in reactivity. Other studies have demonstrated that
boys tend to show fewer overall regulatory behaviors (e.g., Calkins et al., 2002). In
this study, 6-month-old boys had greater difficulty regulating physiologically during a frustrating task.
A common strategy for regulating distress is to seek comfort from the mother. A
number of studies have demonstrated gender differences in proximity and comfort
seeking favoring girls in certain situations in infancy (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969;
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1973; Wasserman & Lewis, 1985). As infants, girls also have
been found to initiate more social interactions with mothers (Gunnar & Donahue,

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

1980) and maintain closer proximity to adults throughout childhood (Block,

1983). In a study of preschoolers, girls played closer to mothers (Benenson,
Morash, & Petrakos, 1998) and in a study of toddlers, girls spent more time playing when there was an adult in the room compared to boys (Campbell, Shirley, &
Candy, 2004). Finally, consistent with proximity and comfort seeking as types of
caregiver-oriented behaviors, Roopnarine (1986) found that 10- to 18-month-old
girls offered toys to parents more often than boys did during a free-play task.
Aside from the few studies just presented, findings of gender differences in distress, regulatory behaviors, or both have not consistently been reported. In fact, the
bulk of the emotion and emotion regulation research in infants and toddlers does
not find or report gender differences. We have failed to find mean-level gender differences in anger, sadness, and fear facial expressions, as well as in crying, freezing, regulatory behaviors (e.g., distraction), and looks to mothers in infants from 6
to 24 months of age (Buss et al., 2004; Buss & Goldsmith, 1998; Buss & Kiel,
2004). Thus, research examining mean-level gender differences has been inconsistent. Perhaps more interesting to consider is whether gender moderates the association between distress and regulatory behaviors. Moreover, many of the main effects already reviewed were only observed in specific contexts. For instance,
Wasserman and Lewis (1985) reported that infant girls were more likely to seek
proximity from mother, but this was only observed in conditions where mothers
were instructed not to initiate interaction with their infants. In this study, we observed toddlers in several different types of situations to determine the putative affects of context.

MODERATING EFFECTS OF GENDER

Although the gender difference findings already discussed are interesting, these
main effects might not be as valuable as the interactive relation among gender, distress, and regulation in determining the developmental mechanisms of adjustment
raised in the preceding discussion. Specifically, the use of mother-oriented strategies in the down-regulation of negative affect might have important implications in
the development of adaptive and maladaptive socioemotional outcomes. So, the
question is whether the relation between distress and strategy use is the same for
boys and girls. Several studies have found interesting moderating effects of gender
that suggest the relation between distress and regulatory strategies might be different for boys and girls. The moderating influence of gender has also been observed
in the association between proximity to mother and attachment security (Brown,
Pipp, Martz, & Waring, 1993). Boys ages 12 to 24 months who were classified as
insecure-avoidant showed no difference in time spent in proximity to mother compared with boys classified as securely attached. In contrast, girls maternal proximity times were similar for secure and insecure-resistant attachment groups. Of par-

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

ticular interest to this study is a study by Maccoby and Jacklin (1973) with 12- to
14-month-old infants. Infants were exposed to a fear-eliciting stimulus of low and
high intensity and were placed with the toys either close to their mother or far away
from their mother. Most interesting was that boys' behavior (withdrawal from
stimuli and proximity to mother) was influenced by level of stress. That is, boys
were more likely to seek proximity when they were further from mother and when
intensity was high, whereas girls' behavior was not affected by changes in context.
Not only do these findings highlight the moderating role of gender on the association between distress and regulation, but they also raise important questions about
the role of the eliciting context.

CURRENT STUDY
Gender differences in distress and regulatory behaviors during stress-eliciting situations have been inconsistently found in the developmental literature, especially
prior to preschool. The gender literature examining behavior problems and socialization-focused on preschool-aged and older children-would lead us to believe
that girls would show more fear and sadness distress, whereas boys would show
more anger. Perhaps this is one mechanism linking early emotional differences to
the development of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, respectively. In addition, some findings suggest that boys would be less likely to seek proximity to or
comfort from mothers in these situations. In fact, girls are observed to maintain
closer proximity to mothers than are boys. However, a pattern that emerged in a
few notable papers is one of a moderating influence of gender such that the relation
between distress and putative regulation (e.g., proximity to mother) was significant only for boys and in certain contexts (e.g., Maccoby & Jacklin, 1973). Moving
beyond main effects of gender and examining complex interactions among gender,
context, distress, and regulation will strengthen our understanding of socioemotional development.
This study was designed to examine these complex interactions and to specifically test for gender differences in distress expressions and mother-oriented behaviors (i.e., proximity and comfort seeking) in a sample of 24-month-old toddlers
from observations in a series of episodes designed to elicit anger and frustration,
sadness and disappointment, or fear and avoidance. Distress measures included
anger, sadness, and fear behaviors; mother-oriented, putative regulatory behaviors
included proximity and contact seeking. Mean-level gender differences were examined, as were moderating effects of gender on the relation between distress and
both proximity and contact-seeking behavior. We hypothesized that girls would
display more fearful distress and boys would show more angry distress. These differences were hypothesized to be context specific so that overall distress, which
characterizes a general tendency toward negative affect (i.e., a composite of anger,

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

sadness, and fear), was not expected to differ between sexes. This overall distress
composite was thought to reflect temperamental negative affect and we therefore
expected to find no gender differences in maternal-reported temperament (ElseQuest et al., 2006). Consistent with the regulation literature, we expected girls to
engage in more mother-oriented behavior than boys across all contexts. However,
we hypothesized a replication of Maccoby and Jacklin (1973) such that the relation
between distress and mother-oriented behavior would be positive for boys and unrelated for girls. Finally, we were interested in exploring the role of eliciting context on these associations.

METHOD

Participants
Participants were 79 (38 girls) 24-month-old children ( M = 24.54, SD = .40). Approximately half of the children were first born with no siblings at the time of visit
(48%). Participants were not selected for any particular characteristic, but families
of babies born premature or with low birth weight were not contacted. Families
were recruited using a database of local birth announcements from a small city in
the midwestern United States and contacted via letter. Ninety-one families responded to the initial recruitment letter, but only 80 families were able to schedule
a visit to the lab. One of the participants was a girl with Down syndrome. Although
data were collected on this participant, they were not used in analyses. This resulted in the final sample of 79 participants. Reflecting the demographics of the
area from which they were selected, the majority of participants were White (96%)
and from middle-class backgrounds (Hollingshead Index = 48.66).

Procedure
Toddlers participated in a 1- to 2-hr laboratory visit designed to assess different aspects of temperament. The visit consisted of a series of modified Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery (Lab-TAB) episodes for use with toddlers (Buss &
Goldsmith, 2000). For this study, we focused on five distress-eliciting episodes
and two additional nondistress episodes used for comparison. These episodes were
selected because they did not restrict the childs access to the stimuli or mother.
With the exception of the toy removal episode, the mother was seated in a chair
with a magazine and instructed not to initiate interaction with her child and to remain affectively neutral.

Distress episodes. There were two fear-eliciting and three frustration- or

disappointment-eliciting episodes. With the exceptions noted, the mother was always seated in a chair across the room, given magazines to read, and asked not to

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

initiate interaction with her toddler. In the stranger approach, a male stranger entered the room while the child played with a few toys on the floor. At the beginning
of the episode, the stranger entered and paused at least 8 ft from the child. He then
slowly approached the child, and finally knelt and watched the child for up to 2
min. The duration of the episode was determined by the childs distress level. If the
child became too upset, the stranger left immediately. There were two phases to the
risk room episode. During the first phase, the child was taken into a room where
there were several items to play on (a tunnel, a short balance beam, a large black
box, steps and a mattress, and a stand with a gorilla mask). The child was instructed by the experimenter to play however you like for 5 min. After 5 min had
expired, the experimenter returned to the room to ask the child to try all of the
tasks. The child was given three chances to complete each task (i.e., he or she was
asked by the experimenter, Will you touch this mask?). If the child did not respond, the experimenter then went on the next task. In the toy removal episode, the
parent took away a toy the child had been playing with. The mother was seated off
to the side of the table where the child was seated with the experimenter. The child
was allowed play with a toy with the experimenter for a few minutes, after which
the parent took away the toy saying, I dont want you to play with this anymore,
and placed it in view of the child but out of reach for 30 sec. After the 30 sec, the
mother returned the toy to the child. It is important to note that mothers placed the
toy on a high shelf and then sat back down so that the mother and the toy were in
different locations in the room. In the transparent box episode, the child was again
seated at a table with the experimenter. In this episode the child was asked to select
between two attractive toys. Once he or she had done so, the toy was placed in a
see-through box and locked with a padlock. The child was given a set of keys that
would not open the lock and told You can use these keys to open the box and play
with the toy. The experimenter left the room for 2 min, after which she reentered
the room, apologized for giving the child the wrong keys, opened the box, and let
the child play with the toy. In the empty box episode, the experimenter brought a
wrapped empty box into the room and told the child he or she could unwrap the
present and keep what was inside. The experimenter returned after 2 min, apologized, and gave the child the prize that she forgot to put in the box.

Nondistress comparison episodes. The children also participated in two

exuberance-eliciting episodes. These episodes were used to compare the toddlers
use of mother-oriented behavior in tasks that elicited neutral or positive affect. In
the corral of balls episode, the child was allowed to play in a large enclosure (i.e., a
waterless swimming pool) filled with balls for 3 min. In the popping bubbles episode, the child played a game with the experimenter where he or she was asked to
use different body parts to pop bubbles blown from a bubble-making machine.
Positive affect and activity level were coded for both episodes but not examined in
this study.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

Measures and Behavioral Coding

Temperament assessment. Mothers completed an expanded version of
the Toddler Behavioral Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ: Goldsmith, 1996). The
TBAQ asks mothers to report on the frequencies of various behaviors seen in their
toddlers on a scale ranging from 1 (never)to 7 (always).This study used the scales
of Social Fear (19 items, a = .83), Anger (28 items, a = .87), Sadness (16 items, a
= .83), and Falling Reactivity/Soothability (14 items, a = 3 3 ) given the present focus on negative affect expression and regulation.

Behavioral coding. There were two mother-oriented behaviors coded for all
episodes. The first, contact seeking, was coded when the child reached for or made
contact with his or her mother. This was our measure of comfort seeking. Increases
in intensity of contact (e.g., while being held by their mother, a child wraps his or
her arms around the mother) and verbal attempts to elicit contact from the mother
were also coded as contact seeking. For analyses, the frequencies of contact-seeking behaviors within episodes were calculated. Proximity was coded when the
child was within 2 ft of the mother and included time when the child was touching
the mother. The total duration in seconds was calculated for proximity. Looks to
mother were also coded as they were thought to be related to help and comfort
seeking, but this behavior was the focus of a previous report (Buss & Kiel, 2004)
and is not reported here. Coders were trained by the first and third author and at
least 15% of the cases were double coded for reliability, which was very high (contact seeking: 96% agreement, K = 37; proximity: 96% agreement, K = .92). Note
that reliabilities were calculated on the frequency of the behavior such that each
discrete occurrence of proximity was submitted for reliability, rather than agreement on the duration of proximity.
Distress composites were calculated for each of the five distress-eliciting episodes using intensity of discrete facial affect expressions, bodily and behavioral
emotion expressions, and crying. For the fear-eliciting episodes, fear and sadness
were scored to indicate fearful distress and for the frustration episodes, anger and
sadness were scored to indicate angry distress. Facial affect was scored using the
AFFEX scoring system (Izard, Dougherty, & Hembree, 1983), which provides an
intensity score for putative discrete emotion expressions based on muscle movements in three regions of the face. Each episode was broken down into epochs and
the intensity of each type of emotion expression was coded on a scale ranging from
0 (absence of the expression) to 3 (strong expression of the emotion in at least two
regions of the face). Length of scoring epochs was determined by Lab-TAB convention, which typically uses longer epochs for episodes that are longer in duration. For this study, for most of the episodes we used 5-sec scoring epochs except
for risk room (which was 5 min long), corral of balls (3 min), and popping bubbles
(range = 3-5 min), where we used 10-sec scoring epochs. The mean intensity of

10

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

expressions was computed across epochs. Distress vocalizations or the intensity of

crying was also scored on a scale that ranged from 0 (no crying) to 3 (high-intensitykontinuous crying). Intensity of bodily expressions of fear, anger, and sadness
were each scored on a scale ranging from 0 (no expression of bodily emotion) to 3
(most intense expression of bodily emotion). Bodily fear included behaviors such
as diminished play and freezing. Bodily sadness included behaviors such as head
bowing, shoulder slumping, or face covering. Bodily anger included observations
of muscle tension, stomping feet, or pounding on the table. Finally, tentativeness of
play (the hesitancy with which children interacted with objects) was scored for risk
room.
Coders were trained by the first author and at least 15% of the cases were double coded for reliability, which was very high. Combining across all distress behaviors and episodes, agreement was 91 % (K = .79). Agreement ranged from 83%
to 96% and kappas from .7 1 to .8 1 for individual behaviors within an episode. Correlations among behaviors within each episode were as follows. Correlations
among behaviors for stranger approach ranged from .23 to .5 1;for risk room they
ranged from .31 to .83; for toy removal they ranged from .27 to .65; for box empty
they ranged from .21 to S O ; and for transparent box they ranged from .41 to .76.
Forming distress composites. Because there was moderate to strong overlap among the discrete negative-affect behaviors within the episodes, we formed
distress composites by averaging all discrete behaviors within episode. For stranger approach, the distress composite included facial and bodily fear, facial and
bodily sadness, and crying. For risk room, the inhibition and distress composite included facial and bodily fear and tentativeness of play. For transparent box, toy removal, and empty box the distress composite consisted of facial and bodily anger,
facial and bodily sadness, and crying.
Mother behavior. Recall that mothers were asked to remain uninvolved and
affectively neutral for each episode except toy removal. The main reason for this
was that the original goal of this project was to assess characteristics of the child
and not motherxhild interactions. As a result, the majority of the time the mother
was not visible in the video recording unless the child was in proximity to her.
Each mothers effectiveness in following our instructions (i.e., the extent to which
she remained uninvolved) was scored based on what the coders could observe and
hear. A score of 0 indicated uninvolved, neutral behavior; a score of 1 indicated a
mother who was mildly involved, usually in brief response to the childs bids (e.g.,
answering a question from the child). In addition, a score of 1 reflected behavior
that was not affectively laden or controlling of the child or situation. A score of 2
indicated a mother who did not follow our instructions, was involved in the task,
was controlling of her childs reactions to the task, or was not affectively neutral.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

11

RESULTS
We first examined gender differences for all the behaviors. We were interested in
general patterns of behavior across tasks as well as behaviors within each episode.
Therefore, we examined gender differences using composites of each behavior
across episodes and individual episode-level analyses to examine difference across
contexts. In the second set of analyses, we examined the relation between distress
and help-seeking behaviors for boys and girls in a set of regressions. Finally, we
examined whether mothers behaviors were associated with observed differences
in toddler distress and mother-oriented behaviors.
Before proceeding, we examined whether participant characteristics were related to any of the variables in the analyses. We examined race and ethnicity
(Whitehon-Hispanic = 73 vs. other = 6) and also sibling status (only child = 38 vs.
any siblings = 41). No significant differences emerged for race and ethnicity. For
sibling status only 1 out of 17 tests was significant, with proximity to mother during risk room ( t = -2.19, p < .05) favoring only children. Because this result could
have been due to chance, we did not control for sibling status in the subsequent
analyses.
Gender Differences in Behavior
The mean-level gender difference results are presented in Table 1. In cases where
the group variances were not homogeneous for contact seeking and proximity, we
used the t statistics for unequal variances. The corrected F statistics are also presented in Table 1.
As hypothesized, there were no significant gender differences for the temperament scales or for distress across all the distress-eliciting episodes, which we
believed represented an observed measure of negative temperament. As hypothesized, girls engaged in contact seeking significantly more than boys across episodes. Overall, girls engaged in contact seeking nearly twice as much as boys.
Girls also maintained proximity to their mothers compared to boys. Interestingly,
these gender differences favoring girls were only present in the distress-eliciting
episodes. By way of comparison, we examined whether gender differences in
mother-oriented behaviors were present in the two nondistress comparison episodes. As would be expected, both behaviors occurred less in comparison to the
distress episodes. No gender differences were observed (boys: M = .39, SE = .13;
girls: M = .39, SE = .13 for contact seeking; boys: M = 18.27, SE = 5.94; girls: M =
30.47, SE = 13.07 for proximity).
Turning to the results for the individual episodes, significant gender differences
in contact seeking and proximity emerged for stranger approach and risk room (Table 1). In both episodes, girls spent more than twice as much time in proximity to
mothers than boys did. Girls also displayed more distress during stranger ap-

TABLE 1
Gender Differences in Observed Behaviors
~

Girlsh

Boysa
Behavior

Parent report temperament

Social fear
Anger
Sadness
Soothability
Composites of distress episodes
Contact seeking
Proximity mother
Distress (z scores)
Episode-specific behaviors
Stranger approach
Contact seek
Proximity mother
Fear and sad distress
Parent involvement
Risk room
Contact seek
Proximity mother
Inhibitioddistress
Parent involvement
Toy removal
Contact seeking
Proximity mother
Anger and sad distress
Parent involvement
Empty box
Contact seeking
Proximity mother
Anger and sad distress
Parent involvement
Transparent box
Contact seeking
Proximity mother
Anger and sad distress
Parent involvement

SE

SE

3.88
3.87
3.20
5.17

.13
.I 1
.ll
.10

4.16
3.92
3.21
5.11

.13
.14
.I1
.12

2.43
0.05
0.20
0.17

2.39
131.26
4.01

.38
18.07
.09

4.34
220.17
0.02

.64
26.58
.09

6.90**
6.99**
0.37

.63
46.62
.40
65

.14
9.42
.04
.I3

1.67
107.06
52
.95

.24
9.67
.04
.14

13.76***
20.68***
4.88*
3.09

.46
20.27
1.23
I .05

.14
5.60
.09
.I4

1.09
78.03
1.30
I .35

.26
13.18
.08
.I4

4.49*
4.44*
0.39
3.00

.45
6.85
.86
1.78

.I0
1.34
.09
.07

.58
8.83
.62
1.64

.10
2.10
.08
.09

0.79
0.64
3.77t
2.58

.07
26.90
.16
1.73

.05
5.88
.03
.07

.61
21.82
.I4
1.92

.35
5.05
.02
.04

2.27
0.43
0.16
4.48*

.68
30.70
.18
1.38

.29
6.85
.03
.13

.41
31.27
.I5
1.56

.I7
9.54
.03
.I0

0.60
0.32
0.55
2.08

Note. Significant differences are in boldface text.

an = 4 I . n = 38.
t p < .lo. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < ,001.

12

x2

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

13

proach. Therefore, we reexamined the gender differences for contact seeking and
proximity after controlling for distress and found that distress did not account for
the observed gender differences ( F = 1 3 . 0 3 , <
~ .01 and F = 14.47,~< .01 for contact seeking and proximity, respectively). Finally, there was one marginally significant gender difference favoring boys such that boys showed more distress during
the toy removal episode.
Distress and Help-Seeking Behavior Associations
In the final set of analyses, we examined whether gender moderated the association between distress and contact seeking or proximity. Specifically, we examined
whether increased distress would be associated with the increased use of these
mother-oriented behaviors. Correlations among predictors for each episode are
presented in Table 2. We conducted a series of regressions predicting either contact
seeking or proximity first for the across-episodes composite and then for each episode. Regressions were run in a stepwise fashion with gender, distress, and mother
behavior in the first step and the interaction of gender and distress in the second
TABLE 2
Correlations Among Child and Parent Measures
~~~~~~~

Variables

Distress

Distress
Parent behavior
Contact seeking
Proximity

-.17
.38**
.48***

Parent Behavior

.39***
.08
.05

Contact Seeking

Proximity

.I3
.31**

.37**
.36**
.46***

.75***

Nore. n = 77. Correlations on top diagonal are for stranger approach and the bottom diagonal are
for risk room.
* p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001.
Distress
Parent behavior
Contact seeking
Proximity

-.lo
.09
.01
.02

-.I5
-.17

.ll
-.I2

.14
-.22
,42***

.72***

Nore. n = 77. Correlations on top diagonal are for transparent box and the bottom diagonal are for
toy removal.
*p<.O5. **p<.OI.***p<.001.
Distress
Parent behavior
Contact seeking
Proximity

-.21
.27*
.25*

.03
-.I6

Nore. n = 77. Correlations for empty box.

*p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001.

.I2

14

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

step. To examine the moderating role of gender, we probed significant interactions

and simple effects by centering gender. Boys were used as the reference group in a
first model and girls were used as the reference group in a second model. Both
models examined levels of proximity or contact seeking at three levels of distress-low (-1 SD), at the mean, and high (+1 SD)-as set forth by Aiken and West
(199 1). Results of the regression for contact seeking are presented in Table 3 and
results for proximity to mother are shown in Table 4.
For contact seeking, all of the interactions were significant or marginally significant and thus were probed. For proximity to mother, only three of the interactions
were significant and subsequently probed. A marginally significant interaction
was found for the distress composite and the simple effects are presented in Table 3
and depicted in Figure 1. There was a significant increase in contact seeking when
distress levels were high for boys but not for girls. This same effect was also found
during the stranger approach episode for contact seeking (Table 3) and proximity
(Table 4) and is depicted in Figure 2. Again, boys showed a significant association
between distress and contact seeking and between distress and duration of proximity; these correlations were not significant for girls. When we examined the interactions for empty box, we found a significant interaction for proximity (Table 4)
but not for contact seeking. Again, on probing the interaction, we found that the association was significant for boys but not for girls. This interaction is depicted in
Figure 3. In sum, all significant interactions indicated that for boys there was a significant positive association between distress and mother-oriented behavior. This
association was not present for girls. Interestingly, although the interactions for
risk room distress and gender were significant for both contact seeking and proximity to mother, probing the interaction revealed the same direction of effects for
boys and girls. Specifically, higher levels of distress and inhibition were associated
with greater use of both contact seeking and proximity regardless of gender.
Finally, the two marginally significant interactions for contact seeking during toy
removal and transparent box episodes were probed. Although the simple effects
were not significant, the pattern of results was consistent with those previously reported. There was a positive association between distress and contact seeking, but
only for boys.

Influence of Mothers Behavior

It was areasonable next step to ask whether the gender differences observed were the
result of differences in the mothers behaviors. That is, were mothers more likely to
encourage their daughters to stay close in general? We could not fully address this
question because mothers behaviors were not scored in this study primarily because
mothers were instructed to remain uninvolved (unless the child became distressed
and needed her help). However, we did examine the general effectiveness of mothers
in following our directions. Recall that we gave mothers a score ranging from 0 to 2,
with 0 being completely uninvolved or neutral and 2 being involved, intrusive, or not

TABLE 3
Results of Multiple Regressions Predicting Contact Seeking

Overall composite
I . Toddler gender
Distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

Final Model Statistics

Simple Effect Models

-.33
.I4
-.I3
.I9

-2.98*
1.30
-.].I3
1.73t
.34
.08

2.29*
.45

.46
-.23

3.20**
-1.40

.26
.48

2.19*
3.21**

R2 = .I4
Stranger approach
1. Toddler gender
Fear and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.40
-.85

.23
.92

-3.79**
-2.6 1*
2.17*
2.84**

R2 = .33
Empty box
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.02
.46
.01
-.28

-33
2.72*
.I5
-1.40

R2 = .I3

Risk room
1. Toddler gender
Inhibitioddistress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

.34
.@I

.09
-.64

1.28
4.10***
.83
2.24*

R2 = .26

Toy removal
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.3 1
-.24
-.I5
.48

-1.61
-1.26
-1.31
l.8lt
.18

ns

-.23

ns

R2 = .07
Transparent box
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

.07
-.19
-.I0
.34

.62
-.98
-37
1.71t
.23
-.23

R2 = .07
Note. Significant effects are in boldface text.
tp < .lo, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .W1.

ns
ns

TABLE 4
Results of Multiple Regressions Predicting
Final Model Statistics

P
Overall composite
1. Toddler gender
Distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.29
.17
.03
.I3

Simple Effect Models

13

-2.68**
1.59
.29
1.22

R2 = .I2
Stranger approach
I . Toddler gender
Fear and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.38
-.33

.I8
.53

-3.84* *
-1.11
1.74
2.00*

SO
.17

3.58*
.97

.32
.15

2.14*
.88

.49
.53

3.40**
3.73**

R2 = .35
Empty box
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

.06
-.03

.57
-.08

-.09
.27

-.78
2.47*

R2 = .08
Risk room
1. Toddler gender
Inhibitioddistress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

.33
.47
.08
-.66

1.31
4.70***
.77
2.25*

R2 = .33

Toy removal
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

.03
.03
-.I7
-.02

.16

.16
-1.45
-.05

R2=.00
Transparent box
1. Toddler gender
Anger and sad distress
Parent behavior
2. Gender * Distress
Simple effect boys
Simple effect girls

-.11
.22
-.23
-.I2

-.99
1.11
-1.91t
-.6 1
-

R2 = .07

Note. Significant effects are in boldface text.

t p < .lo, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < ,001.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

17

P I
t

c--1

I
~
I

Distress Across Episodes

FIGURE 1 Association between distress and contact seeking across episodes for girls and
boys.

affectively neutral. Levels of mother involvement for each episode indicated that
mothers were moderately involved (stranger approachM= .79, SD = 2 5 ; risk room
M = 1.19, SD = .90;transparent box M = 1.46, SD = .76; empty box M = 1.82, SD =
.38; and toy removal M = 1.71, SD = .48).However, mother behavior did not vary for
boys and girls (Table 1). In addition, mothers behaviors were associated with toddlers distress, contact seeking, and proximity only in the stranger approach episode
(Table 2). Mothers who were scored as more involved had toddlers who were more
distressed and used more mother-oriented behaviors. Note also that even after controlling for the effects of mother behavior in the regressions, the gender by distress
interactions were still significant. As a final test of whether mother behavior differentially influenced boys and girlsbehaviors, we reran the gender differences analyses for stranger approach controlling for mother behavior; observed gender differences for contact seeking and proximity to mother were unchanged ( F = 11.53,p <
.01andF= 16.18,p< .OOl,respectively),butthestatistic forfearfuldistressdropped
slightly ( F = 3.03, p < .lo). Thus, it appears that, for stranger approach, mothers
behaviors might have influenced girlsdistress levels, but not girlsproximity or contact seeking. Thus, we are confident that mothersbehaviors did not influence the observed gender differences in mother-oriented behaviors or the moderating influences of gender reported in this study.

DISCUSSION
We examined gender differences in fearful and angry distress as well as toddlers
use of mother as a source of comfort (i.e., as a putative regulatory strategy). We

18

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

-1

Stranger Distress Composite

g
P

.-E

100
8o

- - - + Girls
--

'E 60
E
n

.E
c

-Boys
~

~~

40

2 20
p'
0

-1

Stranger Distress Composite

FIGURE 2 Association between distress and contact seeking (top panel) and distress and
proximity (bottom panel) during stranger approach for girls and boys.

focused on these mother-oriented behaviors because of the important role of

mothers in the child's emerging ability to self-regulate (Calkins, 1994; Calkins
et al., 2002; Spinrad et al., 2004; Thompson, 1994). We found no evidence for
gender differences in the composite measures of negative affect believed to capture temperament variation. To confirm this, we also found no differences for
boys and girls on the mother-reported temperament dimensions of anger prone-

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

40

II

---+
- - Girls

.E 20

19

15

-1

Box Empty Distress Composite

FIGURE3 Association between distress and proximity during empty box for girls and boys.

ness, social fear, sadness, or soothability. In contrast, gender differences were

observed when we examined fearful distress and angry distress in specific situations. Girls displayed more fearful distress during the stranger approach episode,
whereas boys, in contrast, displayed slightly more angry distress during toy removal. Turning to the mother-oriented behaviors, we first examined a general
tendency to seek contact or maintain proximity across all of the episodes. As
predicted, we found that girls were more likely to seek contact from and maintain proximity to mother compared with boys across all of the distressing episodes. This effect did not hold up for nondistressing episodes, however. Once
again examining differences in each episode, this gender difference favoring
girls was only significant for stranger approach and risk room (i.e., the two fear
and avoidance episodes). These findings are consistent with reports that girls initiate more social interaction with mother (e.g., Gunnar & Donahue, 1980;
Roopnarine, 1986) and tend to maintain closer proximity to adults (Block, 1983;
Kagan, 1971) than boys do.
The most interesting findings from this study were the moderating effects of
gender on the relation between distress and contact seeking or proximity. Our results replicate the earlier findings of Maccoby and Jacklin (1973). Consistent with
the emotion regulation literature, we would expect that children higher in distress
would be more likely to seek comfort from or stay in proximity to their mother
(Buss & Goldsmith, 1998; Cole et al., 2004; Stifter & Grant, 1993). As expected,
this was the case for the association between distress and mother-oriented behavior
in the risk room episode. The positive association was true for both boys and girls.
However, this was not the case for the rest of the episodes. We found significant interactions between distress and gender in predicting contact seeking and proximity

20

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

for the composite distress measure, for fearful distress in the stranger approach,
and for angry and sadness distress in the empty box episode. Specifically, we
found that increases in distress were associated with more contact seeking and
proximity for the boys but not for the girls.
One possible explanation for these interactions is that boys only sought comfort
or proximity to mother when they were too distressed to deal with the situation on
their own. On the other hand, girls were already spending more time with mothers
so increasing distress levels did not increase mother-oriented behavior. This explanation is consistent with a few studies in the literature. In particular, it has been reported that boys retreated from a fear-eliciting stimulus only when it was characterized as higher in threat and presumably associated with more distress (Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1973). That is, contextual novelty is a key factor in determining the type
and duration of distress behaviors (Kahana-Kalman & Walker-Andrews, 2001).
Although some studies report that boys tend to show more distress in the still-face
paradigm, mother-son dyads also show greater synchrony (Weinberg et al., 1999).
Thus, the organization of boys behavior is more contingent on the type and intensity of the situation and their level of distress. In a recent study examining physiological reactivity and regulation to the still-face, Haley and Stansbury (2003)
found that boys, despite greater negative reactivity, showed greater physiological
regulation. So boys only engaged in mother-oriented behavior when they were distressed, presumably in the service of emotion regulation. However, we do not
know in this study if this behavior was associated with reductions in distress, although this has been found in other studies (e.g., Bridges & Grolnick, 1995; Buss
& Goldsmith, 1998).
Finally, we speak to the context effects that were revealed in the pattern of results. Although we found a general pattern of more comfort seeking and proximity
favoring girls when we averaged across fear and frustration episodes, when we examined effects within episode, only fear-eliciting episodes revealed this difference. This suggests that girls are more likely to seek contact and proximity in
fear-eliciting situations. Recall, however, that the associations between distress
and mother-oriented behaviors were only significant for boys for both fear and
frustration tasks. In a different report from the current sample, we found that mothers were more likely to be accurate in predicting fear behaviors for daughters compared to sons (Kiel & Buss, 2006). Perhaps mothers are better able to anticipate
fear for girls because of a history of girls maintaining proximity in these types of
situations and mothers differential reinforcement for fear expressions, including
comfort seeking and proximity (Simpson & Stevenson-Hinde, 1985). The unique
effects of fear-eliciting contexts on toddlers behavior have also been found in
other work, albeit without gender differences (Buss & Kiel, 2004). Specifically,
toddlers were more likely to look to mothers (presumably to seek help) in fear episodes compared with frustration episodes. We address the developmental implications of these findings next.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

21

Origins of Gender Differences

The ultimate question is what accounts for the gender differences observed in this
study. We pay particular attention to the gender difference for greater mother-oriented behavior favoring girls and the significant association between distress and
mother-oriented behavior for boys. We believe these two findings reflect a similar
process. The literature has largely focused on the central role of socialization in the
development of these differences although biological influences are also likely.
Both are addressed.
The effects of socialization have been the focus of several studies reporting gender differences in emotional expression. Within the U.S. culture, studies repeatedly find that individuals report both and awareness and endorsement of stereotypes (Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006). For instance, in
the classic study by Condry and Condry (1976), partially replicated by Plant et al.
(2000) with high-stereotyped men, adults were more likely to label an infants ambiguous facial expression as sadness or fear if they were told the infant was a girl
and as anger if they were told it was a boy. Parental socialization has also been examined. As an example, mothers tend to express more positive emotion with
daughters than with sons (Garner, Robertson, & Smith, 1997). These types of differential treatment are believed to reflect the observation that girls typically show
more frequent episodes of relationship-oriented behaviors and anxiety and sadness, positive emotions, and empathy, whereas boys tend to display more anger
(Brody & Hall, 1993; Chaplin et al., 2005). Note that most of these findings are in
children who are preschool-aged and older, with fewer consistent gender differences in infancy. There is also evidence for differential parent behavior toward infant girls and boys. For instance, Malatesta and Haviland (1982) found that mothers responded to the emotional expressions of 3- to 6-month-old boys in a more
contingent fashion than they did with girls. At as early as 20 months of age, girls
received less positive feedback in attempts to take control of situations and more
positive feedback when they were cooperative or submissive (Keenan & Shaw,
1997). The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that girls are reinforced for behaviors that facilitate interpersonal interaction whereas boys are reinforced for behaviors that facilitate interpersonal achievement and independence
(e.g., Block, 1983; Eisenberg et al., 1988; Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997;
Malatesta & Wilson, 1988), but this was not directly addressed.
Despite these findings, we should not give too much weight to the influence of
parental socialization, especially in infancy, as gender differences in behavior have
appeared even before significant sex-specific behavior in parents were found
(Fagot, 1994). Many studies repeatedly find no indication that mothers directly tailor responses according to a childs gender in infancy (Goshen-Gottstein, 198l ;
Gunnar & Donahue, 1980), indicating that observed gender differences in this
study were not elicited by mother. Recall that we did not find evidence that the

22

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

moderating effects of gender observed in this study were related to mothers involvement in the episodes. With that said, does the presence of gender differences
early in development point to a biological influence as some have suggested (
Fagot, 1994; Kagan, 1972)? Although we dont believe the timing of gender differences automatically indicates a biological predisposition, there is plenty of evidence in the literature pointing toward biological influences in sex-linked behavior. One of the most robust and consistent gender differences reported in the
literature is the preference for toys and play behavior (cf. Ruble et al., 2006). Parents have been shown to reinforce these preferences very early in development
(Lytton & Romney, 1991), but biological explanations for toy preference and play
behavior are also quite compelling (e.g., Berenbaum, Duck, & Bryk, 2000; Geary,
1998). For instance, girls who were prenatally exposed to high levels of androgens
are more likely to report preferences for and play with boys toys (Berenbaum &
Snyder, 1995)and this preference has been shown to relate to severity of the androgen exposure (Berenbaum et al., 2000). Regardless of their etiology, toy and play
preferences are likely to lead to the development of different social skills for boys
and girls (Martin & Dinella, 2002). For instance, playing with dolls gives girls
more opportunity to practice skills associated with care giving, which might in turn
influence how they use others for support and might shed further light on the current findings of closer maternal proximity and contact for girls.

Implications of Gender Differences for Socioemotional

Adjustment
As reviewed in the introduction, using the mother as a base for support is believed
to reflect effective regulation and suggests a healthy developmental progression toward the effective use of internally based regulatory behaviors and coping strategies in childhood and adolescence. Why then were gender differences observed?
Contact seeking and proximity to mother are dominant characteristics of a securely attached infant (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and gender differences in attachment security measured in the Strange Situation are rarely reported (e.g., Egeland & Farber, 1984; Sroufe, 1985).However, there have been a
few studies that have shown a gender difference in attachment security. In one
study, 85% of insecurely attached infants were boys (Berlin & Cassidy, 2003) and
in the most recent report of the National Institute of Child Health and Development
Early Child Care Research Network (2006), 58% of avoidantly classified 15month-old toddlers were boys. Note that in the case of avoidant attachment, infants
show low levels of distress and little to no proximity seeking during reunion with
mother. This difference is consistent with the current findings that boys only seek
contact and proximity when distressed.
Furthermore, recall that Brown and colleagues (1993) reported a significant interaction between gender and attachment security in predicting proximity to

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

23

mother. Boys who were avoidant or secure had similar proximity scores, whereas
for girls, the most similar scores on proximity were for secure and resistant infants.
These findings taken together might illustrate the role of connectedness as a reinforcement for daughters behaviors or characteristics that put them in closer proximity with their mothers, whereas sons are reinforced for independence. Likewise,
a discussion by Block (1983) of gender-based socialization practices suggests that
external reinforcement is greater for girls who display prosocial behaviors and
positive interpersonal skills. This might make mother-oriented behaviors appear
less socially appropriate for males, as these behaviors can be considered to be more
dependent (Zimmermann & Stansbury, 2003). Benenson et al. (1 998) found related evidence that daughters appeared to be more emotionally involved with their
mothers as indicated by measures of proximity, mutual eye contact, and displays of
enjoyment, although this did not rule out a general closeness to all adults. They
also found boys to be more likely than girls to express negative emotions.
We would like to stress that the gender differences found in this study, as with
most studies in this area, were relatively small in magnitude or not significant (as
was the case with maternal-reported temperament). This is not a trivial point given
that most of the individual variation is within gender rather than across gender.
Simply put, girls and boys are more similar than they are different (Hyde, 2005) at
least at mean levels. However, small differences should not be treated as unimportant. Consider the effect of shifting a normal distribution or having two distributions with different variances as is hypothesized in some literature on gender differences (e.g., the greater male variability hypothesis; Feingold, 1992). These
two types of differences in the distribution of boys and girls behaviors would result in larger gender differences at the extremes of the distribution.
Differences at the extremes are particularly important when we consider the development of maladaptive behaviors and evidence for substantial gender differences in types of psychopathology for boys and girls. Girls are more likely to experience symptoms of internalizing disorders. A number of studies have examined
the etiology of stability in withdrawal or anxious behavior and have demonstrated
that girls are more likely to remain stable in this behavior (Kagan, 1998). In adolescence, girls friendship styles are characterized by high levels of disclosure and, in
particular, corumination, which increases girls internalizing symptoms (Rose,
2002; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Differences in interpersonal relationship styles
characterized not only by physical proximity but also by psychological proximity
are thus implicated. Girls as young as preschool are more likely to talk about relationships compared to boys, who are more likely to discuss aggression (Nicolopoulou, 1997). Girls are also more likely to use affiliative speech patterns to establish and maintain contact with others (Leaper & Smith, 2004). These differences in
other-oriented behaviors are also observed in infancy-and in toddlers in this
study. For instance, differences evident even in the first hours of life and identifiable into the grade-school years favor girls showing more eye contact, looking at

24

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

faces, and using less gaze aversion than boys (Fabes, Eisenberg, & Eisenbud,
1993; Guthrie et al., 1997; Leeb & Rejskind, 2004). Thus, together with the extant
literature, findings from this study are consistent with and might aid in our understanding of early social-emotional processes that contribute to the development of
internalizing symptoms in girls. Specifically, small and seemingly insignificant
findings early in life might become exacerbated across time as important transitions throughout development unfold (e.g., peer relationships).

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the finding of an association between distress and mother-oriented behaviors suggests that boys might engage in these behaviors in the service of regulating (i.e., reducing) negative affect, we did not test that directly. Other studies
have demonstrated gender differences in the use of regulatory strategies (e.g.,
Stifter & Spinrad, 2002) and have examined the effectiveness of different types of
strategies (e.g., Buss & Goldsmith, 1998). It would be important to examine these
issues together in future studies. Mothers were instructed not to initiate interaction
with their toddlers and to minimize interaction. This might have increased the ambiguity of the situation and impacted toddlers behaviors in an uncharacteristic
way. However, we demonstrated that maternal involvement, at the limited level we
were able to measure it, did not have differential effects on boys and girls.

CONCLUSION
We found that although girls were more likely to seek comfort and stay in proximity to mother, it was boys who engaged in these behaviors when distressed. These
findings are consistent with the literature on gender differences in affective behaviors in infants and young children. The moderating effect of gender on the association between distress and mother-oriented behavior is very intriguing and could
have implications for the way we think about successful emotion regulation for
boys and girls and the development of adjustment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project from which the data were derived was supported, in part, by three
grants from the National Institute of Mental Health: the first to H. Hill Goldsmith
(R01-MH50560), the second to the Wisconsin Center for Affective Science (Richard Davidson, P50 MH52354), and third a Predoctoral National Research Service
Award to Kristin A. Buss (F31 MHI 1747). Melanie Leuty was supported by an
Undergraduate Research Mentorship Award from the University of Missouri-Columbia. We express our appreciation to the families and toddlers who participated
in this study.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

25

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., &Wall, S.(1978). Patterns of attachment: Apsychological
study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Angold, A,, Costello, E. J., Erkanli, A., & Worthman, C. M. (1999). Pubertal changes in hormone levels
and depression in girls. Psychological Medicine, 29, 1043-1053.
Asendorpf, J. B. (199 1 ). Development of inhibited childrens coping with unfamiliarity. ChildDevelopment, 62, 146G1474.
Benenson, J., Morash, D., & Petrakos, H. (1998). Gender differences in emotional closeness between
preschool children and their mothers. Sex Roles, 38, 975-985.
Berenbaum, S. A,, Duck, S. C., & Bryk, K. (2000). Behavioral effects of prenatal versus postnatal androgen excess in children with 21-hydroxylase-deficientcongenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85, 727-733.
Berenbaum, S.A,, & Snyder, E. (1995). Early hormonal influences on childhood sex-typed activity and
playmate preferences: Implications for the development of sexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31, 3 1 4 2 .
Berlin, L. J., & Cassidy, J. (2003). Mothers self-reported control of their preschool childrens emotional expressiveness: A longitudinal study of associations with infant-mother attachment and childrens emotion regulation. Social Development, 12, 477495.
Block, J. H.(1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54, 1335-1354.
Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The efect of the infant on its caregiver (pp.
49-76). New York: Wiley Interscience.
Bridges, L. J., & Grolnick, W. S.(1995). The development of emotional selfregulation in infancy and
early childhood (Vol. 15). London: Sage.
Brody, L. R. (1999). Gendec emotion, and the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 447460). New York: Guilford.
Brown, S. R., Pipp, S., Martz, C., & Waring, R. (1993). Connection and separation in the infant-mother dyad: Patterns of touch and use of interpersonal space. Infant Mental Health Journal,
15, 317-329.
Buntaine, R. L., & Costenbader, V.K. (1997). Self-reported differences in the experience of expression
of anger between girls and boys. Sex Roles, 36, 625-637.
Buss, K. A., Davidson, R. J., Kalin, N. H., & Goldsmith, H.H.(2004). Context-specific freezing and associated physiological reactivity as a dysregulated fear response. Developmental Psychology, 40,
583-594.
Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger regulation in infancy: Effects on the temporal
dynamics of affective expression. Child Development, 69, 359-374.
Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2000). Manual andnormative data for the Laboratory Temperament
Assessment Battery-Toddler Version (Tech. Rep.). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Department of Psychology.
Buss, K. A., & Kid, E. J. (2004). Comparison of sadness, anger, and fear facial expressions when toddlers look at their mothers. Child Development, 75, 1761-1773.
Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 53-72.
Calkins, S. D., Dedmon, S. E., Gill, K. L., Lomax, L. E., &Johnson, L. M. (2002). Frustration in infancy: Implications for emotion regulation, physiological processes, and temperament. Infancy, 3,
175- 197.

26

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

Campbell, A., Shirley, L., &Candy, J. (2004). A longitudinal study of gender-related cognition and behaviour. Developmental Science, 7, 1-9.
Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5, 8&88.
Cole, P. M. (1986). Childrens spontaneous control of facial expression. Child Development, 57,
1309-1321.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., &Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct; Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75,3 17-333.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., &Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835-846.
Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development, 47, 812-819.
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2004). Infant and maternal behaviors regulate infant
reactivity to novelty at 6 months. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1123-1 132.
Davidson, R. J., & Rickman, M. (1999). Behavioral inhibition and the emotional circuitry of the brain:
Stability and plasticity during the early childhood years. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme feu6 shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes. Series in afective science (pp. 67-87). New York: Oxford University Press.
Diener, M. L., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1999). Behavioral strategies for emotion regulation in toddlers:
Associations with maternal involvement and emotional expressions. hfunt Behuvior and Developnienf. 22, 569-583.
Diener. M. L.. Mangelsdorf. S. C., McHale, J . L., & Frosch. C . A. (2002). Infantsbehavioral strategies
for emotion regulation with fathers and mothers: Associations with emotional expressions and attachment quality. Infancy, 3, 153-174.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and
changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753-77 I .
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A.,Bustamante, D., Mathy, R. M., Miller, P. A,, & Lindholm, E. (1988).Differentiation of vicariously inducedemotional reactions inchildren. DevelopmentalPsychology,24,237-246.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in
temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33-72.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N. A,, & Eisenbud, L. (1993). Behavioral and physiological correlates of childrens reactions to others in distress. Developmental Psychology, 29, 655463.
Fagot, B. (1994). Peer relations and the development of competence in boys and girls. Child Development, 65, 53-65.
Feingold, A. (1992). The greater male variability controversy: Science versus politics. Review ofEducational Research, 62, 89-90.
Forbes, E. E., Cohn, J. E, Allen, N. B., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (2004). Infant affect during parent-infant
interaction at 3 and 6 months: Differences between mothers and fathers and influence of parent history of depression. Infancy, 5, 61-84.
Gamer, P. W., Robertson, S., & Smith, G. (1997). Preschool childrens emotional expressions with
peers: The roles of gender and emotion socialization. Sex Roles, 36, 675-691.
Geary, D. C. ( 1998). Male,female: The evolution ofhuman sex differences. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Goldberg, S., & Lewis, M. (1969). Play behavior in the year-old infant: Early sex differences. ChildDevelopment, 42, 2 1-3 1.
Goldsmith, H. H. (1996). Studying temperament via construction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment
Questionnaire. Child Development, 67, 21 8-235.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Campos, J. J. (1986). Fundamental issues in the study of early temperament: The
Denver Twin Temperament Study. In M. E. Lamb, A. L. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 23 1-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

27

Goshen-Gottstein, E. R. (1981). Differential maternal socialization of opposite-sexed twins, triplets,

and quadruplets. Child Development, 52, 1255-1 264.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gunnar, M., & Donahue, M. (1980). Sex differences in social responsiveness between six months and
twelve months. Child Development, 51, 262-265.
Gunnar, M., Larson, M., Hertsgaard, L., Harris, M. L., & Broderson, L. (1992). The stressfulness of
separation among nine-month-old infants: Effects of social context variables and infant temperament. Child Development, 63, 290-303.
Guthrie, I. K., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A,, Murphy, B. C., Holmgren, R., Mazsk, P., et al. (1997). The
relations of regulation and emotionality to childrens situational empathy-related responding. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 87-108.
Haley, D., & Stansbury, K. (2003). Infant stress and parent responsiveness: Regulation of physiology
and behavior during still-face and reunion. Child Development, 74, 15361546.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 58 1-592.
Izard, C. E., Dougherty, L. M., & Hembree, E. A. (1983). A system for identifying afect expressions by
holistic judgments (Afex). Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
Kagan, J. (1971). Change and continuity in infancy. New York: Wiley.
Kagan, J. (1972). The emergence of sex differences. The School Review, 80, 217-227.
Kagan, J. (1998). Biology and the child. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp.
177-236). New York: Wiley.
Kahana-Kalman, R., & Walker-Andrews, A S . (2001). The role of person familiarity in young infants
perception of emotional expressions. Child Development, 72, 352-369.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1994). The development of aggression in toddlers: A study of low income
families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53-78.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on young girls early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95-1 13.
Kiel, E. J., & Buss, K. A. (2006). Maternal accuracy in predicting toddlers behaviors and associations
with toddlers fearful temperament. Child Development, 77, 355-370.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25, 343-354.
Leaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in childrens language use:
Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40, 993-1027.
Leeb, R. T., & Rejskind, F. G. (2004). Heres looking at you, kid! A longitudinal study of perceived gender differences in mutual gaze behavior in young infants. Sex Roles, 50, 1-5.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parentsdifferential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1973). Stress, activity, and proximity seeking: Sex differences in the
year-old child. Child Development, 44, 34-42.
Maccoby, E. E., Snow, M. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1984). Childrens dispositions and motherxhild interaction at 12 and 18 months: A short-term longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 20,
459472.
Mahady Wilton, M. M., & Craig, W. M. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims
of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect coping styles and relevant contextual factors. Social
Development, 9, 226245.
Malatesta, C. Z., & Haviland, J. M. (1982). Learning display rules: The socialization of emotion expression in infancy. Child Development, 53, 991-1003.
Malatesta, C . Z., & Wilson, A. (1988). Emotion cognition interaction in personality development: A
discrete emotion, functionalist analysis. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 27, 91-1 12.

28

BUSS, BROOKER, LEUTY

Mangelsdorf, S. C., Shapiro, J. R., & Marzolf, D. (1995). Developmental and temperamental differences in emotion regulation in infancy. Child Development, 66, 1817-1 828.
Martin, C. L., & Dinella, L. M. (2002). Childrens gender cognitions, the social environment, and sex
differences in cognitive domains. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society,
and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 207-239). Westport, C T Ablex.
Mayes, L. C., &Carter, A. S. (1990). Emerging social regulatory capacities as seen in the still-face situation. Child Development, 61, 754-763.
Moore, G. A,, & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Infants vagal regulation in the still-face paradigm is related to
dyadic coordination of mother-infant interaction. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1068-1080.
Moss, H. A. (1967). Sex, age, and state as determinants of the mother-infant interaction. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 63, 19-35.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Panitz, R. H., & Buss, K. (1996). Behavioral
inhibition and stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment security. Child Development, 67,
508-522.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network.
(2006). Infant-mother attachment classification: Risk and protection in relation to changing maternal caregiving quality. Developmental Psychology, 42, 38-58.
Nicolopoulou, A. (1997). Worldmaking and identity formation in childrens narrative play-acting. In B.
Cox & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Sociogenic perspectives in internalization (pp. 157-187). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Osofsky, J. D., & OConnell, E. J. (1977). Patterning of early behavior in an urban population. Child
Development, 48, 532-536.
Plant, E. A,, Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 81-92.
Prior, M., Smart, M. A., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Sex differences in psychological adjustment from infancy to 8 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
32, 291-304.
Roopnarine, J. L. (1986). Mothers and fathers behavior toward the toy play of their infant sons and
daughters. Sex Roles, 14, 59-68.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73,
183G1843.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotion and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin,
132, 98-131.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol.
Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 105-176). New York: Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum S. A. (2006). Gender development. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) & R. M. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 858-932). New York: Wiley.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of childrens attempts to monitor their
expressive behavior. Child Development, 55, 1504-1 5 13.
Simpson, A. E., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1985). Temperamental characteristics of three- to fouryear-old boy and girls and child-family interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
26, 43-53.
Spinrad, T. L., Stifter, C. A,, Donelan-McCall, N., & Turner, L. (2004). Mothers regulation strategies
in response to toddlers affect: Links to later emotion self-regulation. Social Development, 13,
4G55.
Sroufe, L. A. (1 985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver relationships
and infant temperament. Child Development, 56, 1-14.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TODDLERS

29

Stifter, C. A., & Grant, W. (1993). Infant responses to frustration: Individual differences in the expression of negative affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavioz 17, 187-204.
Stifter, C. A,, & Spinrad, T. L. (2002). The effect of excessive crying on the development of emotion
regulation. Infancy, 3, 133-152.
Stoller, S. A., & Field, T. (1982). Alteration of mother and infant behavior and heart rate during a
still-face perturbation of face-to-face interaction. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early
interaction (pp. 25-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25-52.
Toda, S., & Fogel, A. (1993). Infant response to the still-face situation at 3 and 6 months. Developmental Psychology, 29, 532-5 38.
Wasserman, G. A., & Lewis, M. (1985). Infant sex differences: Ecological effects. Sex Roles, 12,
665-675.
Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotion
expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 175-1 88.
Zimmermann, L. K., & Stansbury, K. (2003). The influence of temperamental reactivity and situational
context on the emotion-regulatory abilities of 3-year-old children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 389409.