another look at gender identity

ANOTHER LOOK AT GENDER IDENTITY IN PREADOLESCENCE
by
Jonathan Perle
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
May 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. David Perry for his guidance and encouragement throughout my
thesis and my parents for giving me constant support and providing me with the
numerous opportunities they’ve given me.
iii
ABSTRACT
Author:
Jonathan Perle
Title:
Another Look at Gender Identity in Preadolescence
Institution:
Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor:
Dr. David G. Perry
Degree:
Masters of Arts
Year:
2008
This thesis examined relations of multiple dimensions of gender identity (same-
gender typicality, other-gender typicality, gender contentedness, gender oppression, felt
pressure to conform, and gender centrality) to children’s adjustment (global self-worth,
narcissism, depression, internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, and prosocial
behaviors). Participants were 237 fourth through eighth graders (108 males, 129 females;
M age = 11 years, 4 months). Each measure of gender identity related to children’s
adjustment in a unique way. Findings also showed gender centrality to moderate relations
of other gender identity variables to adjustment, suggesting that how central gender is to
a child influences the impact of other gender self-appraisals on the child’s development
and adjustment.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables…………...…………………….………………………………………… vii
Introduction…………………….………………………………………………………… 1
Conceptualizations of Gender Identity……………….………………………... 2
Additional Gender Identity Variables…………….……………………………. 5
Adjustment Variables………………….……………………………………….. 7
Present Study……………………..……………………………………….……. 8
Same- and Other-Gender Typicality…….……..……………………… 9
Gender Contentedness………………………………………….…….. 10
Felt Pressure………………..………………………………………… 10
Gender Oppression…………..…………………………………..…… 11
Methods…………...………………………………………………………………..…… 12
Participants…………..…..……………………………………………………. 12
Measures…………………………………………………………….………… 12
Results………………….………………………………………………………………. 18
Age and Sex Differences in Measures…………….…………………..……….. 18
Intercorrelations of Gender Identity Measures………………………………… 19
Relations Between Gender Identity and Adjustment Measures…………..…… 20
Gender Centrality as a Moderator……………………………………………… 23
Discussion………………………………..……………………………….…………….. 26
v
Other-Gender Typicality…………….…………………………………………. 26
Gender Oppression……………………….……………………..……………… 28
Gender Centrality as a Moderator……………………………………………… 29
Limitations and Future Directions…..…………………………….…………… 30
References……………………………………..…………………………….…………. 32
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Means and Standard Deviations of Measures…………………………... 36
Table 2:
Correlations Among Gender Identity Variables and Adjustment
Measures………………………………………………………...……… 37
Table 3:
Correlations Among Measures by Sex………………………………..… 39
vii
Introduction
Gender identity, or one’s conception of the self as either male or female, is a key
phenomenon that arises early in a child’s development. By 2 to 3 years of age, a child can
correctly answer whether he or she is a boy or girl. However, it is not until about age 6 to
7 that the child achieves gender constancy, or the knowledge that his or her gender will
not change (Egan & Perry, 2001). This developmental process and identification with
one’s gender are crucial to a child’s adjustment, as gender affects many aspects of one’s
life, including recreational, academic, occupational, and relationship activities (Egan &
Perry, 2001). It also affects self-esteem and other aspects of adjustment (Yunger, Carver,
& Perry, 2004). Although most children develop their gender identity and have minimal
problems with adjustment, it seems that while growing up, some children question their
gender and reflect on their existence as a male or female by asking themselves such
questions as, “How well do I fit with my gender category?” For these reasons, it is
important to identify what comprises one’s gender identity and the mechanisms
underlying its influences on children’s current and future behavior and adjustment. The
present project is concerned with adding new variables to an existing multidimensional
conceptualization of gender identity with the goal of furthering knowledge relating
gender identity to adjustment.
1
Conceptualizations of Gender Identity
Gender identity is a central construct in many accounts of psychosocial
development and mental health. However, over the years gender identity has been
conceptualized in diverse ways. Kagan (1964) believed gender identity to be the degree
to which one perceives the self as conforming to cultural stereotypes for one’s gender.
Kohlberg (1966) and Zucker et al. (1993) viewed it as knowing that one is a member of
one sex rather than another. Bem (1981) defined gender identity, or what she called
“gender schematicity,” as the degree to which one internalizes societal pressures for
gender conformity. One popular practice (originating with Bem) that has been proven
problematic is to assess gender identity in terms of self perceived personality traits (i.e.,
instrumental and expressive traits). The concern with such an approach is these traits do
not relate to other gender phenomena, and therefore it is inadvisable to infer an
individual’s gender identity from self-perception of these traits alone (Spence &
Helmreich, 1980).
Although it is possible that each of the varying views of gender identity has some
degree of merit and application, it seems unlikely that gender identity can be captured by
a single measure. Egan and Perry (2001) conceptualized gender identity as comprising
multiple facets, and they advanced a multidimensional model that took into account
different forms of gender identity, each of which is believed to serve different
psychological functions and to have different influences on adjustment. As defined by
Egan and Perry (2001), gender identity is a construct encompassing an individual’s (a)
membership knowledge (knowledge of one’s membership in a gender category), (b)
2
gender typicality (how typical a member of one’s gender the individual feels the self to
be), (c) gender contentedness (how happy one is with his or her gender category), (d) felt
pressure for gender conformity (pressure from parents, peers, teachers, and the self for
conforming to gender stereotypes), and (e) intergroup bias (the idea that one’s own sex is
superior to the other). From this conceptualization, gender identity goes beyond basic
measures that have previously been used and is defined as a collection of all of these
variables that can form a patterned knowledge of the self in relation to gender categories.
Egan and Perry’s (2001) model has been shown to be consistent with other
multidimensional models (e.g., Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). It also
fits with Spence’s (1985) idea that people not only generate domain-specific selfperceptions of specific aspects of sex-typed behavior (e.g., play with dolls versus trucks)
but also integrate diverse information about gender and self to create a more abstract
creation of gender identity (e.g., “Overall, am I a good fit within my gender?”).
With their multidimensional conceptualization of gender identity, Egan and Perry
(2001) hypothesized that higher levels of gender typicality and contentedness, but lower
levels of felt pressure and intergroup bias, would benefit adjustment. This hypothesis has
received support not only in their own studies but also in studies by others (Carver,
Yunger, & Perry, 2003; Smith & Leaper, 2004; Yunger, et al., 2004) and further work by
Egan and Perry (2001) also suggested the operation of certain causal pathways. For
example, they suggested that gender contentedness motivates gender typing. They stated
that it is possible for gender contentedness to influence children’s adoption of sex-typed
attributes which would enhance their feelings of gender typicality which would, in turn,
3
influence adjustment. Additionally, it was initially shown that intergroup bias was
detrimental to children’s peer relations. However, this relation has not been reliably
replicated.
Based on their conceptualization of gender identity, Egan and Perry (2001) looked
at differences between males and females in gender identity and found substantial
differences. Boys have higher scores than girls on gender typicality, gender
contentedness, and felt pressure for gender conformity. These results conform to other
work (Huston, 1983, Ruble & Martin, 1988) and showcase how boys are more genderidentified than girls and often experience more pressure to conform to their sex role. In
society, it is generally deemed unfavorable for a boy to wear dresses or other clothes that
are typically worn by girls or to engage in feminine tasks, and those who do are typically
ridiculed and made to cease either by parents or peers. Girls seem to be more open to
explore cross-gendered acts. If a girl dresses like a boy, she is deemed a “tomboy,” but
she is unlikely to be ridiculed to the same high degree as a boy who dresses like a girl.
Girls have also been shown to be more negatively influenced by pressure than boys (e.g.,
felt pressure is associated with low self-esteem mainly for girls). This could be due to
girls being more likely to take self-limiting social criticism and negative feedback to
heart and to become depressed by it, but it could also reflect the fact that felt pressure to
avoid cross-sex behavior is more limiting for girls than for boys because boys’ options
are generally more likely to lead to status and rewards than are girls’. Overall, Egan and
Perry (2001) feel that children’s adjustment is optimized when (a) they are secure in their
conceptions of themselves as typical members of their sex yet (b) feel free to explore
4
cross-sex options when they so desire.
Additional Gender Identity Variables
This thesis aims to further the multidimensional conceptualization of gender
identity proposed by Egan and Perry (2001) by seeing whether new gender identity
variables also contribute to children’s adjustment. For the purposes of the current study,
six measures of gender identity were used. These were: (a) felt same-gender typicality
(self-perceived similarity to one’s own sex), (b) gender contentedness, (c) felt pressure,
(d) felt other-gender typicality (self-perceived similarity to the other sex), (e) gender
oppression, and (f) gender centrality. The first three measures are from Egan and Perry’s
(2001) model. However, the last three are candidates for new additions to the model.
Other-gender typicality is a measure of how similar one feels to the other gender (e.g.,
how much a boy feels like a girl), gender oppression is how much one feels dismayed or
feels that it is unfair that they are not allowed to do things of the other gender even
though they may like to, and gender centrality is how central (important) gender is to
one’s identity. All of these gender identity variables will be analyzed to see they relate to
adjustment.
Other-gender typicality may be important to measure because it is possible that
some children are constantly comparing themselves to members of the opposite sex and
wondering if they are sufficiently different. It is important to investigate how a child who
feels more typical to the opposite sex would develop in relation to adjustment. Do
children who experience this feeling of typicality have poor adjustment? Also, including
5
a measure of other-gender typicality will permit seeing how this measure relates to samegender typicality. Are these self-perceptions independent or do they operate as opposite
ends of a single continuum (i.e., are the two measures negatively correlated)?
Felt gender oppression was included for a number of reasons. First, it is important
to measure how oppressed a child feels by gender-role restrictions independently of felt
pressure to conform. While these two are likely to be related, they may contribute
independently to adjustment. It is hypothesized that felt pressure and gender oppression
will be correlated so that if there was higher gender oppression, the child would also feel
higher levels of felt pressure to conform. A second reason to include gender oppression is
due to a suggestion by Bigler (2006) that Egan and Perry’s (2001) measure of gender
contentedness does not actually measure contentedness with belonging to one gender
category but rather measures contentedness with a restricted gender role (i.e., gender
oppression). In other words, Bigler claimed that Egan and Perry’s scale of gender
contentedness assessed mainly children’s contentment with the fact that cross-gender
activities are off limits. Indeed, certain items of the original Egan and Perry
contentedness scale were open to this interpretation. In the present study, gender
contentment was measured with items less open to this interpretation (e.g., “Are you glad
you’re a girl?”), and a new set of items was written to tap gender oppression (e.g., “Do
you feel it is unfair that some activities are off limits because they are done mainly by
other-sex children?”). It was hypothesized that gender contentedness would relate to
favorable signs of adjustment but that felt gender oppression would relate to negative
signs of adjustment.
6
The third new variable added to the model was gender centrality. Centrality is a
concept put forward in a recent paper by Ruble et al. (2007). Ruble et al. conceptualized
centrality as the extent to which one’s group is a salient and pivotal factor in self-concept.
They believed this to be important because many studies have documented how
identification with a particular social category can promote a sense of belonging,
connectedness, and increased positive evaluation with the group. However, these factors
may only be important if centrality is important to the individual. Ruble et al. found that
higher levels of stability and understanding with one’s gender were associated with
higher own-sex centrality and positive evaluation. For these reasons, it can be seen that
centrality is an important measure. However, Ruble et al. only measured centrality in
relation to age and gender constancy. For the present study, centrality will be added as a
gender identity variable and will be used to predict adjustment. Also, as will be explained
later, gender centrality was expected to moderate relations of other gender identity
variables to adjustment.
Adjustment Variables
Along with gender identity variables, Egan and Perry (2001) measured various
levels of adjustment to test the effects of the gender identity variables. For the purpose of
this thesis, six adjustment variables were used: (a) global self-worth, (b) externalizing
behaviors, (c) internalizing behaviors, (d) prosocial behaviors, (e) narcissism, and (f)
depression. Global self-worth, as proposed by Harter (1998), is one’s overall self-regard
or self-esteem. Three adjustment variables were self-reported (global-self worth,
7
narcissism, and depression), and three were peer-reported (externalizing behaviors,
internalizing behaviors, and prosocial behaviors). Externalizing behaviors include
aggression, dishonesty, disruption, and conflict-proneness. These types of behaviors have
been found to be more common to boys. The opposite can be said for girls, who have
been shown to internalize more (e.g., be more depressed and anxious). It would be
beneficial for an individual to have low levels of both externalizing and internalizing as
either represents problematic adjustment. Prosocial behaviors (e.g., getting along with
others) are behaviors that are looked upon as positive and have been shown to predict
positive adjustment variables. The final two measures are narcissism and depression,
which have not been used often in studies linking adjustment and gender identity.
Narcissism is important to examine because it could reflect inflated, unrealistically high
self-esteem which could be detrimental to the individual in the long run (e.g., by
motivating aggression; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996), and high levels of certain
gender identity variables may be conducive to a puffed up self-concept, as explained
later. Depression too is an adjustment measure for which low levels would be beneficial,
and it too might be influenced by certain kinds of gender identity (e.g., felt gender
oppression and felt pressure).
Present Study
The present study was designed to gather further support for Egan and Perry’s
(2001) multidimensional model of gender identity while adding the above mentioned new
measures of gender identity. One interest was in seeing whether the new measures of
8
gender identity would contribute to adjustment as individual predictors.
A second interest was to see whether the gender centrality measure would
moderate relations of other gender identity variables to adjustment: Do the usual
measures of gender identity (e.g., gender typicality) relate more strongly to adjustment
for children for whom gender is an especially central and salient aspect of identity? It is
expected that higher centrality will magnify the contribution of same-gender typicality,
gender contentedness, other-gender typicality, and felt pressure to adjustment. This is
based on the logic that if gender is salient to the child, then the other components of
gender identity should also assume greater importance. Associations were also studied as
a function of sex and age. Predicted trends and hypotheses are outlined below.
Same- and Other-Gender Typicality
It has been shown that when children feel dissimilar to others of their gender they
experience dismay. Children who see themselves as atypical members of their own
gender may have a constant fear of ridicule, potential rejection from their social group,
and possible denial of privileges (Caporael & Brewer, 1991). Due to this, these children
will often have lower self-esteem and may be depressed. They could also score higher on
internalizing problems, something that might contribute to these children being
victimized by peers. Furthermore, if it is the case that the child is high on other-gender
typicality (i.e., identifies with the other group), then it is hypothesized that they will be
lower on self-esteem and higher on depression and internalizing behaviors, as they are
unsure about themselves (Carver, et al., 2003).
9
It is also predicted that the above relations (distress among children who feel
gender atypical or similar to the other gender) will be stronger for children with high
gender centrality. That is, if the child is high on centrality then high same-gender
typicality will especially lead to better adjustment, and high other-gender typicality will
especially lead to poor adjustment. These effects are expected to hold for both sexes and
for children of all ages.
Gender Contentedness
It is important for children to feel content with their gender so that they do not
worry about themselves and their acceptance by peers. Contentedness has been shown to
be a predictor of global self worth. It has also been shown that children who are
dissatisfied with their gender are often unhappy and socially maladjusted. It is expected
that children who feel discontent with their gender will be especially distressed if they are
also high in gender centrality. Similar results are expected for children of different ages
and sexes.
Felt Pressure
Felt pressure has been shown to be negatively correlated with psychological well
being and self-regard. Those who feel high pressure will be limited in what they do, due
to a fear of what others might think or do to them. Those (especially girls) who have high
felt pressure also tend to exhibit higher levels of internalizing behaviors and less
prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that if gender centrality is salient,
10
then high levels of felt pressure will be especially associated with adjustment problems.
Boys are believed to experience higher levels of felt pressure as they are highly sex
typed, but gender centrality should moderate effects of felt pressure similarly for both
sexes and children of different ages.
Gender Oppression
Although little work has been done in regard to gender oppression, certain trends
are predicted. As noted, high feelings of resentment that other-sex activities are off limits
should be depressing to children and contribute to lower self-esteem and internalizing
problems. Also, if a child is high on gender centrality and also has high oppression, then
he or she will experience strong adjustment problems, as feelings of oppression should be
especially salient to such a child.
11
Methods
Participants
The sample included 237 children (129 females and 108 males) in the fourth
through eighth grades of a state university school. Children received parental consent to
participate in the study, and the children also signed an assent form acknowledging that
the experimenters had explained what is expected of them before the testing began. The
racial and ethnic composition of the sample was 53.2% White, 20.3% Black, 18.1%
Hispanic, 3.8% Asian, and 4.6% other. Children averaged 11 years 4 months (136.16
months) of age in the fall of the school year.
Measures
Instruments measuring five aspects of gender identity (same-gender typicality,
other-gender typicality, felt pressure for gender conformity, gender contentedness, and
gender oppression) were administered via self-report questionnaires. One additional
gender identity variable, gender centrality, was also included, especially to see if it
moderates relations of the other gender identity variables to the dependent (adjustment)
variables. Thus a total of six measures of gender identity were included. The dependent
variables, which tapped diverse aspects of personal adjustment, included global self
worth, externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, prosocial behavior, narcissism, and
12
depression.
Gender identity measures. Six measures of gender identity were included, the first
five of which derived from Egan and Perry (2001), or were adapted from them.
The same-gender typicality scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient of .62, 6 items,
average inter-item correlation .22) assessed the degree to which a child feels he or she is
a typical member of his or her own gender category. A sample item from the boy’s form
is:
Some boys have the same interests
that other boys have
Very true
for me
BUT
Sort of
true for me
Other boys don’t have the same
interests that other boys have.
Sort of
true for me
Very true
for me
The other-gender typicality scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient of .84, 6 items,
average inter-item correlation .46) measured the degree to which a child feels that he or
she is a typical member of the other gender. A sample item is:
Some boys have the same interests
that girls have
Very true
for me
BUT
Sort of
true for me
Other boys don’t have the same
interests that girls have.
Sort of
true for me
Very true
for me
The gender contentedness scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient of .77, 5 items,
average inter-item correlation .45) assessed the extent to which a child is happy or
content with his or her gender category. A sample item is:
13
Some boys feel lucky that they are
a boy
Very true
for me
BUT
Sort of
true for me
Other boys don’t feel lucky that
they are a boy.
Sort of
true for me
Very true
for me
The felt pressure for gender conformity (Cronbach alpha coefficient of .86, 7
items, average inter-item correlation .46) measured the degree to which a child feels
pressure from parents, peers, and the self to avoid other-gender conformity. A sample
item is:
The boys I know would be
upset if I wanted to play with
girls’ toys.
Not at all
true for me
A little true
for me
Pretty true
for me
Very true for
me
The gender oppression scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient of .83, 6 items, average
inter-item correlation .45) measured the degree to which a child feels it is unfair or is
distressed because he or she is not allowed to partake in other-gender activities. A sample
item is:
Some boys are upset that they’re
not allowed to do all the things
that girls are allowed to do
Very true
for me
BUT
Sort of
true for me
Other boys don’t mind that they’re
not allowed to do all the things that
girls are allowed to do.
Sort of
true for me
Very true
for me
The gender centrality measurement was measured through a card sorting task
consisting of three phases. The measure was adapted from Ruble et al. (2007). Thirteen
14
index cards with computer printed words were presented to the children. The index cards
had the words: American, student, fourth grade (or the grade of the student), boy, girl,
son, daughter, Hispanic, Black, Asian, White, Arabic, and Native American. The child is
initially presented with the thirteen cards, one at a time. A card (e.g., “American”) is
presented and put in front of the child on the table, and the experimenter asks the child if
the identity on the card applies to him or her (e.g., “Are you an American? Yes or no.”).
The “yes” cards are put into one stack for later use, and the “no” cards are discarded. If
the child is asked if he or she is an American and the answer is no, he or she is asked to
tell his or her nationality, and this nationality is written by the experimenter on a blank
card and substituted for the American nationality card. Also, if a child chooses more than
one ethnic/racial identity (e.g. Hispanic or White), the child is asked which is more
important to him or her (e.g. “Is being Hispanic or being White more important to you?”).
After the child has gone through the cards, six remain (nationality, son/daughter,
student, boy/girl, grade, and ethnic/racial group). The six cards are then displayed on the
table, all at the same time in a rectangle formation. The researcher then asks the child,
“Which of these words is the most important thing about you, so important that without it
you could no longer be yourself?” After the child has selected the card, it is removed and
the researcher asks, “Just looking at the cards that are left, can you tell me now which
word is the most important thing about you?” This card is then removed and the
experimenter asks the final question of, “Now, looking at the cards that are left here,
which word is the least important thing about yourself?” The measure is scored by giving
the most important identity a 2, the second most a 1, and the least important identity a -1.
15
The other three identities receive a 0.
Adjustment measures. Six adjustment measures were included: global self-worth,
narcissism, depression, externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, and prosocial
behavior.
The global self-worth scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient .76, 6 items, average
inter-item correlation .350) assessed the overall self-esteem of the child. A sample item
is:
Some kids don’t like the way
they’re leading their life
Very true
for me
Other kids do like the way they’re
leading their life.
BUT
Sort of
true for me
Sort of
true for me
Very true
for me
The Narcissism scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient .73, 17 items, average interitem correlation .143) measured a child’s narcissistic tendencies, or belief that they are
the best at everything and better than everyone else. A sample item is:
I can usually talk my way out of
anything.
or
I try to accept what happens to me
because of my behavior.
The Depression scale (Cronbach alpha coefficient .75, 10 items, average inter-item
correlation .248) measured the depression of a child and how unhappy they are. These
questions were from the Beck Children Depression Inventory. A sample item is:
□ I am sad once in a while.
□ I am sad many times.
16
□ I am sad all the time.
The externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, and prosocial behavior scales
were derived from a peer nomination inventory. The child was presented with a grid that
listed 16 behaviors (e.g., He makes fun of people.) along the left side of the page, and
along the top was a list of names of the other children in that student’s class. There were
male and female peer nomination inventories, and male nominations were made only by
the males and female nominations were made only by the female students. The children’s
scores were calculated as the proportion of the same-sex classmates who checked the
child’s name for the item; scale scores were calculated by averaging across items.
Externalizing behavior measured the peer’s perception of every child in the class
in relation to externalizing behaviors such as physical aggression. A sample item is: “He
hits and pushes others around.”
Internalizing behavior measured the peer’s perception of every child in the class
in relation to internalizing behaviors such as anxiety. A sample item is: “He seems
unhappy and looks sad often.”
Prosocial behavior measured the peer’s perception of every child in the class in
relation to prosocial behavior such as helping others or sharing. A sample item is: “He is
good to have in a group because he shares things and gives other people a turn.”
The instruments were administered in one individual testing session in a private
room at the school. The sessions averaged about one hour per student. All questions and
instructions were read aloud to the child to make the testing uniform, and the children
followed along and marked their answers.
17
Results
Age and Sex Differences in Measures
Means and standard deviations of the measures are given separately by sex and
age in Table 1. For these analyses the younger children group included the fourth and
fifth grades while the older group consisted of the sixth through eighth grades. Initial
analyses treated each measure (gender identity and adjustment measures) as a dependent
variable with sex and age entered on the same step in a multiple regression analysis. This
analysis was used to determine if there are age and sex differences. All results were
analyzed using a p value of .05. The results showed that there were significant age
differences in the gender identity variables of same-gender typicality (p < .001,
increasing as the child gets older), other-gender typicality (p < .01, decreasing as the
child gets older), and gender contentedness (p < .001, increasing as the child gets older).
There were age differences in the adjustment measures of depression (p < .02, decreasing
as a child gets older) and prosocial behavior (p < .001, decreasing as the child gets older).
There were significant sex differences in the gender identity variables of other-gender
typicality (p < .001, higher for girls), gender oppression (p < .001, higher for girls), and
felt pressure (p < .001, higher for boys), and in the adjustment measures of narcissism (p
< .02, higher for girls), and depression (p < .01, higher for girls). These results also
demonstrate that gender centrality and the adjustment measures of global self-worth,
internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior do not appear to have significant age
18
or sex differences. These effects of age and sex indicated a need to control for these
variables in subsequent analyses. Age and sex were also examined as possible moderators
of certain other relations under study.
Intercorrelations of Gender Identity Measures
Relations among all the study variables may be found in Table 2. This table
displays the partial correlations with sex and age controlled as well as the zero-order
correlations among the variables. The partial correlations are presented on the top row,
while the zero-order correlations are presented directly below. Many of the associations
adhere to previous findings by Egan and Perry (2001) and Carver et al. (2003). For
example, same-gender typicality was significantly positively correlated with gender
contentedness, but not so highly correlated as to consider them the same measure. One of
the primary aims of the intercorrelation table is to see the relationships between the old
gender identity variables (same-gender typicality, gender contentedness, and felt
pressure) and the new ones (other-gender typicality, gender oppression, and gender
centrality). Correlations split by sex are presented in Table 3. The new gender identity
variables are presented first. Each of these analyses controls for age and/or sex, as
appropriate.
Other-gender typicality was significantly negatively correlated with same-gender
typicality ( pr = -.45, p < .00), gender contentedness (pr = -.41, p < .001), felt pressure (pr
= -.25, p < .001) and gender centrality (pr = -.13, p < .049). Other-gender typicality was
positively correlated with gender oppression (pr = .53, p < .001).
19
Gender oppression was negatively correlated with same-gender typicality (pr = .30, p < .001), gender contentedness (pr = -.28, p < .001) and felt pressure (pr = -.14, p <
.04) and positively correlated with other-gender typicality (pr = .53, p < .001).
Gender centrality was negatively correlated with other-gender typicality (pr = .13, p < .05) and positively correlated with gender contentedness (pr = .16, p < .03) and
felt pressure (pr = .17, p < .01).
Same-gender typicality was significantly moderately negatively correlated with
other-gender typicality (pr = -.45, p < .001) and gender oppression (pr = -.30, p < .001).
Same-gender typicality was positively correlated with gender contentedness (pr = .34, p <
.001).
Gender contentedness was negatively correlated with other-gender typicality (pr =
-.41, p < .001) and gender oppression (pr = -.28, p < .001) and positively correlated with
same-gender typicality (pr = .34, p < .001) and gender centrality (pr = .16, p <.03).
Felt pressure was negatively correlated with other-gender typicality (pr = -.25, p <
.001) and gender oppression (pr = -.14, p < .04) and positively correlated with gender
centrality (pr = .17, p < .01).
Relations Between Gender Identity and Adjustment Measures
A main purpose of this study was to examine if the three new gender identity
measures related to adjustment. Relations between the gender identity variables and the
adjustment variables may be found in Table 2. Significance tests of interaction terms
were conducted to see if any relations of gender identity and adjustment depend on sex or
20
age. This was done by testing each adjustment variable as a dependent variable and then
entering age, sex, and a gender identity variable on step 1 and age X a gender identity
variable and sex X a gender identity variable on step 2 of a multiple regression. No
significant interactions with age were found. However, there were three sex differences
which indicated a need to split the file by sex when looking at the correlations. The three
interactions that indicated a need to split the file were between gender contentedness
testing for depression, felt pressure testing for global self-worth, and felt pressure testing
for depression. All analyses controlled for age and sex except for the three split by sex
which only controlled for age. Results are discussed below.
Other-gender typicality was found to be negatively correlated with global selfworth (pr = -.18, p < .01) and not positively correlated with any adjustment measure.
Gender oppression was negatively correlated with global self-worth (pr = -.19, p < .001)
and positively correlated with depression (pr = .16, p < .02). Gender centrality was not
correlated with any adjustment measures. Same-gender typicality was negatively
correlated with depression (pr = -.21, p < .001) and positively correlated with global selfworth (pr = .21, p < .001) and narcissism (pr = .16, p < .02). Gender contentedness was
positively correlated with global self-worth (pr = .36, p < .001).
As noted, there was a need to examine the correlation of gender contentedness
and depression by sex. Girls yielded a significant negative correlation (pr = -.19, p < .03)
between the variables. Boys did not yield a significant correlation between these
variables. Felt pressure was negatively correlated with global self-worth (pr = -.27, p <
.001) and prosocial behavior (pr = -.19, p < .001) and positively correlated with
21
depression (pr = .14, p < .04). As noted, there was a need to examine the correlations of
felt pressure with global self-worth and depression separately by sex. For girls, felt
pressure was negatively correlated with global self-worth (pr = -.35, p < .001) and
positively correlated with depression (pr = .28, p < .001). For boys, felt pressure was
negatively correlated with global self-worth (pr = -.21, p < .03) but not significantly
correlated with depression.
A final set of analyses tested each new variable (other-gender typicality, gender
oppression, and gender centrality) to see if each contributed to adjustment directly
beyond the three original (same-gender typicality, gender contentedness, and felt
pressure) Egan and Perry (2001) measures. These analyses were conducted through
multiple regression analyses with Step 1 entering age and sex, Step 2 entering the three
old gender identity variables, and Step 3 entering one of the three new gender identity
variables. These analyses were run separately for each adjustment variable. None of the
new variables reached a significance level of p < .05.
F change values were also calculated to see if, when all three new gender identity
variables were added on Step 3, the three together predict something unique. These
analyses showed that when the three new variables were added, the F change for the
adjustment variable of depression is significant (p < .04). However, the value was not
significant for any of the other five adjustment variables.
These results demonstrate that not only do the old measures of gender identity
correlate in a similar fashion as found by Egan and Perry (2001) and Carver, Younger,
and Perry (2003), but the new gender identity measures have trends in expected ways and
22
contribute to adjustment and therefore might be incorporated into Egan and Perry’s
(2001) multidimensional conceptualization of gender identity.
Gender Centrality as a Moderator
A second purpose of this study was to see if gender centrality moderates relations
of the other gender identity variables to adjustment. The moderation effects were tested
through multiple regressions. A series of five-step multiple regressions was run that was
set up as: Step 1 with age and sex; Step 2 with one gender identity and gender centrality;
Step 3 with the interaction of gender identity X gender centrality; Step 4 with the
interaction of gender identity X sex and gender centrality X sex; and Step 5 with the
interaction of gender identity X gender centrality X sex. Additional analyses were run
replacing sex with age to see age effects. In no analysis with sex was the three-way
interaction entered on Step 5 significant. However, on Step 3, the two-way interaction
between gender centrality and the gender identity variable was significant in several
analyses. These interactions were explored with an Aiken and West regression analysis to
look at the relation of gender identity to adjustment at different levels of gender
centrality: low (-1 SD), medium (0 SD), and high (+1 SD).
The first interaction was for gender contentedness predicting global self-worth.
As gender centrality increased from low to high, gender contentedness becomes
increasingly positively paired with global self-worth, showing that as gender becomes
more central to a child, the stronger the positive relation of gender contentedness to selfesteem (βs = .27, p < .01; .42, p < .001; .57, p < .001). The second effect was other-
23
gender typicality interacting with gender centrality to predict narcissism. As gender
centrality increased from low to high the relation of other-gender typicality to narcissism
reversed (βs = .16, ns; .02, ns; -.13, ns). At low gender centrality, other-gender typicality
was positively related to narcissism but at high gender centrality, other-gender typicality
was negatively related to narcissism. The third moderating effect was the interaction
between gender contentedness and gender centrality predicting narcissism. As gender
centrality increased the relation of gender contentedness to narcissism reversed (βs = .13, ns; .02, ns; .17, ns). At low gender centrality, gender contentedness was negatively
related to narcissism but at high gender centrality, gender contentedness was positively
related to narcissism.
Similar analyses were run replacing sex with age to see if there were differences
between younger and older children in the interaction of gender identity and gender
centrality when predicting adjustment measures. Younger children consisted of fourth
and fifth grade children, while the older children consisted of sixth through eighth
graders. For these analyses there were three significant two-way interactions and two
significant three-way interactions. The three two-way interactions were essentially
identical to the three two-way interactions described in the preceding paragraph.
The first of the three-way interactions was that of age X gender contentedness X
gender centrality predicting global self-worth. This interaction was broken down by
examining the two-way interaction of gender centrality and gender contentedness for
older and younger children separately. For younger children, as centrality increased,
gender contentedness became increasingly associated with higher levels of self-esteem
24
(βs = .19, ns; .47, p < .001; .76, p < .001). The two-way interaction was not significant
for older children. The second three-way interaction effect was that of age X felt pressure
for conformity X gender centrality predicting externalizing behavior. There was no
significant two-way interaction for younger children. For older children, as centrality
increased the relation of felt pressure to externalizing behavior became increasingly
evident (βs = -.07, ns; .22, p < .05; .51, p < .001).
These results showcase the moderating effects of gender centrality. This conforms
to the expectation that centrality moderates the relation of other gender identity variables
to children’s adjustment. These results indicate that if a child sees gender as being
central, other aspects of gender identity become more of a deciding factor in the child’s
adjustment.
25
Discussion
The results go beyond the original conceptualization created by Egan and Perry
(2001) and demonstrate that the new gender identity variables of gender oppression,
other-gender typicality, and gender centrality are also related to a child’s adjustment.
There were two primary goals of the current study, first to see if the added new gender
identity variables were predictors of adjustment, and second to see if gender centrality
moderates the relationships between the other gender identity variables and adjustment.
The new measures correlated with the old measures in expected ways, although some
unexpected results were present that will be outlined below. The new gender identity
variables will be discussed in turn. Additionally, gender centrality was shown to
moderate some relationships between other gender identity variables and adjustment.
This issue is also discussed below.
Other-Gender Typicality
The hypothesis that children who feel dissimilar to their own gender and more
similar to the other gender may feel dismay and could display lower self-esteem was
supported. By associating the self with the other gender, a child may come to fear peer
rejection and other problems with in turn could lead to loneliness, anxiety, depression and
poor self-esteem (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2007). Other-gender typicality was
found to be moderately negatively related to same-gender typicality but related to
26
adjustment in somewhat different ways. Although same-gender typicality may predict
positive adjustment measures like high self-esteem and gender contentedness, othergender typicality can be used to predict negative adjustment such as depression. While it
is of obvious importance to measure a child’s same-gender typicality, the data collected
hint that measuring other-gender typicality might yield new insights into different aspects
of a child’s adjustment. For these reasons it may be important to keep other-gender
typicality as a gender identity variable and add it to Egan and Perry’s (2001)
multidimensional conceptualization.
Regardless of retaining other-gender typicality in the battery of gender identity
measures, the data collected are informative in that they reveal the correlation between
same-gender typicality and other-gender typicality to be negative. This is important
because it has sometimes been claimed that Egan and Perry’s (2001) measure of gender
typicality is independent of gender, that is, that felt same-gender typicality simply
captures how similar to all other children (same-sex and other-sex) a child feels
(DiDonato et al., 2006). However, if that is the case, then one would expect same-gender
typicality and other-gender typicality to be positively correlated, which they are not. The
negative correlation discredits the notion that the measures being used are independent of
gender and provides further validity for the measures as they are measuring what they are
supposed to measure.
An interesting finding is that felt pressure for gender conformity was negatively
correlated with other-gender typicality. Previous studies have found that gender typicality
and felt pressure are uncorrelated (Carver, et al., 2003). Of course, in previous studies
27
gender typicality tapped only perceived similarity to the same gender, while in the current
study gender typicality was split between same- and other-gender typicality. It is unclear,
however, how one should interpret the finding that as a child feels more typical to the
other gender, he or she will feel low levels of felt pressure to conform. To explain this
finding, it might be hypothesized that those who are high on other-gender typicality do
not find gender identification as important and do not place as much emphasis on it as
others. Therefore, due to this lack of emphasis, they do not feel the great pressure that
others would. Of course, an alternative hypothesis is that feeling little pressure for gender
conformity allows children to participate in cross-gender activities which in turn fosters a
sense of cross-gender typicality. Longitudinal data will be required to test the alternative
explanations.
Gender Oppression
Although gender oppression has seldom been included in gender identity models,
it was hypothesized that children high in gender oppression would experience adjustment
problems, especially reduced self-esteem. This hypothesis was confirmed. Although
reduced self-esteem would seem bad for a developing child, and therefore gender
oppression would appear bad on the surface, it could be beneficial for some children in
the long-term. It is possible that the oppression that a child feels will cause him or her to
become more radical in his or her thoughts and developing opinions on societal
structures. These radical feelings could lead the child to grow up and fight for equal
rights through such philosophies as feministic rights. For these reasons, it is possible that
28
while gender oppression may initially appear bad, it could be good in the long run by
altering typically passive views.
A second reason that gender oppression was added was to investigate Bigler’s
(2006) suggestion that gender contentedness does not actually measure contentedness
with one’s gender category but rather measures contentedness with gender oppression.
Indeed, Egan and Perry’s (2001) original measure of gender contentedness was open to
this criticism. The present study, however shows that gender contentedness is not simply
the lack of feeling of gender oppression. The variables of gender contentedness and
gender oppression were only minimally negatively correlated. It may be that a lack of
feeling of resentment at the existence of cross-sex options that are off limits (i.e., low felt
gender oppression) is simply one factor that contributes to satisfaction with one’s gender
category.
Gender Centrality as a Moderator
It was found that gender centrality did not contribute directly to adjustment but
did moderate relations between other gender identity variables and adjustment. As
hypothesized, gender centrality magnified the contributions of other gender identity
variables. If gender was central to a child then the gender identity variables became more
salient and therefore more likely to influence the child’s adjustment. Due to its
importance as a moderator between gender identity and adjustment, gender centrality
should be included in Egan and Perry’s (2001) multidimensional model of gender
identity.
29
Although it was found that none of the new measures contributes directly beyond
the old measures to adjustment, the interactions of these new variables with centrality
were sometimes significant. For example, other-gender typicality interacted with gender
centrality to predict narcissism in children. While it could be said that only the new
variables that interact with centrality should be kept and incorporated into Egan and
Perry’s (2001) multidimensional model of gender identity, the possible long term effects
of some of the new variables as outlined about could be a reason to keep them for future
studies.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has its limitation. One limitation is that most of the measures presented
were self-reported. For future studies, parent and teacher reports would help to validate
the children’s reports. Although direct observation might also be a good alternative, this
would be very time consuming. Another limitation is in the design. This study is a
concurrent correlational design. A longitudinal design is needed in order to decipher the
likely direction of causality of the relationships between the gender identity variables and
the adjustment measures.
Future research could look at the motivating roles of racial or ethnic identities in
the adoption of gender-identity related characteristics. One could collect data from
different cultures such as collectivistic cultures like China versus individualistic cultures
of America. The data could then be compared and analyzed to see if there are any
differences. While the current participant pool had a variety of races and ethnicities, they
30
were all young children and can be considered influenced more by American values than
elsewhere regardless of where they are from. By examining other cultures, research can
investigate whether the results found are unique to America or more universal.
Another point of future interest is to investigate the result that felt pressure is
negatively correlated with other-gender typicality. While possible reasons for this
relationship are outlined above, future study could focus specifically on this association
of how centrality influences the amount of felt pressure a child feels when they feel more
typical to the other gender. By doing so researchers could gain new insights into why this
relationship may occur.
Gender oppression should also be examined through a longitudinal study.
Although gender oppression has been found to be bad for developing adolescents and can
cause poor adjustment, it is suggested that the oppression may be beneficial for some
over time. If it is the case that the oppression can cause some children to develop radical
views and lead them to fight for equal rights, then this could be viewed as a positive
adjustment outcome. However, only a longitudinal design would allow for such answers.
A final recommendation for future studies it to examine the direction of influence
with respect to gender centrality through a longitudinal design. Although this study found
that gender centrality can act as a moderating variable between other gender identity
variables and adjustment measures, it is still unclear as to whether other gender identity
variables and the adjustment measures can be used to predict gender centrality. A
longitudinal design will help decipher this directionality.
31
References
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework
for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5-33.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing.
Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
Bigler, R. S. (2006, April). Gender Development Research Conference Debate.
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.
Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and adjustment in
middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95-109.
DiDonato, M., Fesi, B., Backer, A., Ravago, C., Ndimbie, Y., Roberts, S., & Berenbaum,
S. A. (2006). Predictors and specificity of gender identity. Poster presented at the
Conference on Gender Development, San Francisco, CA.
Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender
peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping
among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal32
framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1377-1389.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with
implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451463.
Green, R. (1974). Sexual identity conflict in children and adults. New York: Basic Books.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self representations. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.).
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development
(Vol. 3, pp. 553-617). New York: Wiley.
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetherington (Eds.) Handbook of child
psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development(Vol. 4, pp. 338467. New York: Wiley.
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, I. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts
and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.). The development of sex differences (pp. 82173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research (pp. 347-380). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development
33
(Vol. 3, pp. 933-1016). New York: Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L. J., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F. K., Lurye, L. E., & Shrout, P. E.
(2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child
Development (In Press).
Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. S. (1975). Development of gender constancy and selective
attention to same sex roles.
Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2004). Self-perceived gender typicality and the peer context
during adolescence. Poster presented at the Gender Development Research
Conference, San Francisco.
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: University of Nebraska
Press.
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 relationships (pp. 105-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine
expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.
Yunger, J. L., Carver, P. R., & Perry, D. G. (2004). Does gender identity influence
children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 572-582.
Zucker, K. J., Bradley, S. J., Sullivan, C. B. L., Kuksis, M., Birkenfeld-Adams, A., &
34
Mitchell, J. N. (1993). A gender identity interview for children. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 61, 442-456.
35
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of Measures
Boys
Girls
Sex
Differences
Age
Differences
F
F
Younger
M
SD
Older
M
SD
Younger
M
SD
Older
M
SD
1. Same-gender
typicality
2.8
.70
2.9
.52
2.5
.71
3.0
.63
2.7
20.7***
2. Other-gender
typicality
1.5
.46
1.5
.35
2.5
.72
2.3
.51
170.4***
6.3*
3. Gender
contentedness
3.8
.37
3.8
.27
3.6
.52
3.8
.29
3.8+
11.7**
4. Gender
oppression
1.7
.51
1.8
.52
2.7
.74
2.5
.64
119.2***
1.5
5. Felt pressure
2.7
.82
2.8
.76
1.9
.65
1.8
.58
104.5***
.010
6. Gender
centrality
2.7
1.2
3.3
1.2
2.8
1.3
3.0
1.3
.259
3.7
7. Global self
worth
3.3
.58
3.5
.48
3.3
.66
3.5
.57
.206
2.1
8. Narcissism
.19
.14
.23
1.5
.24
.20
.28
.17
5.8*
.42
9. Depression
1.2
.19
1.2
.20
1.4
.35
1.3
.21
7.2**
5.6*
10. Internalizing
behavior
.18
.18
.25
.25
.18
.16
.22
.20
.18
.50
11. Externalizing
behavior
.19
.19
.26
.20
.20
.17
.27
.20
.40
.99
12. Prosocial
behavior
.48
.20
.40
.23
.53
.20
.42
.18
1.5
13.3***
Measure
Note: F values indicate the significance of the sex difference with age controlled and the age difference with sex
controlled.
+ p<.06 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.000
36
Table 2: Correlations Among Gender Identity Variables and Adjustment Variables
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Same-gender
typicality
-
-.45***
.34***
-.30***
.04
.08
.21**
.16*
-.21**
-.11
.07
.01
-.41***
.38***
-.30***
.08
.10
.22**
-.15*
-.25***
-.09
.08
-.06
-
-.41***
.53***
-.25***
-.13*
-.18**
.01
.01
-.01
-.07
.05
-.40***
.70***
-.52***
-.09
-.12+
.10
.13+
-.03
-.03
.10
-
-.28***
.03
..16*
.36***
-.01
-.12
-.02
-.00
.11
-.30***
.09
.16*
.37***
-.01
-.17*
-.01
.01
.05
-
-.14*
-.11
-.19**
.05
.16*
.12
-.01
.01
-.42***
-.07
-.14*
.13*
.23***
.08
.02
.06
-
.17*
-.27***
.11
.14*
-.02
.05
-.19**
.12
-.25***
-.00
.02
-.00
.01
-.19**
-
.02
.09
.05
-.07
.03
.03
.03
.10
.04
-.07
.04
.01
2. Other-gender
typicality
3. Gender
contentedness
4. Gender
oppression
5. Felt pressure
6. Gender centrality
37
Table 2: Correlations Among Gender Identity Variables and Adjustment Variables (Continued)
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
7. Global self-worth
8. Narcissism
9. Depression
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-
-.13*
-.50***
-.05
-.10
.15*
-.12
-.50***
-.05
-.09
.13+
-
.03
-.11
.37***
-.31***
.04
-.11
.37***
-.30***
-
.34***
.06
-.11
.32***
/06
-.06
-
-.21**
-.07
-.20**
-.08
-
-.52***
10. Internalizing
behavior
11. Externalizing
behavior
-.51***
12. Prosocial
behavior
-
Note: Entries on the top row are partial correlations with age and sex controlled and entries on the bottom row are zero-order correlations.
+ p<.06
* p<.05
** p<.01 *** p<.000
38
Table 3: Correlations Among Measures by Sex
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Same-gender
typicality
-
-.31**
.26**
-.28**
.11
.02
.23*
.08
-.17
-.06
-.02
-.08
2. Other-gender
typicality
-.52
-
-.53***
.33***
-.30**
-.20*
-.30**
.03
-.01
-.02
-.18
.09
3. Gender
contentedness
.37***
-.36***
-
-.33**
.21*
.26**
.27**
-.07
.05
.08
.05
.03
4. Gender
oppression
-.29**
.60***
-.24**
-
-.09
-.12
.33***
.09
.20*
.00
-.02
.03
5. Felt pressure
-.02
-.26**
-.11
-.20*
-
.34***
-.21*
.26**
-.05
-.05
-.02
-.10
6. Gender
centrality
.10
-.08
.06
-.10
.00
-
.04
.16
.11
.01
-.02
.03
7. Global selfworth
.20*
-.13
.43***
-.12
-.35***
.00
-
-.15
-.31**
-.02
-.06
.16
39
Table 3: Correlations Among Measures by Sex (Continued)
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
8. Narcissism
.22*
-.01
.03
.02
-.03
.05
-.12
-
-.14
-.15
.33***
-.26**
9. Depression
-.21*
-.01
-.19*
.12
.28**
.03
-.61***
.09
-
.47***
-.08
.02
10. Internalizing
behavior
-.13
-.02
-.09
.19*
.01
-.14
-.08
-.09
.26**
-
-.25**
.05
11.
Externalizing
behavior
.19*
-.03
-.02
-.03
.11
.09
-.13
.39***
.12
-.18*
-
-.54***
12. Prosocial
behavior
.08
.05
.17
.02
-.29**
.03
.15
-.35***
-.19*
-.19*
-.50***
-
Note: Entries are partial correlations by sex with age controlled. Boys are above the horizontal and females below the horizontal.
+ p<.06
* p<.05
** p<.01 *** p<.000
40