Theoretical Frameworks in Early Gender Development: A Critical Comparative Analysis

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract: This article presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of prominent theoretical frameworks explaining early gender development in children. Examining biological, cognitive-developmental, social learning, and sociocultural perspectives, this analysis evaluates the empirical evidence supporting each framework while highlighting their conceptual strengths and limitations. Contemporary integrative approaches that synthesize multiple theoretical perspectives are explored, with particular emphasis on developmental systems theory and intersectional perspectives. The article concludes with implications for future research directions and practical applications in early childhood education, parenting, and public policy.

Keywords: gender development, gender identity, gender socialization, cognitive-developmental theory, social learning theory, biological determinism, gender schema theory, sociocultural theory, developmental systems theory, intersectionality

Introduction

The development of gender identity and gender-related behaviors represents one of the most complex and socially significant aspects of human development. The question of how children come to understand themselves as gendered beings and develop gender-typed preferences, behaviors, and self-concepts has fascinated researchers across disciplines for decades (Zosuls et al., 2011). This enduring interest has generated multiple theoretical perspectives, each offering distinct explanations for the ontogeny of gender development.

Early research on gender development often focused on documenting gender differences rather than explaining their origins. However, since the 1960s, researchers have proposed increasingly sophisticated theoretical frameworks to account for how children develop gendered self-concepts, preferences, and behaviors (Martin & Ruble, 2010). These theories vary substantially in their emphasis on biological factors, cognitive processes, social reinforcement, and broader sociocultural influences. They also differ in their conceptualization of the child as a passive recipient versus an active constructor of gender (Blakemore et al., 2009).

Understanding these theoretical frameworks is not merely an academic exercise; they profoundly influence research agendas, educational practices, parenting approaches, and public policies related to gender. Contemporary researchers and practitioners increasingly recognize that no single theoretical approach can fully account for the complexity of gender development. Instead, integrative approaches that incorporate multiple perspectives provide the most comprehensive explanations (Halim & Ruble, 2010).

This article provides a critical comparative analysis of major theoretical frameworks explaining early gender development, including biological, cognitive-developmental, social learning, and sociocultural perspectives. It evaluates the empirical evidence supporting each framework and discusses their conceptual strengths and limitations. Additionally, the article explores contemporary integrative approaches that synthesize multiple theoretical perspectives, with particular attention to developmental systems theory and intersectional approaches. Finally, it considers implications for future research directions and practical applications in early childhood education, parenting, and public policy.

Biological Perspectives on Gender Development

Biological perspectives on gender development emphasize the role of genetic, hormonal, and neurological factors in shaping gender differences in behavior, preferences, and cognitive patterns. These approaches posit that sex differences in biology contribute significantly to observed gender differences in behavior and psychology (Hines, 2011).

Evolutionary Psychology Perspectives

Evolutionary psychologists argue that gender differences have evolved through natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced differently by males and females throughout human evolutionary history (Buss, 1995). According to this perspective, certain gender-typed behaviors and preferences reflect sex-specific adaptations that enhanced reproductive success in ancestral environments. For example, greater male physical aggression is theorized to have evolved due to intense male-male competition for mates, while greater female nurturance is attributed to the evolutionary importance of maternal care for offspring survival.

Evidence supporting evolutionary perspectives includes cross-cultural consistency in certain gender differences, such as higher rates of physical aggression among males and greater nurturing behavior among females (Schmitt, 2015). However, critics argue that evolutionary accounts often fail to adequately explain the substantial within-gender variation and cross-cultural diversity in gender-typed behaviors. Additionally, these approaches have been criticized for potentially providing post-hoc justifications for existing gender inequalities (Hyde, 2014).

Hormonal Influences

A substantial body of research examines the role of prenatal and postnatal hormones in gender development. Studies suggest that prenatal exposure to androgens influences gender-typed play preferences, activity levels, and spatial abilities (Berenbaum & Beltz, 2016). Research on individuals with conditions affecting hormonal exposure, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), has provided particularly valuable insights. Girls with CAH, who are exposed to elevated androgen levels prenatally, show increased male-typical play preferences compared to unaffected girls (Pasterski et al., 2011).

Neuroimaging research has identified subtle average differences in brain structure and function between males and females, leading some researchers to propose that these differences contribute to gender-typed behaviors and cognitive patterns (Ruigrok et al., 2014). However, contemporary neuroscience increasingly emphasizes brain plasticity and the bidirectional relationship between brain development and experience, cautioning against simplistic neurobiological determinism (Rippon, 2019).

Critical Evaluation of Biological Perspectives

While biological factors undoubtedly contribute to some aspects of gender development, purely biological explanations face several limitations. First, they often struggle to account for the tremendous historical and cross-cultural variability in gender norms and behaviors (Henrich et al., 2010). Second, they frequently underestimate the plasticity of human development and the profound influence of social context (Jordan-Young, 2010). Third, as Fine (2017) argues, research on sex differences in the brain often suffers from methodological limitations and interpretation biases that exaggerate differences while minimizing similarities.

Most contemporary biologically-oriented researchers acknowledge that biological factors interact dynamically with environmental influences, recognizing that nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined rather than competing explanatory frameworks (Eagly & Wood, 2013). This recognition has led to more nuanced biosocial approaches that examine how biological predispositions interact with social contexts to shape gender development across the lifespan.

Cognitive-Developmental Theories

Cognitive-developmental theories emphasize children’s active role in constructing their understanding of gender as they progress through various developmental stages. These approaches focus on how children’s cognitive development enables increasingly sophisticated understanding of gender concepts and categories.

Kohlberg’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory

Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1966) cognitive-developmental theory represents one of the earliest systematic attempts to explain gender development from a cognitive perspective. Building on Piagetian stage theory, Kohlberg proposed that children’s understanding of gender develops through three sequential stages: gender identity (recognizing oneself as a boy or girl), gender stability (understanding that gender remains constant over time), and gender constancy (recognizing that gender remains the same despite changes in appearance or activities).

According to Kohlberg, children become motivated to adopt gender-typed behaviors only after achieving gender constancy, typically around age 5-7 years. At this point, they seek to behave in ways consistent with their understanding of gender to maintain cognitive consistency. Empirical research has generally supported Kohlberg’s proposed sequence of gender concept development, though the timing of these achievements appears somewhat earlier than he originally suggested (Szkrybalo & Ruble, 1999).

However, Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for overestimating the importance of gender constancy in motivating gender-typed behavior. Research indicates that children display gender-typed preferences well before achieving full gender constancy, suggesting that other mechanisms must be involved (Martin & Ruble, 2004).

Gender Schema Theory

Gender schema theory, proposed by Sandra Bem (1981), extends cognitive-developmental approaches by emphasizing the role of cognitive schemas in gender development. According to this theory, children develop gender schemas—organized networks of mental associations about gender—through which they process social information and guide their behavior.

Once children identify their gender, they actively seek information about what behaviors, traits, and preferences are associated with their gender category. These gender schemas then function as cognitive filters that influence attention, memory, and behavior. For example, children more readily remember information consistent with gender stereotypes and preferentially attend to same-gender models (Martin & Halverson, 1981).

Gender schema theory helps explain why children often adopt gender-typed behaviors more rigidly than adults in their environment model or encourage. It also accounts for individual differences in gender typing based on the salience and content of children’s gender schemas. Children in environments where gender is highly emphasized develop more elaborated and rigid gender schemas compared to those in environments where gender distinctions are downplayed (Bem, 1983).

Social-Cognitive Theory

Developed by Carol Martin and Charles Halverson (1981), social-cognitive theory integrates cognitive-developmental approaches with elements of social learning theory. This perspective emphasizes children’s active role in constructing gender knowledge while recognizing the importance of social influences in shaping this knowledge.

According to social-cognitive theory, children develop increasingly complex gender cognitions through multiple cognitive processes, including self-socialization, attention biases, memory effects, and inferential processes. As children identify with their gender group, they become motivated to master knowledge relevant to that group and develop competence in gender-appropriate activities (Martin et al., 2002).

This approach has generated substantial empirical support. Research demonstrates that children selectively attend to same-gender models, show enhanced memory for gender-consistent information, and infer gender-related attributes from minimal information (Halim et al., 2013). These cognitive processes contribute to the development and maintenance of gender-typed preferences and behaviors even in the absence of direct reinforcement.

Social Learning and Social Cognitive Theories

Social learning perspectives emphasize the role of environmental influences in gender development, focusing particularly on how children learn gender-typed behavior through observation, reinforcement, and punishment.

Traditional Social Learning Theory

Early social learning approaches to gender development, influenced by the work of Albert Bandura (1977), emphasized three primary mechanisms: direct reinforcement, observational learning, and modeling. According to this perspective, children develop gender-typed behaviors because they are differentially rewarded and punished for sex-appropriate versus sex-inappropriate behaviors. Additionally, children observe the behaviors of same-sex models—particularly parents, peers, and media figures—and imitate these behaviors, especially when they observe models being rewarded.

Empirical research provides substantial support for these mechanisms. Parents, teachers, and peers often respond differently to the same behavior depending on whether it is displayed by a boy or a girl (Leaper & Bigler, 2004). Furthermore, children demonstrate preferences for observing and imitating same-sex models from an early age (Bussey & Bandura, 1999).

However, traditional social learning approaches have been criticized for portraying children as relatively passive recipients of socialization rather than active constructors of gender knowledge. Additionally, these approaches struggle to explain why children often adopt gender stereotypes more rigidly than those modeled in their immediate environment.

Contemporary Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura’s later work (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) expanded social learning theory into social cognitive theory, which recognizes children’s active role in their gender development while maintaining emphasis on social influences. This expanded approach acknowledges that children selectively attend to and imitate models based on their perceived similarity and status, and internalize standards for self-evaluation that motivate gender-consistent behavior even in the absence of external reinforcement.

Social cognitive theory introduced the concept of self-efficacy—beliefs about one’s capabilities in specific domains—as an important mediator of gender-typed behavior. Children develop higher self-efficacy for activities considered appropriate for their gender and consequently show greater interest and persistence in these activities (Bussey & Bandura, 2004).

This theoretical perspective helps explain the development of gender differences in academic and career interests, highlighting how gender-differentiated experiences lead to different patterns of self-efficacy beliefs, which subsequently influence aspirations and choices (Eccles, 2011).

Sociocultural and Social Structural Theories

Sociocultural and social structural approaches emphasize how broader social, historical, and cultural contexts shape gender development through the organization of social institutions, cultural practices, and symbolic representations of gender.

Social Role Theory

Developed by Alice Eagly (1987), social role theory attributes gender differences primarily to the differential social roles occupied by women and men. According to this perspective, the sexual division of labor—both historically and in contemporary society—leads to gender stereotypes that reflect and justify these different role distributions.

Social role theory proposes that gender stereotypes contain two primary dimensions: communion (attributes associated with caregiving roles, historically assigned to women) and agency (attributes associated with breadwinner and leadership roles, historically assigned to men). These stereotypes then influence socialization practices, self-concepts, and behavioral repertoires (Eagly & Wood, 2012).

This approach helps explain historical changes and cross-cultural variations in gender norms and behaviors as reflecting changes in social role distributions. For example, increases in female labor force participation correlate with shifts in gender stereotypes toward greater perceptions of female agency (Eagly et al., 2020).

Feminist and Critical Theories

Feminist theories emphasize how gender development occurs within systems of power that privilege certain expressions of masculinity while devaluing femininity and gender non-conformity. These approaches highlight how children learn not just gender differences but gender inequality through everyday interactions and institutional practices (Risman, 2004).

Critical theories examine how intersecting social categories—including race, social class, sexuality, and disability—shape gender development. For example, expectations for appropriate gender expression may differ substantially for children from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds (Rogers & Way, 2018). These perspectives challenge universalistic accounts of gender development that fail to consider how gender intersects with other aspects of social identity and social stratification.

Cultural-Historical and Ecological Approaches

Cultural-historical approaches, influenced by Vygotsky’s theories, emphasize how gender development occurs through participation in culturally organized activities. According to these perspectives, children develop gendered skills, values, and identities through guided participation in gender-differentiated practices within their cultural communities (Rogoff, 2003).

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides a framework for understanding how multiple environmental systems—from immediate microsystems (family, peers) to broader macrosystems (cultural beliefs, social policies)—influence gender development. This approach highlights how congruence or conflict between different ecological systems shapes children’s gender-related experiences and outcomes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Contemporary Integrative Approaches

Recognizing the limitations of single-factor explanations, contemporary researchers increasingly adopt integrative approaches that synthesize insights from multiple theoretical perspectives.

Developmental Systems Theory

Developmental systems theory rejects the nature-nurture dichotomy, instead conceptualizing development as emerging from complex interactions between biological, psychological, and social factors across multiple levels of analysis (Overton, 2015). Applied to gender development, this approach examines bidirectional interactions between genes, hormones, neural systems, cognitive processes, interpersonal relationships, and sociocultural contexts (Martin & Ruble, 2010).

This perspective highlights how biological predispositions may influence children’s social environments through evocative gene-environment correlations. For example, biologically influenced behavioral tendencies may evoke different responses from caregivers, which then further shape development. Similarly, children actively select environments and experiences compatible with their developing gender identity, creating self-sustaining developmental trajectories (Liben & Bigler, 2002).

Intersectional Approaches

Intersectional approaches examine how multiple social categories—including gender, race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality, and disability—interactively shape development. These perspectives highlight how gender development may follow different pathways for children from different social groups due to varying cultural expectations, socialization practices, and structural constraints (Ghavami et al., 2016).

For example, research indicates that Black and Latina girls receive different messages about femininity compared to White girls, emphasizing strength and self-reliance alongside traditionally feminine attributes (Brown et al., 2019). Similarly, expectations for masculinity expression differ for boys from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds (Rogers et al., 2020).

Intersectional approaches call attention to how power relations structure gender development opportunities, highlighting the need for policies and practices that address multiple forms of social inequality simultaneously rather than treating gender in isolation from other aspects of social identity (Collins & Bilge, 2020).

Practical Implications

Understanding theories of early gender development has important implications for educational practices, parenting approaches, clinical interventions, and public policies.

Educational Applications

Research on gender development informs gender-responsive pedagogy that addresses the needs and experiences of all children. Effective approaches include challenging restrictive gender stereotypes in curriculum materials, promoting equitable participation in all academic domains, and creating classroom environments that support gender exploration and expression (Bigler et al., 2013).

Understanding the cognitive processes involved in gender stereotype formation can help educators design interventions that challenge essentialist thinking and promote more flexible conceptions of gender. For example, teaching children about historical and cross-cultural variations in gender norms helps undermine perceptions of gender categories as natural and immutable (Meyer & Gelman, 2016).

Parenting and Family Interventions

Research suggests that parenting approaches that avoid rigid gender distinctions and encourage exploration across gender boundaries promote psychological well-being and broader skill development (Halpern & Perry-Jenkins, 2016). Parents can be supported in identifying and challenging their own gender biases and creating home environments that provide all children with diverse behavioral options.

For families with gender non-conforming or transgender children, understanding developmental trajectories of gender identity helps distinguish typical gender exploration from persistent cross-gender identification. This knowledge informs appropriate support strategies that respect children’s self-understanding while remaining responsive to their developmental needs (Ehrensaft, 2016).

Clinical Applications

Theories of gender development inform clinical interventions for children experiencing gender-related distress or identity concerns. Contemporary approaches emphasize supportive exploration rather than directing children toward particular gender expressions, recognizing the diversity of healthy developmental pathways (Hidalgo et al., 2013).

Understanding typical and atypical patterns of gender development helps clinicians distinguish between normative variations in gender expression and clinically significant gender dysphoria requiring intervention. Current best practices emphasize affirming approaches that support children’s authentic gender self-concepts while addressing associated psychological challenges (Olson et al., 2016).

Conclusion and Future Directions

The study of early gender development has evolved from single-factor explanations to increasingly sophisticated multidimensional models that recognize the complex interplay between biological, cognitive, social, and cultural influences. While early theories often portrayed these factors as competing explanations, contemporary approaches recognize their complementary and interactive nature.

Future research directions include greater attention to individual differences in gender development trajectories, continued exploration of neurobiological contributions using methodologically rigorous approaches, expanded cross-cultural research to identify universal versus culturally specific aspects of gender development, and increased focus on development among gender-diverse children.

Methodologically, longitudinal designs that track development across multiple transitions, measurement approaches sensitive to contextual variations in gender expression, and mixed-methods research combining quantitative and qualitative data will advance understanding of these complex developmental processes.

Ultimately, integrative theoretical frameworks that acknowledge both the biological foundations and social construction of gender offer the most promising approaches for understanding the fascinating process through which children develop gendered identities, preferences, and behaviors. These frameworks support evidence-based practices that promote healthy development while respecting individual differences and challenging unnecessary constraints on children’s developmental possibilities.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364.

Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8(4), 598-616.

Berenbaum, S. A., & Beltz, A. M. (2016). How early hormones shape gender development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 7, 53-60.

Bigler, R. S., Hayes, A. R., & Hamilton, V. (2013). The role of schools in the early socialization of gender differences. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, 1-5.

Blakemore, J. E. O., Berenbaum, S. A., & Liben, L. S. (2009). Gender development. Psychology Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 793-828). Wiley.

Brown, C. S., Ali, H., Stone, E. A., & Jewell, J. A. (2019). U.S. children’s stereotypes and prejudices toward Arab Muslims. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 19(1), 23-59.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164-168.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 92-119). Guilford Press.

Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. Polity Press.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458-476). Sage Publications.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340-357.

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301-315.

Eccles, J. S. (2011). Understanding women’s achievement choices: Looking back and looking forward. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 510-516.

Ehrensaft, D. (2016). The gender creative child: Pathways for nurturing and supporting children who live outside gender boxes. The Experiment.

Fine, C. (2017). Testosterone rex: Myths of sex, science, and society. W. W. Norton & Company.

Ghavami, N., Katsiaficas, D., & Rogers, L. O. (2016). Toward an intersectional approach in developmental science: The role of race, gender, sexual orientation, and immigrant status. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50, 31-73.

Halim, M. L., & Ruble, D. (2010). Gender identity and stereotyping in early and middle childhood. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 495-525). Springer.

Halim, M. L., Ruble, D. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2013). From pink frilly dresses to ‘one of the boys’: A social-cognitive analysis of gender identity development and gender bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 439-455.

Halpern, H. P., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2016). Parents’ gender ideology and gendered behavior as predictors of children’s gender-role attitudes: A longitudinal exploration. Sex Roles, 74(11-12), 527-542.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

Hidalgo, M. A., Ehrensaft, D., Tishelman, A. C., Clark, L. F., Garofalo, R., Rosenthal, S. M., Spack, N. P., & Olson, J. (2013). The gender affirmative model: What we know and what we aim to learn. Human Development, 56(5), 285-290.

Hines, M. (2011). Gender development and the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 69-88.

Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373-398.

Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Harvard University Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82-173). Stanford University Press.

Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Gendered language and sexist thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(1), 128-142.

Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), i-183.

Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52(4), 1119-1134.

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 67-70.

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353-381.

Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 903-933.

Meyer, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2016). Gender essentialism in children and parents: Implications for the development of gender stereotyping and gender-typicality. Social Development, 25(4), 822-839.

Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223.

Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations, and relational-developmental-systems. In W. F. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 9-62). Wiley.

Pasterski, V. L., Geffner, M. E., Brain, C., Hindmarsh, P., Brook, C., & Hines, M. (2011). Prenatal hormones and childhood sex segregation: Playmate and play style preferences in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behavior, 59(4), 549-555.

Rippon, G. (2019). The gendered brain: The new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain. Bodley Head.

Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450.

Rogers, L. O., & Way, N. (2018). Reimagining social and emotional development: Accommodation and resistance to dominant ideologies in the identities and friendships of boys of color. Human Development, 61(6), 311-331.

Rogers, L. O., Yang, R., Way, N., Weinberg, S. L., & Bennet, A. (2020). “We’re supposed to look like girls, but act like boys”: Adolescent girls’ adherence to masculinity norms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S1), 270-285.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

Ruigrok, A. N., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M. C., Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M. V., Tait, R. J., & Suckling, J. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39, 34-50.

Schmitt, D. P. (2015). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are… it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221-256). Springer.

Szkrybalo, J., & Ruble, D. N. (1999). “God made me a girl”: Sex-category constancy judgments and explanations revisited. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 392-402.

Zosuls, K. M., Miller, C. F., Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2011). Gender development research in Sex Roles: Historical trends and future directions. Sex Roles, 64(11-12), 826-842.