Does Cognitive Reflection Predict Children's Gender Stereotyping and Essentialism?
Location
FA-202
Department
Psychology
Abstract
Children as young as five endorse gender stereotypes and essentialist beliefs about gender (e.g., girls like pink because it is in their DNA). Adults that continue to strongly endorse such beliefs are more likely to engage in gender-biased and prejudicial behaviors. Thus, understanding the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the development and persistence of gender stereotyping and essentialism is critical for addressing gender inequities in STEM and beyond. Research in adults has highlighted intuitive (vs. reflective) as a possible mechanism of stereotyping and essentialism. However, the relationship between intuitive vs. reflective thinking and children’s beliefs about gender is poorly understood. Here we ask if cognitive reflection, a measure of reflective over intuitive thinking, predicts children’s thinking about gender stereotypes, gender essentialism, and gender inequality. U.S. children ages 5-12 years old (N = 97, study in progress) participated over Zoom. Children completed measures of cognitive reflection, gender stereotyping, gender essentialism, and explanations of gender inequality. Preliminary analyses suggest that children with greater cognitive reflection endorse fewer gender stereotypes, hold fewer essentialist beliefs about gender, and favor external/structural explanations of gender inequality. These preliminary findings suggest that variation in intuitive vs. reflective thinking may predict variation in children’s gender cognition. These results will enhance our understanding of how cognitive factors underlie children’s social decision making. Furthermore, this study may highlight cognitive reflection as a potential vehicle for reducing harmful gender stereotypes, bias, and prejudice.
Faculty Sponsor
Andrew Young, Northeastern Illinois University
Faculty Sponsor
Ruth (Breckie) B. Church, Northeastern Illinois University
Does Cognitive Reflection Predict Children's Gender Stereotyping and Essentialism?
FA-202
Children as young as five endorse gender stereotypes and essentialist beliefs about gender (e.g., girls like pink because it is in their DNA). Adults that continue to strongly endorse such beliefs are more likely to engage in gender-biased and prejudicial behaviors. Thus, understanding the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the development and persistence of gender stereotyping and essentialism is critical for addressing gender inequities in STEM and beyond. Research in adults has highlighted intuitive (vs. reflective) as a possible mechanism of stereotyping and essentialism. However, the relationship between intuitive vs. reflective thinking and children’s beliefs about gender is poorly understood. Here we ask if cognitive reflection, a measure of reflective over intuitive thinking, predicts children’s thinking about gender stereotypes, gender essentialism, and gender inequality. U.S. children ages 5-12 years old (N = 97, study in progress) participated over Zoom. Children completed measures of cognitive reflection, gender stereotyping, gender essentialism, and explanations of gender inequality. Preliminary analyses suggest that children with greater cognitive reflection endorse fewer gender stereotypes, hold fewer essentialist beliefs about gender, and favor external/structural explanations of gender inequality. These preliminary findings suggest that variation in intuitive vs. reflective thinking may predict variation in children’s gender cognition. These results will enhance our understanding of how cognitive factors underlie children’s social decision making. Furthermore, this study may highlight cognitive reflection as a potential vehicle for reducing harmful gender stereotypes, bias, and prejudice.