Women Role Models in Childrens Literature Scholarly Reviewed

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Commodity

60 years of gender representation in children'south books: Conditions associated with overrepresentation of male person versus female person protagonists

• Kylee Novick,
• Stella F. Lourenco

Sixty years of gender representation in children'south books: Conditions associated with overrepresentation of male versus female protagonists

• Kennedy Casey,
• Kylee Novick,
• Stella F. Lourenco

x

• Published: December 15, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0260566

Figures

Abstract

As a reflection of prominent cultural norms, children's literature plays an integral function in the conquering and development of societal attitudes. Previous reports of male overrepresentation in books targeted towards children are consistent with a history of gender disparity across media and society. Nonetheless, it is unknown whether such bias has been adulterate in recent years with increasing accent on gender equity and greater accessibility of books. Here, we provide an up-to-date estimate of the relative proportion of males and females featured equally single protagonists in three,280 children's books (0–16 years) published betwixt 1960–2020. We find that although the proportion of female protagonists has increased over this 60-year menses, male protagonists remain overrepresented fifty-fifty in contempo years. Importantly, we also find persistent effects related to author gender, age of the target audition, character type (human vs. not-human), and volume genre (fiction vs. non-fiction) on the male-to-female ratio of protagonists. We suggest that this comprehensive account of the factors influencing the rates of appearance of male and female protagonists can be leveraged to develop specific recommendations for promoting more than equitable gender representation in children's literature, with important consequences for child development and club.

Citation: Casey K, Novick K, Lourenco SF (2021) Sixty years of gender representation in children'due south books: Weather condition associated with overrepresentation of male versus female protagonists. PLoS ONE sixteen(12): e0260566. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0260566

Editor: Jennifer Steele, York University, CANADA

Received: Apr 1, 2021; Accustomed: Nov 12, 2021; Published: December 15, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Casey et al. This is an open admission article distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted apply, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data and materials are publicly available on the Open up Science Framework (https://osf.io/97gfk/).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this piece of work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Despite roughly equal numbers of males and females across the world's population [1], women are underrepresented in a variety of consequential domains. For instance, men outnumber women in STEM disciplines [2, 3], politics [4, five], and tiptop-ranking corporate jobs [half dozen]. Such male overrepresentation is especially pervasive in media, including primetime telly programming and telly commercials [7, viii], virtual platforms [nine, 10], and sports news coverage [eleven]. Oftentimes referred to as 'symbolic annihilation', disproportionate gender representation negatively impacts women (and men akin) by sustaining explicit and implicit biases against the female gender and diminishing women's sense of self-worth and belonging [12].

Symbolic annihilation is also readily apparent in media targeted towards children, where the negative consequences on cocky-worth and belonging may exist especially detrimental [13]. Accumulating bear witness suggests that, in children'southward literature, male characters are more than prevalent than female characters [xiv–20], including in titles and illustrations [21]. In the largest study to date, McCabe et al. [22] examined the gender representation of central characters equally indicated past the title, volume description, and/or storyline. Their analysis included 5,618 books published betwixt 1900 and 2000 from three sources: Caldecott honour-winning books, Little Gilt Books, and the Children's Catalog. McCabe and colleagues plant that male person protagonists were overrepresented compared to female protagonists across all sources. There was some improvement in the frequency of female characters across the twentieth century, merely even the more recent books in their sample (i.e., 1990–1999) depicted male characters with greater frequency (male-to-female ratio ≈ ane.2:1).

Importantly, McCabe and colleagues too plant that specific book features affected the proportion of male and female key characters. In particular, the gender bias was larger when cardinal characters were depicted as non-human animals instead of humans, or as adults instead of children. In another study, Hamilton et al. [23] examined the role of author gender on the proportion of male person and female protagonists. Across a sample of 200 children'due south books published between 1995 and 2001, they reported that female authors depicted male and female person characters in comparable numbers, whereas male authors overrepresented male characters. Such findings are consistent with a broader literature suggesting that women are paramount in promoting multifariousness. For instance, female role models in Stalk encourage more than female person representation [24, 25], and the presence of women in key positions, including hiring and colloquium committees, improves institutional operation and results in more diverse employees and speakers [26].

Other studies, notwithstanding, have failed to find an effect of author gender on gender representation of characters in children's books [27–29], raising questions about the robustness of this potential moderator. It is worth noting that these studies included books published prior to 1995, during which fourth dimension female person authors may have been underrepresented [xv]. Thus, information technology is an open question whether author gender impacts the gender bias in children's books, every bit might be expected, and importantly, to what extent such an effect may accept changed over time, particularly in more recent years when the number of female authors is likely to have grown.

The differential frequency of male and female characters in media might be less consequential if the accompanying content counteracted the asymmetric numbers. Nevertheless, studies examining the content of children'southward literature report stereotypical portrayals of male and female characters [17, 30]. For case, males are more probable to be the bread-winners across a broad range of professions and to be depicted outdoors and as adventurous. Past contrast, females are typically depicted indoors and as filling domestic roles, such as performing household chores and caring for children [23, 29, 31, 32].

Despite ample evidence of gender bias in children'southward books prior to 2000, there is a dearth of testify mail 2000. Moreover, the evidence that does exist mail 2000 is contradictory, with some data suggesting little or no comeback in the frequency of female characters [33] and other data suggesting that the numbers of male and female characters accept reached parity [34]. A potential explanation for the discrepancy is that these studies have been limited in scope, with potentially confounding variables, such as character type and author gender, not deemed for in the analyses. Previous studies have also typically focused on honour-winning books or restricted their sample to only those books available in a single library or school [eastward.k., 23, 32, 35], potentially leading to unrepresentative estimates of gender distribution.

Present report

In addition to the impact on reading ability and language development [36], children'south books take long been considered an important source of enculturation [37, 38]. With increasing accessibility of children'due south books [39], questions related to trends in gender representation are of special importance, especially if we are to empathize the early forces of gender bias and how all-time to overcome their cognitive and affective consequences. Thus, the present study sought to provide an updated account of the gender representation in the literature targeted towards children within the concluding 60 years: 1960 to 2020, with a particular focus on books published post 2000 and on books featuring a single protagonist to let for direct comparison of the rates of advent of male person versus female key characters.

In club to obtain a representative sample of the books available to children, nosotros analyzed books accessible online for hard copy buy or digital reading. This arroyo was used to approximate widespread trends in gender representation across the sixty-year period of interest, and it is an arroyo that overcomes limitations of previous studies, which have typically restricted their analyses to laurels-winning titles or books bachelor in a specific library or schoolhouse setting. Although the current approach does not guarantee a direct link to reading rates, it nevertheless addresses a disquisitional question near publication—namely, whether books featuring male versus female protagonists are more likely to be published. Addressing this question is a crucial first step in increasing our understanding of gender bias and the potential impact on cognitive and emotional evolution.

As noted above, previous research points to the importance of considering moderating variables when characterizing bias in the representation of cardinal characters. We would fence that the potential influence of moderators is especially critical when considering trends across time. Post-obit previous research, we analyzed potentially relevant variables, including author gender (male person vs. female) and character type (human vs. non-human). Nosotros as well included age of the target audience as well as book genre (fiction vs. non-fiction), which, to our knowledge, accept not been previously examined. Books targeted to children include those suitable for infants and immature toddlers, which may feature more than non-human than homo characters and may more often exist fiction than non-fiction. Given other research suggesting that males are overrepresented when characters are non-human, at least in fiction, the prediction was that books targeted to young children might be less equitable in the representation of male person and female person characters than books targeted to older children, which could be particularly consequential for our agreement of the early roots of gender biases.

To summarize, the primary aims of the present study were two-fold: (1) to provide an upwardly-to-appointment gauge of the rates of gender representation in books published within the final two decades, relative to earlier years; and (ii) to examine the result of potential moderators of gender representation across this timeframe. Past analyzing trends in the publication of books featuring male versus female person protagonists over the last 60 years, while besides considering the influence of previously unexamined variables, such as historic period of the target audience and book genre, we tin ameliorate understand where (if at all) progress towards gender parity has been nigh successful and identify where future work may be needed to achieve equitable gender representation in children's books.

Method

All information and materials are publicly bachelor on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/97gfk/). We study all measures nerveless, forth with exclusion information below.

Procedure

Web search.

We conducted an entirely spider web-based analysis of the gender representation of central characters in children'due south books published betwixt 1960 and 2020. In order to obtain a large, representative sample of books available to children, we included titles from a variety of sources: award winners, best sellers from summit retailers at the time of drove (eastward.thousand., Amazon and Barnes & Noble), specific recommendations to parents or teachers, and publishing catalogs. As an indicator of representativeness, at that place is substantial overlap between the current sample and existing children's book corpora, including all titles from the Wisconsin Children's Book Corpus [30] and the Montag corpus [forty], every bit well as over 300 titles from the Infant Bookreading Database [41].

Inclusion criteria.

Post-obit the convention established in previous work [e.thousand., 22], nosotros restricted the present analyses to simply those books with a unmarried identifiable protagonist. We chose to maintain this approach considering this is arguably the most blatant indicator of gender bias in publication, and when because the potential influence on children's perception of gender in children's books, the impact of a single gender is more straightforwardly interpreted than the genders of multiple characters. Contempo work suggests that the cardinal grapheme's gender strongly influences young children's learning of gender stereotypes [42], while the relative influence of multiple gendered characters has not been established. Additionally, we only included books for which the gender of the book author was identifiable and matched for all authors if at that place was more than than one (see below for details).

Our search parameters included books, primarily written in English language (<1% written in multiple languages) and bachelor for purchase in the The states, that: (one) featured a single protagonist, (two) were published betwixt 1960 and 2020, and (3) were targeted to children ranging in age from 0 to 16 years. All search queries were conducted in Summer 2019 and yielded half dozen,580 unique hits from 67 sources (come across OSF for links). However, a large proportion of books (n = two,998) captured by these sampling methods failed to run across our pre-defined inclusion criteria, most often due to the fact that the books featured multiple central characters (n = ii,801) or were published exterior the 60-year window of involvement (n = 196). For transparency, we written report the full list of these unanalyzed titles (run across OSF).

Boosted exclusions were required for the following reasons: ungendered primal character (due north = 161), multiple authors with different genders (n = 68), ungendered writer (n = 37), indeterminable writer gender (n = iii), adult target age range (n = one), or indeterminable target age range (n = 33). Thus, the final sample consisted of 3,280 children'south books published betwixt 1960 and 2020 with either a male or female fundamental character (come across OSF for full dataset). The sample includes multiple books in a given serial. This decision was made to account for the fact that the central character could theoretically alter across publications (e.m., The Baby-Sitter's Club). The majority of books (n = two,638) were published in the year 2000 or later, ensuring an upward-to-date sample. Given the range of publication dates, the size of our dataset was comparable to that of McCabe et al. [22], currently the largest study on gender representation of central characters in children'due south books.

Coding

Of the titles coming together inclusion criteria for analysis (n = 3,280), nosotros coded for: (one) gender of primal character, (2) publication year, (iii) gender of book writer, (iv) age of target audition, (5) character type (human vs. non-human being), and (6) book genre (fiction vs. non-fiction).

Coding decisions for each variable were made based on information provided in the title, description, forepart or dorsum cover, and/or dust jacket. As needed, further clarification was sought from the book itself (when freely accessible online), or additional Google searches were conducted to supplement the data constitute in the book description (eastward.g., to make up one's mind writer gender if pronouns were not provided or to determine the original publication year if the book was a reprint edition). A detailed description of the coding guidelines is available on OSF, and a breakdown of the characteristics of our sample by variable of involvement is provided in Table 1.

Gender of fundamental character.

Later identifying each book's protagonist (i.e., the character highlighted in the book description and/or featured in the book title), the primal character's gender was categorized every bit male person or female based on available information. Critically, gender coding was based solely on textual data, as in previous research. We avoided reliance on visual cues since gender judgments from illustrations are specially susceptible to cultural assumptions likewise equally personal conceptions of gender stereotypicality [15]. Gender coding decisions were fabricated based on normative understandings of gendered nouns (eastward.thousand., boy, girl) and pronouns (east.one thousand., he, she). If no explicit, text-based gender identification was provided other than the name of the character, then we determined gender based on whether the proper name was usually recognized as masculine or feminine (as done past [23]). For instances in which the central grapheme's name was gender-ambiguous, where no proper name was provided, or where the character was ungendered or identified as non-binary, books were excluded from further assay (north = 161, or 2.45% of the dataset).

Publication year.

Nosotros coded publication year as the original publication date. In the instance of reprints, the publication twelvemonth was coded equally the original, so long as the author and content of the volume did non change in the newer edition. Conversely, for adaptations of classic stories, the latest publication year was coded, and author credit was given to the adapter, rather than the original writer, since more contempo publications could involve updates to the gender of the protagonist or other variables of interest (east.m., graphic symbol type or target audition). Every bit noted to a higher place, all books were published or reprinted between 1960 and 2020.

Gender of volume author.

As for the gender of the key grapheme, author gender was coded as male or female according to the gender pronouns, and if necessary, based on the writer's name. For books with multiple authors, books were excluded from all analyses if both male person and female individuals held authorship (n = 68, or 1.03% of the dataset) merely were retained if all authors identified with the aforementioned gender. For books where the author was listed as a publishing company or an organisation, or when the writer used gender-neutral pronouns, books were excluded from farther assay (n = 40, or 0.61% of the dataset). Illustrator gender was not coded since the present investigation relied solely on textual information to examine gender representation.

Age of target audition.

Nosotros coded the minimum and maximum age of children (in years) for which the book was recommended. Nosotros and then characterized target audience using six age groups and determined coding according to the minimum age recommendation since some sources used the form 'Ten and upward' to specify the target age range: infant/toddler (0 to 2 years), preschool (3 to five years), early on elementary (half-dozen to 8 years), middle elementary (ix to 10 years), belatedly elementary (11 to 12 years), and teen (13 to 16 years). All analyses reported below apply minimum historic period to categorize target audience grouping, though the results are qualitatively similar when categorized co-ordinate to the average of the minimum and maximum ages, or when historic period is instead treated as a continuous variable. Because of the smaller number of books for teens in our sample, as a robustness cheque, we ran all analyses on the full gear up (including teens) and the subset of books targeted to children under historic period 13. All reported effects agree when the books for teens are excluded, unless otherwise indicated.

Character type.

Character type was coded as either human or non-human. Post-obit [43], the non-homo category not only included animals but also inanimate objects (e.g., vehicles, toys, plants).

Genre.

Genre was coded as either fiction or not-fiction. Coding was determined based on the explicit genre nomenclature (when provided), or based on the presence of fantastical elements (fiction) versus facts about a real-life individual or stories based on true events (non-fiction).

Reliability

The primary coder performed the initial exclusion and coded all remaining titles. To ensure satisfactory coding reliability, a randomly selected thirty% of books meeting inclusion criteria were re-coded past a second coder, bullheaded to the primary coder's responses. Inter-rater reliability was high (α > 0.90 for all variables of involvement). Additionally, the second coder re-coded a randomly selected 30% of excluded books to confirm reliability in determining whether books met inclusion criteria for analysis (α > 0.95). Discrepancies were resolved past discussion between the 2 coders. Additional mediation past a third political party was but needed for iii items.

Results

Descriptive analyses

In preliminary analyses, we examined whether the distribution of children'south books for the variables of interest varied across time. Binomial logistic regression revealed that the proportion of female authors, relative to male authors, increased between 1960 and 2020 (B = 0.02, Z = five.04, p < .001, OR = one.02, 95% CI = [1.01, 1.02]; Fig 1A) and so, as well, did the proportion of non-fiction books, relative to fiction (B = 0.04, Z = viii.48, p < .001, OR = ane.04, 95% CI = [1.03, 1.05]; Fig 1B). The proportion of books targeted to older children (ages ix+), compared to younger children, did not vary during this time catamenia (B = 0.004, Z = 0.98, p = .327, OR = one.004, 95% CI = [1.00, 1.01]; Fig 1C), nor did the proportion of books with human versus non-human protagonists (B = 0.005, Z = 1.53, p = .127, OR = ane.005, 95% CI = [1.00, 1.01]; Fig 1D).

Fig ane. Proportion of (A) books authored by females compared to males, (B) non-fiction books compared to fiction books, (C) books targeted to older children (ages 9+) compared to younger children, (D) books featuring homo protagonists compared to non-human protagonists.

Private points reflect proportion estimates for each year. Shaded regions show standard errors of binomial logistic regression model fits.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0260566.g001

These analyses also revealed that the books written by male authors included relatively more non-human characters than did books written by female authors (B = 0.61, Z = 6.98, p < .001, OR = 0.55, 95% CI = [0.46, 0.65]; S1A Fig). There were also more non-homo characters in fiction (B = 2.60, Z = eleven.77, p < .001, OR = 13.44, 95% CI = [eight.94, 21.33]; S1B Fig) and in books targeted to younger children (B = one.32, Z = xviii.07, p < .001, OR = 3.74, 95% CI = [2.25, 4.32]; S1C Fig).

Male person-to-female ratio of protagonists across time

In subsequent analyses, we addressed our start question of interest: has the gender representation in children's books become more equitable over time? A binomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the ratio of male to female cardinal characters changed significantly over the sampled time frame, such that the proportion of male protagonists decreased between 1960 and 2020, reflecting a trend towards parity, B = -0.02, Z = -iv.63, p < .001, OR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.98, 0.99] (Fig two). Because a disquisitional contribution of the nowadays written report was the examination of gender representation in books published post 2000, we also ran this assay on this near recent subset of books. In the time period from 2000 to 2020, we found the same significant trend towards parity, suggesting that progress towards equitable representation has continued rather than plateaued in the last two decades, B = -0.02, Z = -3.35, p < .001, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.96, 0.99]. Nonetheless, female person protagonists remain underrepresented in the most recently published books (male person-to-female ratio = one.22:1 for the last decade, and 1.12:ane for the terminal five years).

Fig two. Change in the proportion of male person protagonists across the lx-year publication flow.

Private points reflect proportion estimates for each year. The dotted line at 0.5 denotes parity. The shaded region shows the standard error of the binomial logistic regression model fit.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0260566.g002

Moderators of the male-to-female person ratio of protagonists

The next set of analyses targeted our second question of interest by examining the extent to which author gender (male person vs. female), target audience (historic period of children), character type (human being vs. non-human), and genre (fiction vs. non-fiction) affected the male-to-female ratio of central characters. First, we tested whether each variable independently predicted the male person-to-female ratio. A binomial regression model with the iv potential moderators as predictors (publication year not included in this analysis) revealed a meaning effect for each of the variables tested. Our results conspicuously demonstrated that the male-to-female person ratio was larger for books authored by men compared to women, B = 1.27, Z = 15.63, p < .001, OR = 3.57, 95% CI = [3.05, 4.20] (Fig 3A). As in previous studies, we also constitute that the male-to-female ratio was larger when the primal character was not-human being compared to homo, B = 0.96, Z = 10.01, p < .001, OR = 2.60, 95% CI = [2.16, iii.15] (Fig 3B). We establish a larger male-to-female ratio for non-fiction compared to fiction books, B = 0.29, Z = 3.46, p < .001, OR = ane.33, 95% CI = [1.13, 1.57] (Fig 3C). Moreover, we found that the male person-to-female ratio was larger for books targeted to younger children than older children, B = -0.xiii, Z = -3.86, p < .001, OR = 0.88, 95% CI = [0.83, 0.94] (Fig 3D). Encounter the next set of analyses for additional context in relation to these main furnishings.

Fig 3. Ratio of male to female person protagonists across all variables of interest: (A) author gender, (B) character blazon, (C) genre, and (D) target audience.

The dotted line reflects parity (one:1 male person-to-female ratio). Fault bars denote 95% confidence intervals for ratio estimates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260566.g003

We then tested a binomial logistic regression model with all iv moderators (i.e., author gender, target audience, character blazon, genre) and publication yr included as predictors. These analyses revealed four pregnant 2-way interactions, described in particular below. No other two- or 3-mode interactions reached statistical significance (all ps >.05). Notably, these null interactions included those with publication year, suggesting persistent furnishings of the moderators of the male person-to-female ratio across fourth dimension.

First, we found a significant 2-way interaction betwixt author gender and target audition, B = 0.39, Z = 4.64, p < .001, OR = one.48, 95% CI = [1.26, 1.76] (Fig 4A). Male authors overrepresented male protagonists across all age groups, and there was a trend of increasing male overrepresentation as a role of the age of the target audience in books authored by males, though this outcome did non reach statistical significance (B = 0.11, Z = one.81, p = .071, OR = 1.12, 95% CI = [0.99, 1.27]). Conversely, female authors showed significantly less male overrepresentation as the age of the target audience increased (B = -0.25, Z = -5.88, p < .001, OR = 0.78, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.84]).

Fig four. Proportion of male protagonists every bit a function of: (A) author gender and age of the target audience, (B) author gender and character type, (C) genre and grapheme type, and (D) genre and historic period of the target audience.

The dotted line at 0.5 denotes parity. Error confined denote 95% conviction intervals for proportion estimates.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0260566.g004

Second, there was a meaning ii-way interaction between author gender and character blazon, B = 0.52, Z = ii.35, p = .019, OR = 1.68, 95% CI = [1.09, 2.59] (Fig 4B). Male authors depicted more male protagonists regardless of character type (male-to-female ratio: human being = 2.95:1, χ² = 107.98, p < .001; non-human = 4.nineteen:1, χ² = 66.87, p < .001). By contrast, female authors just showed male overrepresentation for non-human protagonists (two.27:1, χ² = 17.75, p < .001). When the characters were human, they depicted more female protagonists (0.75:1, χⁱⁱ = 28.32, p < .001).

Third, there was a meaning two-way interaction between character blazon and genre, B = 1.64, Z = 3.54, p < .001, OR = 5.xiii, 95% CI = [two.06, 12.86] (Fig 4C), such that in that location was male overrepresentation in fiction but only if the characters were non-human (male-to-female ratio = three.09:1, χ² = 93.24, p < .001). Importantly, there was too male overrepresentation in non-fiction when the characters were human (1.73:1, χ² = 28.02, p < .001). By contrast, there was gender parity in fiction when the characters were man (0.95:one, χ² = 0.51, p = .473) and in not-fiction when the characters were not-human (one:i, χ² = 0.00, p = one.00).

Fourth, there was a meaning two-style interaction between genre and target audience, B = 0.20, Z = 2.01, p < .001, OR = 1.22, 95% CI = [ane.26, ane.76] (Fig 4D). The overrepresentation of male protagonists in non-fiction increased every bit age of the target audience increased, though this consequence did non reach statistical significance (B = 0.15, Z = ane.79, p = .074, OR = one.16, 95% CI = [0.99, 1.36] except when books for teens were excluded from the assay (B = 0.21, Z = 2.34, p = .019, OR = 1.23 [one.04, 1.47]). Nevertheless, male protagonists tended to exist overrepresented in fiction books targeted to younger children, and overrepresentation decreased equally the age of the target audience increased (B = -0.21, Z = -5.65, p < .001, OR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.75, 0.87]).

Moderators across time

The same effects did not bespeak any interactions with publication year, suggesting stability of these furnishings across time. Nonetheless, these previous analyses do not address whether the individual moderators were associated with reduced male overrepresentation beyond time, as suggested past the main effect of publication year (Fig 2). To this end, nosotros examined each moderator, and the corresponding interactions, beyond time. Moreover, as a robustness check, and given the focus of the nowadays written report, nosotros also conducted all subsequent analyses on the subset of books published betwixt 2000 and 2020. The reported effects concord for the well-nigh recent decades unless otherwise indicated.

Start, to better understand the consequence of author gender, we compared male and female person authors when books were written for younger versus older children (Fig 5A) and when the books involved homo versus non-human protagonists (Fig 5B). We found that, across fourth dimension, both male and female authors decreased their overrepresentation of male characters in books targeted to younger children, but only the effect for male authors reached statistical significance (B = -0.02, Z = -ii.52, p = .012, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.97, 1.00]). However, in more recent years (i.eastward., 2000–2020), only female authors were found to significantly subtract their overrepresentation of male characters in books for younger children. Although male authors consistently overrepresented male characters in books for older children across the unabridged 60-year period, female authors decreased their overrepresentation of male person characters in these books over fourth dimension (B = -0.03, Z = -2.76, p = .006, OR = 0.97, 95% CI = [0.95, 0.99]). Additionally, nosotros found that simply female person authors significantly decreased their overrepresentation of male human characters across fourth dimension (B = -0.01, Z = -2.32, p = .021, OR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.98, 1.00]); however, this effect did non agree when books targeted to teens were excluded from this analysis. Neither male nor female authors significantly decreased their representation of male non-human characters, but when books targeted towards teens were excluded from this analysis, we constitute a pregnant trend towards parity for male person authors (B = -0.02, Z = -1.96, p = 0.0499, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.96, 0.99]) and a marginal tendency for female authors (B = -0.02, Z = -1.77 p = 0.077, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.95, 1.00]). Altogether, these analyses revealed that the changes over fourth dimension were largely consistent for male person and female person authors. The master difference is that female authors showed less male overrepresentation, except when writing books featuring non-human central characters.

Fig 5. Proportion of male protagonists over time as a function of: (A) author gender (male vs. female person) and age of the target audience (younger children: 0–eight years vs. older children: ix+ years), (B) author gender and graphic symbol type (human vs. not-human), (C) genre (fiction vs. non-fiction) and character type, and (D) genre and target audience.

The dotted line at 0.five denotes parity. The shaded regions show standard errors of binomial logistic regression model fits.

https://doi.org/x.1371/periodical.pone.0260566.g005

Side by side, nosotros farther examined the effect of book genre. Nosotros compared fiction and non-fiction books when they involved human being versus non-homo characters (Fig 5C) and when the target audience was younger versus older children (Fig 5D). We found that, beyond fourth dimension, overrepresentation of male person characters in fiction books significantly decreased for human (B = -0.02, Z = -4.73, p < .001, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.97, 0.99]) and non-human being characters (B = -0.02, Z = -2.45, p = .014, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.97, 1.00]), simply these furnishings did non hold when considering only the subset of books published within the final 2 decades. By dissimilarity, overrepresentation of male characters in non-fiction books, both human and non-human, did not decrease significantly across the entire 60-twelvemonth period, though there was a pregnant decrease in male person overrepresentation in non-fiction books featuring human characters when only considering the terminal two decades (B = -0.03, Z = -two.35, p = 0.019, OR = 0.97, 95% CI = [0.94, 0.99]). We found a similar event of book genre in relation to age of the target audience, where only changes for fiction books reached statistical significance for the entire 60-year period. That is, male overrepresentation decreased in fiction books for both younger (B = -0.02, Z = -4.21, p < .001, OR = 0.985, 95% CI = [0.98, 0.99]) and older children (B = -0.02, Z = -two.63, p = .008, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.96, 0.99]) across the last 60 years, though the effect for younger children did not hold in the near recent subset of books (i.e., 2000–2020). Birthday, these analyses revealed that trends across fourth dimension were largely consistent in fiction and non-fiction books, only that statistically significant changes in gender representation were seen simply in fiction books beyond the total 60-year menses.

Give-and-take

How has gender representation changed in the last 60 years?

Our findings demonstrate that the male person-to-female ratio of central characters has improved in the children'south books published between 1960 and 2020. During this time, there has been an increasing tendency towards parity, though male protagonists remain overrepresented compared to female protagonists. Our findings are consequent with other inquiry suggesting androcentrism in media, even post 2000 [44].

Importantly, we also found that particular combinations of writer gender, target audience, character type, and genre impacted the male person-to-female ratio throughout this 60-year period. Previous studies have investigated character type and writer gender, but the touch on of book genre and target audience on gender representation has remained largely unexplored. Our findings reveal of import effects of all the variables of interest. We constitute that non-human characters are overrepresented as male, but only in fiction books, though overrepresentation has decreased beyond time. Moreover, human characters are also overrepresented as male person, at to the lowest degree in non-fiction books. Thus, it appears to be the combination of graphic symbol type and genre that results in meaning male overrepresentation, rather than graphic symbol blazon or genre lonely.

Finally, although previous findings have suggested that female authors stand for male person and female person characters at equitable rates [23, 34], no study to engagement has discussed the interaction between writer gender and other important variables, namely character type and target audience. Our findings revealed that male authors showed improvement in the male-to-female person ratio of cardinal characters across the 60-year period, just this was express to books targeted to younger children. Female authors besides showed improvement during this time and fifty-fifty depicted more female person protagonists, at least with human characters and in books for older children, though there was no significant improvement in books with non-man characters (where male overrepresentation remains). Taken together, the results from the electric current study suggest important multiple confluences of gender representation in children's books.

Patterns of gender representation explained

Although significant progress towards gender parity was observed, it is notable that, overall, male person protagonists accept been overrepresented in children'southward books across the terminal 60 years, betwixt 1960 and 2020. During this time, women have made neat social and economic strides. In that location accept been multiple waves of feminist movements [45], and social media has emerged equally a mechanism past which to promote feminist doctrine broadly and expediently [46]. So, why does the gender bias in the literature targeted towards children persist?

1 straightforward reason is that gender stereotypes persist in society. Even if explicit gender discrimination occurs less frequently today than in the past, implicit attitudes nearly females being submissive and less worthy than males remain pervasive [47, 48]. Consistent with this possibility is the observation that males are considered more than prototypical than females when categorizing humans [49]. Such attitudes could result in male overrepresentation in children'south books, with male person characters appearing as the default. They may besides explicate why ambiguous contexts are more than likely to exist interpreted equally male [50]. For instance, mothers refer to gender-unspecified beast characters as male person when reading or discussing books with their children [51], every bit do children themselves [52].

Persistent overrepresentation of male person characters could also exist a historical artifact. Older books, which may reflect the cultural dominance of male figures of years by, have remained popular and continue to exist published, such that the overrepresentation of male characters may reverberate an before perspective. Older books may be adapted and reprinted, and in the current dataset, some of these books were coded according to their virtually recent publication date. Time to come research should consider analyzing these books separately to determine the extent to which the reprints of older books (and persisting popularity of classic stories) contribute to continued male overrepresentation.

Another potential explanation for the greater male representation in children'south books is that books with male central characters sell better, such that publishers will be motivated to produce more books featuring male protagonists because of their wider entreatment [53]. That such books sell better is consistent with research showing that parents adopt media with male characters and believe that their sons prefer male person-oriented books [54]. Parents' preferences for books with male characters may stem from their own experience with older, classic books [55]. Additionally, parents' assumptions most their sons' preferences may come straight from boys responding more favorably to books with male characters [54, 56] and/or adults' resistance to boys engaging in stereotypically feminine activities [57].

Nonetheless some other potential reason for male overrepresentation is that it reflects linguistic properties. In English language, female is the marked (irregular) category because the braze "atomic number 26" is added to the unmarked (standard) class of "male". Thus, authors may default to using male characters because male word forms are considered the norm. Even children default to using male word forms indiscriminately [58, 59]. The challenge with the male generic is that even when intended to inclusively refer to all genders, the gender bias in prototypicality may lead people to interpret the male generic as referring specifically to males [60].

Although the aforementioned explanations practice well to account for full general male person overrepresentation in children's books, what is needed is an account that illuminates the variation across the different combinations of variables. In particular, explanations are needed for why there is greater parity for human characters when the books are fiction and for non-human characters when the books are non-fiction. Moreover, why do female authors testify greater parity than male person authors, specially in books targeted to older children and in books featuring homo protagonists?

Nosotros suggest that although there are historical, linguistic, and economic forces working in favor of male person overrepresentation, there is also cultural awareness of gender bias. With such awareness, there may be a motivation to ensure parity in the gender of children'south book characters. Notwithstanding, implementation of such parity may be more than straightforward in specific contexts. Our information point to two such contexts: with human characters in fiction and with non-man characters in not-fiction. Information technology may be easier to draw female man characters in fictional stories because authors need not adhere to real events in which there is greater prevalence of men in particular professions or scenarios. Similarly, when the stories are non-fiction, authors may take greater flexibility in representing characters when they are non-human (e.yard., past describing facts about a female person animal, such as A Mother'southward Journeying by Sandra Markle).

It is also important to note that some of the aforementioned effects depend critically on author gender. From 1960 to 2020, male authors consistently overrepresented central characters as male in books targeted to children of all ages. The overrepresentation of male person characters (e.g., superheroes) in such contexts may reflect male authors' own preferences for male fictitious characters. By dissimilarity, female authors represented the gender of protagonists more than deservedly and fifty-fifty overrepresented female characters in books targeted to older children. This trend may reflect their beliefs that older children are improve able to understand gender inequities and so may benefit from greater female person representation. Such a perspective is consistent with other research showing that women (and other minorities) play a pregnant role in promoting diverseness and may be integral in ensuring equity across genders [61].

Remaining considerations and conclusion

The underrepresentation of female characters in children'south books, and media more than generally, has been referred to equally 'symbolic annihilation' because it is believed to promote the marginalization of women and girls by suggesting that they play a less significant part in lodge. In the present study, we investigated gender disparity in children's literature in its near breathy form—the male-to-female ratio of central characters. Even so, other inquiry suggests that stereotypes permeate children'due south books at multiple levels, including text [14, 30, 62] and illustrations [32, 63]. Even when female characters announced as protagonists, they are ofttimes portrayed equally more emotional [xix, xxx], less agile [64], and less associated with Stem [63, 65]. Thus, it is not only necessary to strive for equitable representation in the numbers of male and female characters, but also for non-stereotypical depictions of these characters. In fact, recent work suggests that exposure to counter-stereotypical protagonists in books can reduce children'southward endorsement of gender stereotypes [66] and promote less stereotypical behavior [67].

A notable caveat of the present report is that our analyses do not reflect bodily reading rates. In other words, nosotros analyzed children's books available on the internet to approximate general trends in publication, just some books will be more popular than others, with variation across ages. For example, although we did not discover that the male-to-female ratio of central characters depended on an interaction between character blazon and age of the target audience, it is all the same possible that younger children are read more than books with not-human being characters than older children, and thus may experience greater exposure to male characters. Future research might rails which books children of dissimilar ages are exposed to in gild to determine the atmospheric condition under which younger and older children are differentially exposed to unrepresentative samples of volume characters.

It is also worth noting that the gender coding in the present written report was based on a strict dichotomy of male versus female. Given the express number of books with non-binary central characters, we did non formally appraise this category. However, futurity research would do well to examine trends in the representation of non-binary protagonists to better empathize gender diversity in children's books. Additionally, the present study focused only on books with a single identifiable male person or female protagonist and therefore does not address gender representation at all character levels. In future research, it will exist of import to examine the relative rates of appearance of gendered characters in shared protagonist (or supporting) roles, likewise as how these dynamics may influence children's perceptions of gender. For instance, female person characters may exist more likely to appear in stories with multiple protagonists, perchance reflecting endorsement of stereotypical beliefs about women and girls being more community-oriented [e.g., 68, 69], or may exist more likely to be featured as supporting characters [e.g., 21]. It is besides possible that patterns of representation may differ across cultural contexts [e.g., 70], highlighting a need for further characterization of gender representation in children's books from sources outside of the United States.

In conclusion, our analysis of the frequency of male and female person fundamental characters clearly demonstrates that although female representation has improved over the last 60 years, parity has not yet been accomplished in all types of books or past all authors. Moreover, and possibly surprisingly, the determinants of gender representation—author gender, target audition, character type, and volume genre—are largely unchanged over this flow. Yet, the persistence of these predictors, as indicated by the present study, provides crucial data about where disparities in gender representation remain. Cognition of these effects may allow publishers and authors to increase their sensation of the susceptibility to gender bias and strive to achieve gender disinterestedness in children's books. Even before trends in publication reach parity, cognition of these effects may help parents and educators to select less biased samples of books for individual children.

Supporting data

S1 Fig. Proportion of not-human protagonists in (A) books authored past males vs. females, (B) fiction vs. not-fiction books, and (C) books targeted to specific age ranges of children.

Fault bars denote 95% confidence intervals for proportion estimates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260566.s001

(TIF)

References

1. 1. United nations, Department of Economic Social Affairs. World population prospects 2019. United Nations; 2019.
2. 2. Rivers E. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. National Science Foundation. 2017.
3. 3. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM. Women in academic scientific discipline: A changing mural. Psychological scientific discipline in the public interest. 2014;15(3):75–141. pmid:26172066
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Heck IA, Santhanagopalan R, Cimpian A, Kinzler KD. Understanding the developmental roots of gender gaps in politics. Psychological Research. 2021;32(2):53–71.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Hessami Z, da Fonseca ML. Female political representation and substantive effects on policies: A literature review. European Journal of Political Economic system. 2020;63:101896.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Johns ML. Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational barriers preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Perspectives in Wellness Data Management/AHIMA, American Wellness Information Management Association. 2013;ten(Wintertime).
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Peruta A, Powers J. Look who's talking to our kids: Representations of race and gender in TV commercials on Nickelodeon. International Journal of Advice. 2017;xi:16.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Sink A, Mastro D. Depictions of gender on primetime television: A quantitative content assay. Mass Communication and Society. 2017;twenty(ane):3–22.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. nine. Sivak East, Smirnov I. Parents mention sons more often than daughters on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019;116(6):2039–41. pmid:30670653
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Williams D, Martins N, Consalvo M, Ivory JD. The virtual census: Representations of gender, race and age in video games. New media & gild. 2009;11(5):815–34.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Sainz-de-Baranda C, Adá-Lameiras A, Blanco-Ruiz K. Gender differences in sports news coverage on Twitter. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(14):5199. pmid:32708468
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Tuchman 1000. The symbolic anything of women by the mass media. Culture and politics: Springer; 2000. p. 150–74.
13. xiii. Peterson SB, Lach MA. Gender stereotypes in children'south books: Their prevalence and influence on cognitive and affective evolution. Gender and teaching. 1990;two(ii):185–97.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Clark R, Guilmain J, Saucier PK, Tavarez J. Ii steps forward, one pace back: The presence of female characters and gender stereotyping in award-winning pic books between the 1930s and the 1960s. Sex Roles. 2003;49(9):439–49.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. fifteen. Well-baked T, Hiller B. "Is this a boy or a girl?": Rethinking sex-role representation in Caldecott Medal-winning picturebooks, 1938–2011. Children'southward Literature in Education. 2011;42(3):196.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Grauerholz Due east, Pescosolido BA. Gender representation in children'south literature: 1900–1984. Gender & Society. 1989;3(ane):113–25.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Anderson DA, Hamilton Thou. Gender office stereotyping of parents in children's picture books: The invisible male parent. Sexual activity roles. 2005;52(3):145–51.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Lee JF, Chin Air-conditioning. Are females and males deservedly represented? A report of early readers. Linguistics and Teaching. 2019;49:52–61.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Tepper CA, Cassidy KW. Gender differences in emotional linguistic communication in children'southward picture books. Sex roles. 1999;40(three):265–80.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Weitzman LJ, Eifler D, Hokada E, Ross C. Sex-role socialization in picture books for preschool children. American journal of Sociology. 1972;77(6):1125–50. pmid:5067725
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Brugeilles C, Cromer I, Cromer South, Andreyev Z. Male and female characters in illustrated children's books or how children's literature contributes to the construction of gender. Population. 2002;57(2):237–67.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. McCabe J, Fairchild E, Grauerholz L, Pescosolido BA, Tope D. Gender in twentieth-century children's books: Patterns of disparity in titles and cardinal characters. Gender & society. 2011;25(2):197–226.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Hamilton MC, Anderson D, Broaddus Thousand, Young Thousand. Gender stereotyping and under-representation of female characters in 200 popular children's picture books: A 20-first century update. Sex activity roles. 2006;55(11):757–65.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Bettinger EP, Long BT. Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of teacher gender on female person students. American Economic Review. 2005;95(ii):152–7.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger Yard, McManus MA. STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women's cocky-concept in scientific discipline, engineering science, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of personality and social psychology. 2011;100(2):255. pmid:21142376
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Noland Yard, Moran T, Kotschwar BR. Is gender diversity assisting? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper. 2016;(16–3).
27. 27. Heintz KE. An examination of sex and occupational-role presentations of female person characters in children's picture books. Women's studies in Communication. 1987;10(two):67–78.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Kolbe R, La Voie JC. Sex-part stereotyping in preschool children'southward picture show books. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1981:369–74.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Tognoli J, Pullen J, Lieber J. The privilege of place: Domestic and work locations of characters in children's books. Children's Environments. 1994:272–lxxx.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Lewis G, Borkenhagen MC, Antipodal Due east, Lupyan G, Seidenberg MS. What might books be teaching immature children nigh gender? 2020.
31. 31. Adams M, Walker C, O'Connell P. Invisible or involved fathers? A content analysis of representations of parenting in immature children's picturebooks in the Great britain. Sex roles. 2011;65(three–4):259–70.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Crabb PB, Marciano DL. Representations of fabric culture and gender in award-winning children'southward books: a 20-year follow-up. Journal of Inquiry in Childhood Education. 2011;25(4):390–viii.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Yello N. A contact assay of Caldecott medal and honor books from 2001–2011 examining gender problems and equity in 21st century children'south picture books. 2012.
34. 34. Clark R, Kessler J, Coon A. Women and girls final?: Female person visibility in children's picture books past White, Black, Latino, and gay-sympathetic authors. International Review of Modern Sociology. 2013:111–31.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Filipović 1000. Gender representation in children's books: Case of an early babyhood setting. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2018;32(three):310–25.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Noble C, Sala One thousand, Peter Grand, Lingwood J, Rowland C, Gobet F, et al. The touch on of shared book reading on children's language skills: A meta-assay. Educational Research Review. 2019;28:100290.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Pull a fast one on M. Politics and literature: Chasing the "isms" from children'southward books. The reading teacher. 1993;46(8):654–viii.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Horst JS, Houston-Toll C. An open book: What and how young children acquire from picture and story books. Frontiers in psychology. 2015;6:1719. pmid:26617549
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. McGeown SP, Osborne C, Warhurst A, Norgate R, Duncan LG. Understanding children'due south reading activities: Reading motivation, skill and kid characteristics as predictors. Journal of research in reading. 2016;39(1):109–25.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Montag JL, Jones MN, Smith LB. The words children hear: Picture books and the statistics for language learning. Psychological science. 2015;26(nine):1489–96. pmid:26243292
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Hudson Kam CL, Matthewson 50. Introducing the infant bookreading database (IBDb). Journal of Child Language. 2017;44(6):1289–308. pmid:27804892
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Seitz 1000, Lenhart J, Rübsam N. The furnishings of gendered data in stories on preschool children'due south development of gender stereotypes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2020;38(3):363–xc. pmid:32056261
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Berry T, Wilkins J. The gendered portrayal of inanimate characters in children'southward books. Journal of Children's Literature. 2017;43(2):four–xv.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Shor E, Van De Rijt A, Miltsov A, Kulkarni 5, Skiena S. A paper ceiling: Explaining the persistent underrepresentation of women in printed news. American Sociological Review. 2015;80(five):960–84.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Evans East, Chamberlain P. Critical waves: Exploring feminist identity, soapbox and praxis in western feminism. Social Movement Studies. 2015;xiv(4):396–409.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Zimmerman T. # Intersectionality: The Fourth Wave Feminist Twitter Community. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Civilization & Social Justice. 2017;38(i):54–70 PDF.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Field A, Tsvetkov Y. Unsupervised discovery of implicit gender bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:200408361. 2020.
48. 48. Storage D, Charlesworth TE, Banaji MR, Cimpian A. Adults and children implicitly acquaintance luminescence with men more than than women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2020;90:104020.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Bailey AH, LaFrance M, Dovidio JF. Implicit androcentrism: Men are human, women are gendered. Periodical of Experimental Social Psychology. 2020;89:103980.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Gaetano J, Van Der Zwan R, Oxner Thousand, Hayward WG, Doring N, Blair D, et al. Converging evidence of ubiquitous male person bias in man sex activity perception. PloS one. 2016;11(ii):e0148623. pmid:26859570
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. DeLoache JS, Cassidy DJ, Carpenter CJ. The three bears are all boys: Mothers' gender labeling of neutral picture book characters. Sex Roles. 1987;17(three):163–78.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Lambdin JR, Greer KM, Jibotian KS, Wood KR, Hamilton MC. The brute = male person hypothesis: Children's and adults' beliefs virtually the sexual practice of non–sex-specific stuffed animals. Sex Roles. 2003;48(11):471–82.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Rider EA. Our voices: Psychology of women: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 2000.
54. 54. Wagner L. Factors influencing parents' preferences and parents' perceptions of kid preferences of picturebooks. Frontiers in psychology. 2017;8:1448. pmid:28919869
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Anderson J, Anderson A, Shapiro J, Lynch J. Fathers' and mothers' volume selection preferences for their four twelvemonth former children abstract. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts. 2001;41(4):i.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Connor JM, Serbin LA. Children's responses to stories with male person and female characters. Sex Roles. 1978;4(5):637–45.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Kane EW. "No way my boys are going to be like that!" Parents' responses to children's gender nonconformity. Gender & Gild. 2006;20(2):149–76.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Arthur AG, White H. Children's assignment of gender to animal characters in pictures. The Journal of genetic psychology. 1996;157(3):297–301. pmid:8756894
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Boloh Y, Ibernon Fifty. Gender attribution and gender agreement in 4-to 10-year-old French children. Cognitive Development. 2010;25(ane):one–25.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
60. 60. Miller MM, James LE. Is the generic pronoun he even so comprehended every bit excluding women? The American periodical of psychology. 2009:483–96. pmid:20066927
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Glass C, Cook A. Practise women leaders promote positive modify? Analyzing the consequence of gender on business practices and diversity initiatives. Human Resources Management. 2018;57(4):823–37.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Charlesworth TE, Yang V, Mann TC, Kurdi B, Banaji MR. Gender stereotypes in natural language: Discussion embeddings bear witness robust consistency across kid and adult language corpora of more than 65 million words. Psychological Scientific discipline. 2021;32(2):218–40. pmid:33400629
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Caldwell EF, Wilbraham SJ. Hairdressing in space: Delineation of gender in science books for children. Journal of Scientific discipline & Popular Culture. 2018;1(2):101–xviii.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Turner-Bowker DM. Gender stereotyped descriptors in children's movie books: Does "Curious Jane" exist in the literature? Sex roles. 1996;35(7):461–88.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Axell C, Boström J. Technology in children'south picture books as an agent for reinforcing or challenging traditional gender stereotypes. International journal of engineering science and design education. 2021;31(1):27–39.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Kneeskern EE, Reeder PA. Examining the affect of fiction literature on children's gender stereotypes. Current Psychology. 2020:1–14.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Pruden SM, Abad C. Practice storybooks really break children's gender stereotypes? Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;iv:986.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Block K, Gonzalez AM, Schmader T, Baron Every bit. Early gender differences in core values predict anticipated family unit versus career orientation. Psychological Science. 2018;29(nine):1540–7. pmid:29932827
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Diekman AB, Brown ER, Johnston AM, Clark EK. Seeking congruity betwixt goals and roles: A new await at why women opt out of science, technology, applied science, and mathematics careers. Psychological scientific discipline. 2010;21(eight):1051–7. pmid:20631322
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
70. lxx. Raman P, Harwood J, Weis D, Anderson JL, Miller Yard. Portrayals of older adults in US and Indian magazine advertisements: A cantankerous-cultural comparison. The Howard Periodical of Communications. 2008;nineteen(3):221–40.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

phillipswhilich.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260566

Share this post