modifying children’s gender-typed musical instrument … · p1: gra/gcy p2: gcv/lov qc: fzn/lov...

P1: GRA/GCY P2: GCV/LOV QC: FZN/LOV

Sex Roles [sers] pp436-sers-369962 March 7, 2002 15:40 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos. 9/10, November 2001 ( C© 2002)

Modifying Children’s Gender-Typed MusicalInstrument Preferences: The Effectsof Gender and Age1

Samantha PickeringUniversity of Sydney

Betty Repacholi2Macquarie University

Previous research has indicated that children display gender-typed musicalinstrument preferences. Two studies were conducted to determine (a) whetherthese preferences can be modified by presenting counter-examples (i.e., in-struments played by gender-inappropriate musicians) and (b) whether childgender or age (kindergarten vs. 4th grade) influences the efficacy of such in-terventions. A videotape presentation format was employed in Study 1 anddrawings in Study 2. Children exposed to counter-examples were less stereo-typed than those who saw the instruments without musicians (Study 1) or withgender-appropriate musicians (Studies 1 & 2). Age did not influence children’sresponsiveness to the counter-examples, but boys were more resistant to theintervention than girls. There was some evidence that the counter-exampleswere effective not simply because children were attracted to same-sex musi-cians. Instead, children’s instrument choices also appeared to be motivated bya desire to avoid behaving like musicians of the other-sex. Potential strategiesfor increasing children’s responsiveness to instrument counter-examples (e.g.,multiple exemplars; portrayal of positive consequences) were also discussed.

KEY WORDS: gender; stereotypes; children; musical instruments.

1Portions of this research were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Researchin Child Development, April 1999, Albuquerque, USA.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Center for Mind, Brain & Learning,University of Washington, Box 357988, Seattle, Washington, USA, 98195; e-mail: [email protected].

623

0360-0025/01/1100-0623/0 C© 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation



624 Pickering and Repacholi

A variety of factors influence our musical instrument preferences such asthe instrument’s size, weight, shape, pitch, timbre, and loudness (Gordon,1991; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996). In addition to the physical properties of theinstrument, various inter- and intrapersonal variables have been implicated,including peer group influences (Alpert, 1980), the media (Shehan, 1979), thebiases of authority figures (Dorow, 1977), personality (Hyden, 1980, citedin Byo, 1991), and intelligence (Kuhn, 1980). One of the more consistentresearch findings has been the role of gender. A number of studies havedemonstrated that adults categorize musical instruments as “masculine” or“feminine” and prefer those instruments that are consistent with their owngender (e.g., Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Griswold &Chroback, 1981). These instrument stereotypes not only influence people’smotivation to learn to play a particular instrument, but may also limit theavailability and scope of their music education, effect their participation inmusical ensembles, and, more importantly, restrict their career opportunities.

There is also a growing body of research demonstrating that children’smusical instrument preferences are gender-typed and congruent with adultstereotypes. For instance, in a study by Abeles and Porter (1978),kindergarten-fifth-grade children were shown pictures and heard the tapedsounds of eight instruments. Children were then asked to indicate which in-strument they would most like to play. Kindergarten boys and girls tendedto select “masculine” instruments (drum, trombone, trumpet, saxophone).With increasing age, however, girls’ preferences moved towards feminine-typed instruments (flute, violin, clarinet, ’cello) and stabilized at aroundGrades 3 and 4. Boys’ preferences, on the other hand, remained relativelystable over time. Delzell and Leppla (1992) likewise reported gender-typedpreferences in fourth-grade children who were simply shown pictures ofthese instruments. In addition, boys’ selections were very limited, with themajority wanting to play either the drum or saxophone. Although the mostpopular choice for girls was the flute, they were much broader in their pref-erences than boys. Using drawings once again, O’Neill and Boulton (1996)asked 9- and 11-year-old children to rank-order their preferences for learn-ing to play six instruments. The piano, flute, and violin were ranked morehighly by girls than by boys, whereas the guitar, drum, and trumpet wereranked more highly by boys. Gender-typed instrument preferences have alsobeen reported in high school students. For example, Crowther and Durkin(1982) found that 12–18-year-old girls ranked the recorder as their top choice,whereas for boys, the guitar was their most preferred instrument. In this age-range, however, there was a great deal of overlap, with both sexes rankingthe piano second and the clarinet third. In summary, there is substantial evi-dence that children in Grade 3 and beyond are gender-typed in their musicalinstrument preferences. Younger children have received far less attention,



Gender-Typed Instrument Preferences 625

and it remains unclear whether they likewise associate gender with musicalinstruments.

The fact that children are aware of, and influenced by, these instrumentstereotypes is cause for concern, especially with regard to vocational inter-ests and opportunities. To date, however, only a few studies have systemat-ically attempted to modify children’s gender-typed instrument preferences.Such efforts have typically involved the presentation of counter-examples,in which instruments are played by musicians who contradict the adult gen-der stereotype. Bruce and Kemp (1993), for instance, manipulated musiciangender in a series of concerts given to 5–7-year-old children. At the conclu-sion of the concert, each child was allowed to approach one of the musiciansand look at their instrument. Regardless of the instrument being played,children tended to approach same-sex musicians. For example, in one con-cert, 14.5% of the boys looked at the violin when it was played by a malecompared to 3.5% of boys attending a concert in which this instrument wasplayed by a female. Similarly, 23.5% of girls examined the trombone whenthe musician was female, but only 1.5% did so when it had been played bya male. Because each instrument was presented with a musician during thetest phase, it is impossible to determine whether children were actively se-lecting a preferred instrument, a preferred musician, or some combinationof the two. Moreover, because this testing was conducted in groups, childrenmay have avoided certain instruments and/or musicians for fear of beingostracized by their peers. Finally, without a control group, it was impossibleto determine whether such young children had already acquired the genderstereotypes for these instruments.

Harrison and O’Neill (2000) likewise manipulated the gender of liveadult musicians in an attempt to change 7–8-year-old children’s instrumentpreferences. Children initially rank-ordered their preferences for learningto play a set of six instruments. Two weeks later, they attended a concertwith musicians playing either gender-consistent (e.g., a female playing a vi-olin) or gender-inconsistent instruments (e.g., a female playing a trumpet).Instrument preferences were obtained in the classroom immediately afterthe concerts. A control group received no concert, and these children weresimply asked to rank-order their preferences once again. The most rele-vant finding was that girls showed less preference for the piano after seeingit played by a male, and boys showed less preference for the guitar afterseeing a female play this instrument. However, a closer inspection of thepostconcert preferences reveals that the counter-examples had minimal im-pact on children’s overall preferences. Boys in the gender-inconsistent groupranked all three masculine instruments above the feminine ones and rankedthem in the same order as boys in the gender-consistent group. In addition,girls in the gender-inconsistent group still ranked the flute and violin more




highly than the masculine instruments, despite the former being played by amember of the other sex. The limited efficacy of the intervention may havebeen due, in part, to methodological problems. For instance, children wereexposed to the musicians and made both sets of instrument rankings withina group context. Thus, they were vulnerable to peer influence. In addition,different pieces of music were played on different instruments (e.g., themefrom “Star Wars” on the trumpet; an Irish jig on the flute). In some instances,then, the music itself may have influenced children’s instrument preferences.Finally, as noted by the authors, the counter-examples might have been moreeffective had peer musicians been employed. It is well-documented that, atleast in middle childhood, children are more likely to imitate a peer than anadult model (Schunk, 1987).

Building on previous research, one aim of this study was to determinewhether kindergarten children are gender-typed in their musical instrumentpreferences and similar to fourth-grade children. Because these youngerchildren have only recently started formal schooling, it is likely that they havehad less exposure to such stereotypes relative to the older group. However,child gender also needs to be taken into account. For example, boys tend to bemore gender-typed in their toy and activity preferences than girls (Martin& Little, 1990; Turner, Gervai, & Hinde, 1993). Moreover, there is someevidence to suggest that boys’ preferences become increasingly masculineduring middle childhood, whereas girls often become more flexible in theirpreferences (Archer, 1984; Etaugh & Liss, 1992; Katz & Boswell, 1986).Therefore, in this study, it was expected that fourth-grade boys would bemore stereotyped in their instrument preferences than kindergarten boys,but older girls would be less stereotyped than their younger counterparts.

A second aim was to determine whether children’s instrument pref-erences can be influenced by exposure to counter-stereotyped musicians.Few researchers have directly addressed this question, and methodologicalconcerns have limited their conclusions. Study 1 was specifically designedto address these issues. Firstly, children were individually tested, such thatinstrument exposure and selection occurred in the absence of peers. As a con-sequence, it was not feasible to have each child observe live musicians, and sovideotapes were employed. Videotaped counter-examples have been usedwith other gender-typed stimuli (e.g., leisure or domestic activities), albeitwith varying degrees of success (see Durkin, 1985, for a review). Secondly,unlike previous studies, the musicians were high-school students rather thanadults. Participants’ age-mates could not be employed because they wouldnot have been sufficiently proficient at playing the instruments. Although themusicians were not peers, it was still possible that children would be more re-sponsive to adolescent than to adult models. For instance, they might believethat the behavior of a high-school student is more personally relevant than




that of an adult. Finally, the same piece of music was played on all instru-ments to minimize the influence of music style on children’s preferences.With these modifications in place, it was expected that children exposedto counter-examples would be less likely to select a gender-consistent in-strument than those who saw either stereotyped musicians or instrumentswithout musicians (i.e., a control group).

An additional aim was to explore whether child gender and/or age havean impact on the efficacy of counter-examples in the domain of musical in-struments. It has been reported that kindergarten children and adolescentstend to be less tolerant of gender-role transgressions than children in middlechildhood (Stoddart & Turiel, 1985). Consistent with this, studies presentingcounter-examples for occupations, domestic chores, and various other activ-ities (e.g., Durkin & Hutchins, 1984; Pingree, 1978) indicate that children aremost receptive to such materials during middle childhood and less so dur-ing adolescence. The findings have been mixed with kindergarten children,and it remains unclear whether they are less responsive to counter-examplesthan older children (Jeffery & Durkin, 1989). In the present study, it washypothesized that fourth graders would be more likely than kindergartenchildren to select a gender-inconsistent instrument when it had previouslybeen played by a same-sex musician. There is also evidence that boys aremore resistant to counter-examples than girls (e.g., Ashton, 1983; Durkin &Hutchins, 1984), presumably because of differential gender-role socializa-tion pressures (Katz & Walsh, 1991). Thus, it was predicted that boys wouldbe less likely than girls to select a gender-inconsistent instrument after seeingit played by a same-sex musician.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

A total of 314 children were recruited from public elementary schoolsin the Sydney metropolitan area. The mean age of the kindergarten sample(77 males, 79 females) was 5 years, 9 months (SD = 3.72, range = 5,1–6,5).The mean age of the fourth-grade sample (79 males, 79 females) was 9 years,7 months (SD = 3.18, range = 9,1–10,8). Children with physical disabilitiesthat might influence their instrument choice (e.g., a missing finger, hearingdifficulties) were not included in the study. About 70% of the children wereCaucasian, and the remainder were typically from Asian, Middle-Eastern,or Indian backgrounds. Participating schools were located in middle-classneighborhoods (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1998).




Materials

Eight musical instruments were employed. In a pilot study, four of theseinstruments (flute, violin, clarinet, ’cello) were identified by Australian adultsas being feminine and the remaining four (drum, saxophone, trumpet, trom-bone) were identified as masculine. This classification of instruments is con-sistent with previous research conducted in North America and England(e.g., Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Griswold & Chroback,1981). The musicians were eight male and eight female high-school students,ranging in age from 14 to 17 years. The males wore identical school uniformsand likewise the female students. Each student was videotaped as they indi-vidually played one of the eight instruments. The students had comparablemusical ability, as assessed by both the school music teacher and the firstauthor (a semiprofessional musician). All of the musicians played an adap-tation of the same first four bars of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in G Minor, which lastedabout 15 s. Three videotapes were then created, each consisting of four fem-inine and four masculine instruments. These instruments were presented inthe same random order in each videotape.

Four male and four female musicians were individually presented inthe “stereotyped” video. Each female played one of the feminine instru-ments whereas the males were shown playing a masculine instrument. Themusician–instrument pairings were reversed in the “counter-stereotyped”video. For example, a male played the violin and a female played the trumpet.The third videotape was employed as a “control.” The same eight instru-ments were sequentially presented and the same piece of music was heardfrom each. However, each instrument was displayed against the same yellowbackground, without a musician. Each videotape lasted about 3 min andbegan with a female voice stating, “This is a tape of lots of musical instru-ments. Listen to the names of the instruments and the sounds they make.”As each instrument was presented, it was named by the same voice (“Thisis a . . .”) and then played. The actual musical instruments were present inthe testing room and lined up in the same order as they appeared on thevideotape. During the videotape presentation, the participant’s chair wasplaced so that, if desired, the child could match each videotaped instrumentwith its real counterpart.

Procedure

Children were individually tested by a female researcher, in a roomseparate from their regular classroom. Another adult (usually a male) wasalways present because of child protection requirements for conducting




research in public schools. At the start of the testing session, children wereasked to name the musical instruments that they played. They were thentold that they would be watching a videotape showing lots of musical in-struments. Children in each gender- and age-group were randomly assignedin roughly equal numbers to one of the three videotape conditions. Afterwatching their assigned videotape, children were asked to look closely atthe set of instruments and to point to the one they would most like to play.Children were then briefly allowed to examine and attempt to play theirselected instrument.

Results

Self-Report Data: Instruments Played by Children

Not surprisingly, twice as many fourth-grade children (boys, 32%; girls,44%) reported that they played a musical instrument in comparison to theyounger age-group (boys, 15.5%; girls, 19%). Across the three videotapeconditions, similar proportions of same-age, same-sex children played musi-cal instruments. The instrument most frequently played by kindergarten girlswas the piano. There was no one instrument favored by the kindergartenboys, instead, the recorder, piano, and drum were equally represented. Agreater variety of instruments were played by children in the older age-group, but, once again, girls tended to play the piano more than any otherinstrument. As in the younger age-group, a number of instruments (piano,trumpet, clarinet, guitar) were equally popular among the fourth-grade boys.

Only a small proportion of the sample reported that they played any ofthe instruments employed in the study. However, children in the older age-group (boys, 18%; girls, 18%) named these instruments more frequentlythan did those in the kindergarten group (boys, 8%; girls, 2.5%). Childrenrarely selected an instrument that they already played (control, 1%, n = 1;stereotype, 3%, n = 3; counter-stereotype, 3%, n = 3).

Instrument Preferences in the Control Group

Instrument choice in the control group was initially analyzed to deter-mine whether children exhibited gender-typed instrument preferences. Theproportion of children who selected a gender-consistent instrument is dis-played in Table I. Overall, it was found that control group children weremore likely to select a gender-consistent than gender-inconsistent instru-ment, .69 vs. 31, χ2(1, n = 105) = 14.49, p < .001. In this group, the mostfrequently selected instrument for boys was the drum (31%), whereas for




Table I. The Proportion (and Number) of Children Selecting Gender-Consistent Instrumentsas a Function of Videotape Group, Age, and Gender

Kindergarten 4th grade

Girls (N = 26) Boys (N = 26) Girls (N = 26) Boys (N = 26)

Control—no musician .73 (19) .73 (19) .52 (14)a .77 (20)Gender stereotype .54 (14) .69 (18) .62 (16) .85 (23)a

Counter-stereotype .44 (12)a .64 (16)b .31 (8) .73 (19)a N = 27.bN = 25.

girls it was the violin (38%). As demonstrated in Table II, control groupboys did not exhibit a narrower range of instrument choices than controlgroup girls.

Hierarchical log-linear analysis was used to determine whether, as pre-dicted, gender and age influenced children’s instrument preferences in thecontrol group. A backward elimination procedure was initiated with the fullysaturated model involving the three-way interaction between child gender,age, and instrument choice (i.e., gender-consistent vs. gender-inconsistent).The procedure then removed effects in the model that produced the least-significant chi-square changes until the best-fitting model for the controlgroup data was found (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, for an overview ofthis procedure). This analysis failed to reveal any age or gender main ef-fects. Although the Predicted Age×Gender interaction was not significant,

Table II. The Proportion (and Number) of Children Selecting Specific Instruments as a Functionof Videotape Group, Age, and Gender

Flute Violin Clarinet ’Cello Sax Trumpet Trombone Drum

ControlK-boys .12 (3) .15 (4) — — .12 (3) .19 (5) .15 (4) .27 (7)K-girls .19 (5) .46 (12) .08 (2) — .08 (2) — — .19 (5)4th-boys — .19 (5) .04 (1) — .19 (5) .19 (5) .04 (1) .35 (9)4th-girlsa .15 (4) .30 (8) .07 (2) — .19 (5) .11 (3) — .19 (5)

StereotypeK-boys .12 (3) .15 (4) .12 (3) — — .19 (5) .08 (2) .35 (9)K-girls .23 (6) .31 (8) — — .08 (2) .12 (3) — .27 (7)4th-boysa .04 (1) .11 (3) — — .22 (6) .15 (4) — .48 (13)4th-girls .08 (2) .39 (10) .15 (4) .08 (2) .08 (2) .08 (2) — .15 (4)

Counter-stereotypeK-boysb — .24 (6) .04 (1) .08 (2) .16 (4) .16 (4) .12 (3) .20 (5)K-girls a .07 (2) .37 (10) — — .07 (2) .19 (5) — .30 (8)4th-boys .12 (3) .04 (1) .08 (2) .04 (1) .04 (1) .15 (4) .04 (1) .50 (13)4th-girls .15 (4) .12 (3) — .04 (1) .46 (12) .15 (4) .04 (1) .04 (1)

a N = 27.bN = 25.




it is noteworthy that about half of the fourth-grade girls selected a gender-inconsistent instrument, whereas only 25% of the kindergarten children andfourth-grade boys displayed such preferences.

Instrument Preferences as a Function of Videotape Condition,Child Gender, and Age

The complete dataset was subsequently analyzed to explore whetherchildren’s instrument choices were influenced by the videotape manipula-tion. Once again, hierarchical log-linear analysis was conducted with thefully saturated model involving the four-way interaction between instru-ment choice, type of videotape, child gender, and age. A backward elimi-nation procedure revealed that the model best fitting the data included theGender × Instrument Choice and Videotape × Instrument Choice interac-tions, χ2(16, n = 314) = 11.60, p = .77. These effects were further analyzedusing a series of chi-squares, and the Bonferroni correction was applied tomaintain α at the .05 level. All tests were two-tailed, except in those in-stances where the original hypothesis was directional. Collapsing across ageand type of videotape, boys were more likely to select a gender-consistentinstrument than were girls, .72 versus .54, χ2(1, n = 314) = 11.71, p < .001.As predicted, children exposed to counter-examples were less likely tochoose gender-consistent instruments than those in the stereotyped group,.53 versus .68, χ2(1, n = 209) = 4.74, p = .015, one-tailed. In contrast, theproportion of children selecting gender-consistent instruments was virtu-ally identical in the stereotyped (.68) and control groups (.69). A potentialanomaly was evident, however, in the responses of kindergarten girls. Al-though the final model did not include a four-way interaction, these youngergirls tended to be more gender-typed in the control than in the stereotypedcondition.

Log-linear analysis was also used to test specific predictions about howage and gender would influence the efficacy of the counter-examples. Con-sistent with the overall analysis, the best-fitting model for the counter-stereo-typed condition included the Gender × Instrument Choice interaction, butnot the predicted age effects, χ2(4, n = 104) = 1.59, p = .81. Post hoc analy-sis revealed that it was not merely the case that boys were more gender-typedthan girls in this condition. Despite their exposure to the counter-examples, asignificant proportion (.69) of the boys preferred the masculine instruments,χ2(1, n = 51) = 7.01, p < .01. Moreover, as in the control and stereotypedconditions, the drum remained the most popular among the boys (35%)(see Table II).




Discussion

When presented with a set of musical instruments and no musicians,Australian children as young as 5 years of age displayed gender-typed pref-erences. The most popular choice among boys was the drum, whereas forgirls it was the violin. Adults rate the drum as most masculine and the violinas the second most feminine among this set of eight instruments (Abeles& Porter, 1978; Delzell & Leppla, 1992). Therefore, in this study, childrenwere not only selecting gender-appropriate instruments, but they also tendedto prefer those at the extreme end of the masculine–feminine continuum.Gender-typing was less extreme when children were asked to name the in-struments that they actually played. This is not surprising given that youngchildren may learn to play a particular instrument not because they wantto, but as a result of factors such as parental pressure, their music teacher’sadvice, or the instruments that are readily available at home/school.

Although previous research has indicated that children in third gradeand beyond display gender-typed musical instrument preferences, the find-ings have been less clear-cut with younger children. Moreover, there hasbeen some suggestion that kindergarten children generally prefer masculine-typed instruments. This was not apparent in the current study, and method-ological differences may account for these conflicting results. The currentfindings suggest that, at least for younger children, the procedures employedin Study 1 provide a more sensitive measure of gender-typed instrumentpreferences.

Although not statistically significant, it is noteworthy that about half ofthe fourth-grade control girls selected a masculine instrument. This trend isconsistent with previous research (e.g., Katz & Boswell, 1986) demonstratingthat girls become increasingly flexible during middle childhood. While thereis less social pressure for girls to engage in gender-appropriate activities, thisflexibility may also be due to a growing awareness that males have greaterstatus and power (Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). Replication of thestudy with a larger sample size is required to confirm the existence of thisAge × Gender interaction.

The main analysis revealed that children in the counter-stereotypedcondition were less likely to select a gender-typed instrument than those inthe control and stereotyped conditions. Thus, a brief exposure to musiciansplaying gender-inconsistent instruments appears to be sufficient to modify,at least in the short term, children’s instrument preferences. Kindergartenand fourth-grade children were equally receptive to the counter-examples,but more detailed analysis revealed that boys were less influenced by themanipulation than girls. This latter finding was not unexpected, given thatboys experience stronger social pressure to engage in gender-stereotyped




activities than girls and receive more negative feedback when they per-form cross-gender activities (Fagot & Hagan, 1991; Martin, 1990).

One further issue to consider here is whether children’s prior experiencewith playing the instruments had any impact on their responsiveness to thecounter-examples and their instrument preferences in general. Only a smallnumber of children reported that they played any of the instruments thatwere presented in the study. However, regardless of the videotape condition,these children rarely selected the instruments that they already played, in-stead, they appeared to be more interested in having an opportunity to playone of the other, more novel instruments. Despite having fewer instrumentsto choose from (i.e., 7 instead of 8), this subset of children still appeared tobe influenced by the instrument stereotypes and/or musician gender. Thus,to minimize the effects of experience, it is important to provide a variety ofmusical instruments, rather than just one masculine- and one feminine-typedexample.

Interestingly, exposure to musicians playing gender-consistent instru-ments did not increase the rate of gender-typed responding. Instead, col-lapsing across age and gender, the proportion of gender-typed responses wasvirtually identical in the control and stereotyped conditions. Thus, once chil-dren have acquired gender-typed instrument preferences, musician gendermay only be salient when it conflicts with such preferences and/or children’sknowledge about instrument stereotypes. The low rate of gender-typed re-sponding for kindergarten girls in the stereotyped, relative to the controlcondition, is difficult to reconcile with such an account. Further research istherefore needed to determine whether this anomaly is both replicable andstatistically significant.

Although the counter-examples were successful in modifying girls’ in-strument choices in particular, the mechanism underlying this effect remainsto be identified. Is it merely the case that gender-consistent instruments aremade aversive by pairing them with other-sex musicians (i.e., rejection ofother-sex models)? Are children now accepting the gender-inconsistent in-struments because they have been played by same-sex musicians (i.e., attrac-tion to same-sex models)? Or, is it a combination of the two? In this study,the data can be explained equally well by either or both of these processes,and it is impossible to tease apart their individual contribution.

STUDY 2

This second study was conducted (a) to determine whether counter-examples are effective when the presentation format is simplified and (b) asa preliminary exploration of how counter-examples might exert their effect.




In terms of the first aim, little is currently known about the range of condi-tions under which counter-examples influence children’s preferences. For in-stance, can instrument preferences be manipulated using very simple stimulilike the line-drawings commonly featured in children’s books? It is conceiv-able that counter-examples have little impact when presented in this format,partly because there is less information available about the appearance andother physical qualities of the instrument. More important, however, chil-dren might be more prone to treat this type of counter-example as fictionaland unrelated to how people behave in the real world (e.g., “girls don’treally play the trumpet”). Regardless of whether a counter-stereotyping ef-fect could be obtained with this presentation format, it was hypothesizedthat boys would be less likely to select gender-inconsistent instruments thangirls in the counter-stereotyped condition. Moreover, based on the results ofStudy 1, it was predicted that the boys would display an overall preferencefor the masculine-typed instruments, despite their exposure to the counter-examples. Once again, both kindergarten and fourth-grade children wererecruited to determine whether age would influence the efficacy of this typeof counter-example.

An additional (“same-sex”) condition was included to explore the basisof any counter-stereotyping effect. As previously noted, counter-stereotypesmay be effective, wholly or partly, because they create an aversion to in-struments played by other-sex musicians (i.e., the gender-consistent instru-ments). If so, then removal of these other-sex musicians should substantiallyreduce the efficacy of the counter-examples. When all the musicians are ofthe same sex as the child, gender-consistent instruments will remain attrac-tive and a decrease should be observed in the amount of gender-inconsistentresponding. Thus, it was predicted that children in the same-sex conditionwould display more gender-typed responding than those in the traditionalcounter-stereotyped condition. On the other hand, the same-sex conditionalso expands the range of options available to children by showing them thatall of the instruments can be played by members of their own sex. Therefore,it was expected that gender-typed responses would be less prevalent in thesame-sex than in the stereotyped condition.

Method

Participants

A total of 304 children were recruited from public elementary schools.Of these, 139 children were in kindergarten (mean age= 5 years, 10 months;SD = 4.17 months, range = 5,1–6,8) and 69 of these children were female.The remaining 165 participants were in fourth grade (mean age = 9 years,




10 months; SD = 4.6, range= 9,1–10,10) and 81 were female. As in Study 1,the majority of the children were Caucasian and the sample was drawn fromsuburbs that were predominantly middle-class.

Materials

Pictures of the eight instruments, without musicians, were obtained froma large color picture book. These pictures were presented to children in thesame order as that used in Study 1. Four sets of black-ink line drawingswere also prepared on large sheets of paper. These drawings were based onthe color pictures and were laid out in the same order. The drawings werealso to scale, enabling children to compare the size of the instruments.

In the “stereotyped” condition, each instrument was depicted as beingplayed by a musician whose gender was consistent with adult stereotypes.Unlike Study 1, the musicians depicted in these drawings were all childrenof elementary school age, rather than adolescents. The instrument–musicianpairings were reversed in the “counter-stereotyped” condition. For example,the flute was played by a boy and the drum was played by a girl. In the “same-sex” condition, all of the instruments were played by a child of the samegender as the participant. Finally, in the “control” condition, the instrumentswere presented without musicians.

Procedure

For practical reasons, children were tested as a group in their schoolclassrooms, in the presence of the class teacher (usually a female) and afemale researcher. Because a complete set of the actual instruments couldnot be obtained for this study, the researcher simply showed children theeight color pictures. Each picture was accompanied by discussion questionsto ensure that children could differentiate between the instruments. Thesequestions were as follows: how is it played, what color is it, what material is itmade of, how loud and how high can it be played. If no member of the classcould answer a particular question correctly, the answer was provided bythe researcher. After all eight instruments were presented, male and femalechildren from each age-group were randomly assigned to one of the fourdrawing conditions. Because of experimenter error, almost twice as manychildren received the control drawings compared to each of the other threeconditions. Children were asked to look carefully at all of the drawings ontheir individual sheet of paper and to circle the instrument that they wouldmost like to play. The researcher emphasized that she wanted to find outwhat each child liked and that they should not be concerned about anyother child’s sheet of paper.




Results

Instrument Preferences in the Control Group

Instrument choice in the control group was initially examined to de-termine whether children displayed gender-typed instrument preferenceswhen no musicians were presented in the drawings (see Table III). Therewas no significant difference in the proportion of control group childrenselecting a gender-consistent (.55) versus gender-inconsistent (.45) instru-ment, χ2(1, n = 112) = 1.29, p = .26. Interestingly, the drum was the mostpopular choice for control group girls (38%) as well as boys (47%).

Hierarchical log-linear analysis was conducted to determine whetherchild age and/or gender influenced instrument choice in the control group.Using a backward elimination procedure, the best-fitting model containedthe Gender× Instrument Choice interactionχ2(4, n = 112) = 6.11, p = .19.Thus, collapsing across the two age-groups, more control group boys selectedgender-consistent instruments than girls, .68 versus .42, χ2(1, n = 112) =8.02, p < .01. This gender effect was largely due to the fourth-grade boys,the only group of control children to display a significant preference forgender-appropriate instruments, χ2(n = 32) = 10.12, p < .001.

Instrument Preferences as a Function of Drawing Condition,Child Gender, and Age

A second hierarchical log-linear analysis was conducted to examinewhether children’s instrument choices were influenced by the type of drawingthey had received. The final model included the Age×Gender× InstrumentChoice and Drawing × Instrument Choice interactions, χ2(18, n = 304) =12.68, p = .81. More detailed analysis of these two effects was conducted

Table III. The Proportion (and Number) of Children Selecting Gender-Consistent Instrumentsas a Function of Drawing Group, Age, and Gender

Kindergarten 4th grade

Girls Boys Girls Boys(N = 15–18) (N = 15–18) (N = 15–18) (N = 15–18)

No model .48 (11)a .56 (14)b .38 (12)c .78 (25)c

Stereotype .73 (11) .67 (10) .88 (15) .94 (17)Counter-stereotype .53 (8) .73 (11) .44 (7) .75 (12)Same-sex .69 (11) .80 (12) .56 (9) 1.00 (18)a N = 23.bN = 25.c N = 32.




using a series of chi-squares, and the Bonferroni correction was appliedto maintain αfw = .05. As before, all tests were two-tailed, except in thoseinstances where the original hypothesis was directional.

The Age×Gender× Instrument Choice interaction indicated that chil-dren’s instrument preferences differed as a function of their age and gen-der. Thus, collapsing across the drawing conditions, fourth-grade boys weremore gender-typed than fourth-grade girls, .86 versus .53, χ2(1, n = 165) =20.78, p < .001. There was no difference, however, between the youngerboys and girls, .67 versus .59, χ2(1, n = 139) = 0.89, p = .35. In addition,kindergarten boys were less gender-typed than fourth-grade boys, χ2(1, n =154) = 7.50, p < .01, but there was no age-difference in girls’ preferences,χ2(1, n = 150) = 0.61, p = .44.

Detailed analysis of the Drawing × Instrument Choice effect revealedthat there was less gender-typed responding in the counter-stereotyped thanin the stereotyped condition, .61 versus .85, χ2(1, n = 127) = 6.40, p < .01,one-tailed. As predicted, children were more gender-typed in the same-sexthan in the counter-stereotyped condition, although this difference was onlymarginally significant, .77 versus .61, χ2(1, n = 127) = 3.65, p = .03, one-tailed. There was no significant difference in the proportion of gender-typedresponses in the same-sex and stereotyped conditions,χ2(1, n = 130) = 0.42,p = .52. Moreover, it was only in these two conditions that an overall pref-erence for the gender-consistent instruments was found (ps < .001). In thestereotyped condition, the most frequently selected instrument for boyswas the drum (49%), whereas for girls it was the flute (38%). These in-struments were likewise the most popular choices among boys (drum, 45%)and girls (flute, 28%) in the same-sex condition.

Log-linear analysis was also used to examine specific hypotheses abouthow age and gender would influence the efficacy of the counter-examples.Unlike the overall analysis, there was no age effect, and the best-fittingmodel for the counter-stereotyped condition only included the Gender ×Instrument Choice interaction, χ2(4, n = 65) = 0.36, p = .97. As predicted,boys were not only less likely to choose a gender-inconsistent instrumentthan girls, but a significant proportion (.74) preferred the masculine in-struments, χ2(1, n = 31) = 7.26, p < .01. In this condition, the drum wasthe most frequently selected instrument for both girls (26%) and boys (39%).

Discussion

There was no overall preference for gender-typed instruments whenmusicians were absent in the drawings. Indeed, only about half of thesecontrol group children circled a gender-consistent instrument. As predicted,control group boys were more gender-typed than control group girls, but




only the fourth-grade boys displayed a significant preference for the mas-culine instruments. The absence of a gender-typed preference is somewhatsurprising, given that children made their selections in a classroom context,where peer influence might be expected to increase the rate of stereotypedresponding. However, given the control group findings in Study 1, whichwere based on a similar sample size, it is unlikely that children in the sub-sequent study had not yet acquired gender-typed instrument preferences.Instead, there were some fundamental differences between the two con-trol groups that might have influenced children’s instrument choices. Forinstance, children in both studies were asked to select the instrument thatthey would “most like to play,” but those in the second study were not givenan opportunity to do so. Thus, children might be more flexible when “hypo-thetical” preferences are being measured. For example, they might believethat negative outcomes, such as criticism, are less likely to occur as a result ofcircling a gender-inappropriate instrument than if they were to actually playit. Why younger children would be more likely to subscribe to this beliefthan older children remains unclear. Moreover, such an explanation doesnot adequately account for why children were less flexible and more gender-typed in the same-sex condition.

Alternatively, the gender stereotypes may have been less salient whenthe instruments were presented in drawings with no musicians. For example,a girl might reject the trombone because it looks difficult to play or the sax-ophone might be unappealing to her because it looks cumbersome. Thesesorts of gender-relevant cues would be less apparent in drawings relativeto the videotaped and/or real instruments. However, some instruments maybe rejected not on the basis of their physical appearance, but their acous-tic properties (e.g., pitch, timbre, loudness), and these cues were absent inStudy 2. For instance, a trumpet may not look cumbersome, but the maxi-mum volume of brass instruments (and drums) is greater than that of reed(e.g., clarinet), wind (e.g., flute), and string (e.g., violin) instruments. It is alsoeasier for musicians to play brass instruments and drums loud, in comparisonto other instruments. In summary, when musicians are absent, a presenta-tion format that highlights an instrument’s gender-relevant features may beneeded to direct children’s attention to the associated stereotype.

Although instrument selection was always preceded by a brief discus-sion about the eight instruments in Study 2, the older children should havebeen more familiar with any gender-relevant features than the younger age-group. Despite this potential advantage, fourth-grade control girls still failedto display a preference for feminine instruments. This finding is congruent,however, with previous research (e.g., Katz & Boswell, 1986) indicating thatgirls often become more flexible during middle childhood, whereas boys’stereotyped responding increases.




It has been argued here that there was a methodological basis for thelack of gender-typed preferences in the control group. This proposal is fur-ther supported by the responses of children in the same-sex condition. Eachinstrument was played by a musician, and all musicians were of the samegender as the child. In essence, this created another type of control group.Although only one gender was represented in these drawings, children nowdisplayed a significant preference for gender-typed instruments. This findingis particularly striking given that fewer children were assigned to the same-sex than to the control condition. However, in the same-sex condition, halfof the musicians were depicted as playing gender-inappropriate instruments,and this conflicting information in particular may have increased the salienceof the instrument stereotypes.

One of the main aims of this second study was to determine whethercounter-examples are effective when presented in line drawings. Despite thesimplicity of the stimuli and the small sample sizes, children in the counter-stereotyped condition were less gender-typed than those exposed to stereo-typed musicians. Like their counterparts in Study 1, these children failedto display an overall preference for the gender-consistent instruments. Fur-thermore, as evident in other domains such as careers (Durkin & Hutchins,1984), boys were far less receptive to the counter-examples than girls.

So, how did this counter-stereotyped material exert its effect? Childrenmay have selected gender-inconsistent instruments because they were at-tracted to the same-sex musicians, repulsed by the other-sex musicians orsome combination of the two. The same-sex condition was included to ex-plore whether the counter-stereotyping effect is reliant, at least in part, onchildren rejecting other-sex musicians. In both the same-sex and counter-stereotyped conditions, children were presented with same-sex musiciansplaying gender-inconsistent instruments. However, in the same-sex condi-tion, these counter-examples had little impact. Instead, children displayedan overall preference for the gender-consistent instruments and were noless gender-typed than those exposed to a complete set of stereotyped draw-ings. The efficacy of the counter-stereotyped condition was therefore due,in part, to the inclusion of another type of counter-example (i.e., gender-consistent instruments played by other-sex musicians). In this condition,children selected gender-inconsistent instruments not simply because theywere attracted to same-sex musicians. It appears that their preferences werealso based on a desire to avoid behaving like the other-sex musicians.

Summary and Conclusions

The control group data in Study 1 and the same-sex condition in Study 2indicated that, by age 5, children have acquired gender-typed instrument




preferences. Moreover, as in other domains (e.g., toy preferences), boystended to be more strongly stereotyped than girls. In contrast, control groupchildren in Study 2 failed to display an overall preference for gender-typedinstruments. This latter finding highlights the importance of how children’sgender-typed instrument preferences are assessed. For instance, when theinstruments are presented in line drawings without musicians, there maybe insufficient cues available to direct children’s attention to the associatedgender stereotypes. It is also possible that some selection procedures (e.g.,circling an instrument) produce higher rates of gender-inconsistent respond-ing than others (e.g., playing an instrument) because the perceived risk islow. Therefore, to develop a simple but sensitive measure, researchers willneed to more systematically explore how different selection procedures andpresentation formats influence children’s preferences.

One of the main aims of this research was to determine whether chil-dren’s gender-typed instrument preferences could be modified by presentingcounter-stereotyped musicians. The analyses indicated that the counter-examples had an immediate impact on children’s preferences, regardlessof whether this material was presented in videotapes or line drawings. Theeffectiveness of the drawings was particularly impressive, not only becauseof their simplicity but also because children made their selection within agroup context. On the other hand, it could be argued that this type of counter-example was only effective because it was combined with a relatively low-riskselection procedure. Children may feel more comfortable circling a draw-ing of a gender-inappropriate instrument than playing it. But the formerbehavior is clearly not without some potential risk, because boys and girlsdisplayed gender-typed preferences in the same-sex and the stereotyped con-ditions. Thus, it is conceivable that this very simple type of counter-examplewould still be effective if children were instructed to play their preferredinstrument.

As to whether the counter-examples employed in each study only in-fluenced instrument preferences or also had an impact on children’s gender-related beliefs remains to be investigated. Additional research is alsorequired to determine the longevity of these counter-stereotyping effects.Various studies (e.g., Martin & Halverson, 1983; Stangor & Ruble, 1989) indi-cate that children have difficulty remembering counter-stereotyped informa-tion and may even distort such material (i.e., recall it as gender-stereotyped).Thus, the long-term efficacy of these types of interventions may depend onrepeated and prolonged exposure to counter-examples.

In both studies, boys were not only less receptive to the counter-examples than girls, but they also exhibited a significant preference forthe masculine instruments. Such strong resistance by the boys complementscounter-stereotyping studies in other domains, such as occupations and




domestic chores (Jeffery & Durkin, 1989). It is also in line with researchindicating that boys experience more negative outcomes than girls forengaging in cross-sex activities (Martin, 1990). The perceived risk associ-ated with playing, or even just circling, a gender-inappropriate instrumentwas probably much greater for the boys than for the girls. Thus, it may be thecase that boys are only responsive to counter-examples when positive conse-quences for engaging in such behavior are presented to them. Furthermore,when a stereotyped child observes a solitary same-sex musician playing agender-inconsistent instrument, it may quickly be dismissed as an excep-tion to the rule. For example, research by Bussey and Perry (1982; Perry& Bussey, 1979) has indicated that children are more likely to engage insame-sex imitation when multiple models perform the same activity, ratherthan a single model. Thus, boys in particular could benefit from exposure tomultiple examples of a counter-stereotyped behavior.

Both kindergarten and fourth-grade children were included in eachstudy to determine whether age influenced children’s responses to the in-strument counter-examples. It has been suggested that kindergarten chil-dren are generally less receptive to counter-stereotyped material than thosein the middle childhood years (Jeffery & Durkin, 1989). One explanationfor this age difference is that kindergarten children are cognitively immatureand fail to understand that gender stereotypes are social conventions ratherthan morally right (Stoddart & Turiel, 1985). However, there was no evi-dence in either study that kindergarten children were more resistant to theinstrument counter-examples than the older age-group. As noted earlier,previous attempts to modify kindergarten children’s gender-typed prefer-ences and beliefs have produced mixed results. Whether this age-group isperhaps more accepting of cross-gender behavior in some domains (e.g., mu-sical instruments) than others (e.g., occupations) remains to be investigated.Moreover, the inclusion of preschoolers in this type of study might revealstronger evidence for age-related changes in children’s responsiveness tocounter-stereotyped material.

The second study also explored the processes that underlie the counter-stereotyping effect. In general, the findings suggested that children’s instru-ment choices were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to avoid behavinglike the other-sex musicians. It was not simply the case that children wereattracted to the same-sex musicians. Girls, for example, were willing to se-lect a masculine instrument if it was played by a female musician, but onlywhen the feminine instruments were played by males. Thus, when attempt-ing to modify children’s gender-typed instrument preferences, it may notalways be sufficient to present positive role models (i.e., musicians of thesame-sex as the child playing gender-inconsistent instruments). To enhancethe counter-stereotyping effect, children may also need to be exposed to




counter-examples for the gender-consistent instruments. But in doing so, werun the risk of creating a new set of stereotypes, when the goal should beto encourage children to view these instruments as gender-neutral. Thus,an important avenue for future counter-stereotyping research is to deter-mine whether children’s preferences can be successfully modified when theyare exposed to both males and females playing each instrument. Ultimately,the message that needs to be conveyed to children is that anyone can playthese instruments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank the children and schools for participating in this research.

REFERENCES

Abeles, H. F., & Porter, S. Y. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 26, 65–75.

Alpert, J. L. (1980). The effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher approval of music onmusic selection and preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 173–186.

Archer, J. (1984). Gender roles as developmental pathways. British Journal of Social Psychology,23, 245–256.

Ashton, E. (1983). Measures of play behavior: The influence of sex-role stereotyped children’sbooks. Sex Roles, 9, 43–47.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1998). Socio-economic indexes for areas: Census 1996.Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Bruce, R., & Kemp, A. (1993). Sex-stereotyping in children’s preferences for musical instru-ments. British Journal of Music Education, 10, 213–217.

Bussey, K., & Perry, D. G. (1982). Same-sex imitation: The avoidance of cross-sex models orthe acceptance of same-sex models? Sex Roles, 8, 773–784.

Byo, J. (1991). An assessment of musical instrument preferences of third-grade children. Bulletinof the Council for Research in Music Education, 110, 21–32.

Crowther, R. D., & Durkin, K. (1982). Sex and age related differences in the musical behaviour,interests and attitudes towards music of 232 secondary school students. Educational Studies,8, 131–139.

Delzell, J. K., & Leppla, D. A. (1992). Gender associations of musical instruments and pref-erences of fourth grade students for selected instruments. Journal of Research in MusicEducation, 40, 93–103.

Dorow, L. G. (1977). The effect of teacher approval/disapproval ratios on student music se-lection behavior and concert attentiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25,32–40.

Durkin, K. (1985). Television and sex-role acquisition: 3. Counter-stereotyping. British Journalof Social Psychology, 24, 211–222.

Durkin, K., & Hutchins, G. (1984). Challenging traditional sex role in careers education broad-casts: The reactions of young secondary school pupils. Journal of Educational Television,10, 25–33.

Etaugh, C., & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult genderroles. Sex Roles, 26, 129–147.

Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R. (1991). Observations of parent reactions to sex-stereotyped behaviors:Age and sex effects. Child Development, 62, 617–628.




Gordon, G. E. (1991). Final results of a two-year longitudinal predictive validity study of theinstrument timbre preference test and the musical aptitude profile. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 89, 8–17.

Griswold, P. A., & Chroback, D. A. (1981). Sex role associations of musical instruments andoccupations by gender and major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 57–62.

Harrison, A. C., & O’Neill, S. A. (2000). Children’s gender-typed preferences for musical in-struments: An intervention study. Psychology of Music, 28, 81–97.

Jeffery, L., & Durkin, K. (1989). Children’s reactions to televised counter-stereotyped male sexrole behaviour as a function of age, sex and perceived power. Social Behaviour, 4, 285–310.

Katz, P. A., & Boswell, S. (1986). Flexibility and traditionality in children’s gender roles. Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112, 103–147.

Katz, P. A., & Walsh, P. V. (1991). Modification of children’s gender-stereotyped behavior.Child Development, 62, 338–351.

Kuhn, T. L. (1980). Instrumentation for the measurement of music attitudes. Contributions toMusic Education, 8, 2–38.

Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and tradi-tional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–165.

Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). The effects of sex-typing schemas on young children’smemory. Child Development, 54, 563–574.

Martin, C. L., & Little, J. K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typedpreferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61, 1427–1439.

O’Neill, S. A., & Boulton, M. J. (1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: Afunction of gender? Psychology of Music, 24, 171–183.

Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1979). The social learning theory of sex differences: Imitation isalive and well. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1699–1712.

Pingree, S. (1978). The effects of non-sexist television commercials and perceptions of realityon children’s attitudes about women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 262–277.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of EducationalResearch, 57, 149–174.

Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex-typing in mid-dle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (SerialNo. 232).

Shehan, P. K. (1979). The effect of the television series, Music, on music listening preferencesand achievement of elementary general music students. Contributions to Music Education,7, 51–62.

Stangor, C., & Ruble, D. N. (1989). Differential influences of gender schemata and genderconstancy on children’s information processing and behavior. Social Cognition, 7, 353–372.

Stoddart, T., & Turiel, E. (1985). Children’s concepts of cross-gender activities. Child Develop-ment, 56, 1241–1252.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.) New York:HarperCollins.

Turner, P. J., Gervai, J., & Hinde, R. A. (1993). Gender-typing in young children: Prefer-ences, behavior and cultural differences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11,323–342.

modifying children’s gender-typed musical instrument … · p1: gra/gcy p2: gcv/lov qc: fzn/lov...

Documents