European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2018

VOL. 15, NO. 4, 361–377

https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1193483

Gender stereotypes in education: Development,

consequences, and interventions
Marlene Kollmayer, Barbara Schober and Christiane Spiel
Faculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, Economy, University
of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT
Despite many efforts to increase gender fairness in education in recent years, the
issue has not yet become obsolete: Gender discrimination still exists and finds
expression in unused chances and limited action repertoires for both sexes. This
article gives an overview on existing gender differences across the lifespan before
providing explanations for these differences from a developmental perspective.
We present psychological theories of development dealing with the adoption of
gender typical preferences and behaviors in children, and draw the connection
to the role parents’ and teachers’ gender stereotypes play in this process. The
mechanisms contributing to the perpetuation of gender differences are illustrated
via empirical studies. Finally, we offer starting points for interventions to prevent
the development of these gender differences, and introduce the REFLECT program
which enhances gender competence in secondary school teachers and their
students, and a training program for kindergarten teachers as concrete examples
of such interventions.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 21 January 2016; Accepted 18 May 2016

KEYWORDS Gender discrimination; gender stereotypes; education; gender schema theory; reflective
coeducation

Introduction
The educational careers of women and men in Europe differ greatly, although
gender equality in educational institutions and in the labor market is an impor-
tant goal of the European Union, which is manifest in various efforts to promote
gender fairness (European Commission, 2015). Despite men and women, or
boys and girls, formally having the same educational opportunities, gender
differences still exist in students’ performance and motivation, in vocational
aspirations, and also in salaries and participation in different substantive fields.

CONTACT Marlene Kollmayer marlene.kollmayer@univie.ac.at Faculty of Psychology, Department

of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, Economy, University of Vienna, Universitaetsstrasse 7, Vienna
1010, Austria. Fax: +43 1 4277 8473 13. Tel.: +43 1 4277 473 13
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
362 M. Kollmayer et al.

The intention of this paper is to present and discuss explanations for these
differences from a developmental perspective. In the first section, we report a
selection of gender differences that can be seen in educational careers across
the lifespan. As explanations for these differences, we then present different
psychological theories of development dealing with the adoption of gender
typical preferences and behaviors in children, focusing on Bem’s gender schema
theory (1981). In the third section, we draw the connection from individual
gender schemas to culturally shared gender stereotypes. The concept of gen-
der stereotypes is of high importance for individual development but has not
received much attention in the field of developmental psychology; for example,
in the EJDP, founded in 2004, the term and its synonyms can be found in just four
articles. We elaborate how gender stereotypes lead to different expectations of
men and women, or boys and girls, concerning skills, personality attributes and
self-concepts. Using empirical studies, we demonstrate in the fourth section
how agents of socialization transfer these gender-stereotyped expectations to
children, resulting in the perpetuation of gender differences. As an intervention
against the (often unintentional) perpetuation of gender differences, we recom-
mend the implementation of reflective coeducation in teacher education and
present the REFLECT program and a training program for kindergarten teachers
as concrete examples of this in the last section. Finally, we draw conclusions
concerning the consequences of this research for educational systems in Europe.

Gender differences across the lifespan

In terms of school performance, findings from PISA (OECD, 2014) show that boys
perform better than girls in mathematics in most countries (average gender gap:
11 points) while in reading girls outperform boys almost everywhere (average
gender gap: 38 points). Gender differences not only occur regarding student
performance, but also regarding student motivation (for an overview see Meece,
Glienke, & Burg, 2006; Wigfield, Battle, Keller, & Eccles, 2002): For example, boys
hold higher competence beliefs than girls for mathematics and sports, even
after all relevant skill-level differences have been controlled for. By contrast,
girls have higher competence beliefs than boys for reading, English, and social
activities, and are more likely to express strong feelings of anxiety towards math-
ematics (OECD, 2014), see Figure 1. Besides performance and motivation, boys
and girls also differ in the levels of educational qualification they reach: Fewer
boys than girls successfully complete upper secondary programs (OECD, 2014).
Concerning vocational aspirations, more girls are interested in working in health
services, while more boys plan careers in engineering or computing (OECD,
2012), see Figures 2 and 3. When boys and girls become men and women and
enter the labor market, another gender difference emerges: The gender wage
gap is the unadjusted difference between male and female earnings expressed
as a percentage of male earnings. It ranges from 5.6% in New Zealand to 36.6% in
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 363

I worry that I will get poor grades in 67.2

mathematics. 55.6

I feel helpless when doing a mathematics 34.6

problem. 25.2

I get very nervous doing mathematics 34.3

problems. 26.9

I get very tense when I have to do 35.4

mathematics homework. 29.9

I often worry that it will be difficult for me in 65.3

mathematics classes. 53.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

girls boys

Figure 1. Gender differences in mathematics anxiety. OECD average percentage of students

who agreed or strongly agreed with the cited statements.

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Netherlands

United States

Luxembourg

Portugal
Estonia

Mexico
Chile
United Kingdom
Korea
New Zealand
Denmark
Germany
Japan
Austria
Switzerland

Australia

Ireland
Iceland
Canada
Israel
Brazil
OECD average
Hungary
Argentina
Belgium

Czech Republic
Italy
Slovak Republic
Norway

Spain

Slovenia

Poland
Finland

Sweden

Russian Federation
France

Turkey
Greece

girls boys

Figure 2. Percentage of 15-year-old boys and girls planning a career in engineering and
computing.

Korea, indicating that men earn higher wages than women in all OECD countries;
the OECD average gender pay gap in 2013 was 15.5% (OECD, 2015). Not only do
women earn less than men, they are also underrepresented in decision-making
positions in politics – the proportion of women amongst members of national
parliaments in EU countries was only 27% in 2013 – and economy (European
Commission, 2013, 2014). Figure 4 shows the representation of women and
men on the boards of large listed companies in the European Union in 2013.
The reported findings are just some examples for the dramatic gender dif-
ferences still occurring in educational careers. It is important to note that there
is no evidence that these differences can be explained by gender differences in
364 M. Kollmayer et al.

35

30

25

20

15

10

United States
Luxembourg

Portugal
Estonia

Mexico

Brazil
Czech Republic
Korea
Slovak Republic

Hungary
Germany
Austria

Switzerland

Belgium

Finland
Netherlands
Norway
United Kingdom
Denmark
Poland

Australia
OECD average
Japan
Italy
Spain
Slovenia
Argentina
Ireland
New Zealand
Iceland

Canada
Israel

Chile
Sweden

Russian Federation

France
Turkey
Greece

girls boys

Figure 3. Percentage of 15-year-old boys and girls planning a career in health services.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Portugal

Luxembourg

Bulgaria
Cyprus
Malta

Greek
Estonia

Romania

Poland
Ireland
Austria
Hungary
Italy
Belgium
Spain

Lithuania
Czeck Republic
UK

Slovenia
Germany
Denmark
Netherlands

Finland
Sweden
France
Latvia
Slovakia

women men

Figure 4. Representation of women and men on the boards of large listed companies, 2013.

basic abilities or in personality traits: According to Hyde (2005), who inspected

the effect sizes of 128 meta-analyses conducted on psychological gender differ-
ences, 30% of the effect sizes are in the close-to-zero range, and an additional
48% are in the small range. Moreover, while differences in interests or perfor-
mance in early childhood and the first years of schooling are small, differences
become increasingly apparent at adolescence (e.g., Evans, Schweingruber, &
Stevenson, 2002; Retelsdorf, Schwartz, & Asbrock, 2015). Thus, the reported
gender differences indicate that socialization increases gender differences in
education and leads men and women to be restricted from realizing their full
potentials. But how does it happen that girls and boys develop so differently
over the course of their educational careers? The following section deals with
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 365

the question of how children adopt gender typical preferences and behaviors
from a developmental perspective.

Development of gender differences

Children begin to show gender typical interests and behavior at an early age.
Preschoolers already associate toys, clothes, domestic appliances, occupations,
and colors with one gender or another, which is also reflected in their behavior,
preferences and personality attributes: Children tend to behave in a way cul-
ture defines as appropriate for their gender (for an overview see Berenbaum,
Martin, & Ruble, 2008). The acquisition of ‘gender-appropriate’ preferences, skills,
personality attributes, behaviors, and self-concepts is referred to as the pro-
cess of gender typing (or sex typing) within psychology. Different psychological
theories of development offer explanations about how this process is carried
out: Social learning theory highlights the explicit reinforcement of gender-ap-
propriate behavior by important others such as parents and teachers, as well
as indirect learning via observation and modeling (e.g., Mischel, 1966). In con-
trast, cognitive-developmental theory emphasizes children’s cognitions about
their own gender as the basis for gender typical preferences and behavior, and
stresses the importance of recognizing that one’s gender is stable over time
and situations for gender typing: a child knows about his/her gender before
showing gender typical behavior (Kohlberg, 1966). Both approaches have their
strengths and weaknesses, but neither can exhaustively explain the process of
gender typing (for a detailed discussion see Bem, 1983). Gender schema theory
(Bem, 1981, 1983) thus contains features of both the social learning and the
cognitive-developmental approach to gender typing. Like social learning theory,
gender schema theory assumes that gender typing is a learned phenomenon
and, hence, is neither inevitable nor unmodifiable. According to Bem, children
observe their environment, learning the various associations with masculinity
and femininity, including the physical differences between men and women,
their societal roles, the characteristics of each gender, and also how society
treats each gender. Children then adjust their behavior to align with the gender
norms of their culture, with parenting, schools, and the media serving as factors
of influence. Like cognitive-developmental theory, gender schema theory pro-
poses that children’s cognitive processing is crucial for gender typing: Children
learn to recognize and organize incoming information in gender-based cate-
gories (= gender schemas). A gender schema comprises networks of ideas and
information that filter perceptions before the child is even aware of this process
(Bem, 1981, 1983). Gender-schematic processing involves spontaneously sort-
ing objects, attributes and behaviors into masculine and feminine categories,
regardless of their differences in dimensions unrelated to gender. Individuals
also construct their self-concept within the framework of these gender-based
categories. Gender schemas are constantly changing in the course of a child’s
366 M. Kollmayer et al.

development and differ from child to child as they are constructed individually.
However, most individuals growing up in the same cultural context have similar
gender schemas, which is to a certain degree due to cultural gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes
Gender stereotypes (also called sex stereotypes, sex-role stereotypes, or gen-
der-role stereotypes) are structured sets of beliefs about personal attributes, e.g.,
interests, competences, and roles, of men and women (Ashmore & Del Boca,
1979). These socially shared beliefs have been found to be very stable over time
(Prentice & Carranza, 2003). Overall men and women are thought to differ both
in terms of achievement-oriented traits, labeled as agency or instrumentality,
and in terms of social- and service-oriented traits, labeled as communion or
expressivity (Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2008). Men are characterized as aggressive,
forceful, independent, and decisive (= agentic attributes), whereas women are
characterized as kind, helpful, beautiful, and concerned about others (= commu-
nal attributes). Due to the widespread changes in the roles and activities of men
and women, people witness violations of these gender stereotypes every day.
Nevertheless the content of gender stereotypes hasn’t changed over the years
(Prentice & Carranza, 2003). Whereas all categorical stereotypes, such as national
stereotypes, contain (presumably) descriptive information about category mem-
bers, gender stereotypes have both descriptive and prescriptive components.
The descriptive component consists of beliefs about the characteristics that
women and men do possess, whereas the prescriptive component consists of
beliefs about the characteristics that women and men should possess (Burgess
& Borgida, 1999). In other words, gender stereotypes include information about
attributes that are likely to characterize men and women and attributes that
are supposed to characterize them (Prentice & Carranza, 2003). Although the
content of the two components overlaps, the processes by which the descriptive
and prescriptive components of gender stereotypes lead to disadvantages for
men and women, or boys and girls, differ: Whereas the descriptive component
of gender stereotypes leads to disadvantages for women or men who are per-
ceived as lacking the necessary attributes to succeed in fields dominated by
the opposite gender, the prescriptive component leads to disadvantages for
women or men who violate shared beliefs about how women or men should
behave (Burgess & Borgida, 1999). Gender stereotypes concerning leadership
positions are good examples of these processes: Schein (2001) showed that
the typical successful manager is generally described as agentic. Therefore
men (also described as agentic) are seen as more suitable for such positions
than women. This phenomenon has become known as ‘think manager – think
male’. Women, who consequently display agentic traits are viewed as violating
the prescriptions of feminine niceness, again resulting in hiring discrimination
(Rudman & Glick, 2001).
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 367

Descriptive and prescriptive components of gender stereotypes lead to dif-

ferent expectations of men and women, or boys and girls, with regard to skills,
personality attributes and self-concepts. These expectations are transmitted to
children beginning with the day of their birth by parents, teachers, peers, the
media, and other agents of socialization and contribute to the development of
children’s gender schemas and consequently to boys’ and girls’ self-concepts and
available repertoires of behaviors and actions. Gender-stereotyped expectations
are often confirmed even though they are false, as expectations often lead to
self-fulfilling prophecies and to perceptual biases (see Jussim, Eccles, & Madon,
1996). In the context of education, gender-stereotyped expectations particularly
concern interests, abilities and vocational aptitudes attributed to girls and boys.
These expectations have a strong impact on girls’ and boys’ educational careers.

Gender stereotypes in education

Parents are the most important socializing agents for children before they start
attending school. They act as models, share their knowledge and expectations
and reward desired behavior (Carli & Bukkato, 2000). Parents’ influence on their
children regarding their gender schemas is particularly large when children are
between three and six years old (Gelman, Taylor, & Naguyen, 2004), and there
is a positive relationship between parents’ and children’s gender-stereotyped
cognitions (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002). We chose three empirical studies to
illustrate how parents unintentionally convey traditional gender stereotypes
to their children.
Hagan and Kuebli (2007) conducted a study on parents’ socialization of pre-
schoolers’ physical risk taking, examining 80 parent-child dyads. The 3–4.5 year
old children had to overcome an obstacle course involving seven different phys-
ical activities, e.g., climbing across a five-foot high catwalk and walking across
a three-foot high beam. Parents were instructed to interact with their child the
way they would if their child was doing these physical activities on the play-
ground. Results show that fathers of daughters monitored their children more
closely than did fathers of sons. This might be due to the stereotype that men
and boys are (and should be) more willing to take risks and also stronger and
less sensitive than girls. Such differential treatment of preschool-aged girls and
boys in risk taking situations is likely be a contributor to gender differences:
Girls are monitored more closely and are therefore less prepared to master
risky situations, while boys are encouraged to engage in physical risks and thus
have more unintentional injuries (see also Galligan & Kuebli, 2011; Granié, 2010;
Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004).
The second study illustrating parents’ influence on their children’s gender
schemas (Kollmayer, Schultes, Schober, & Spiel, 2016) deals with an impor-
tant factor in children’s lives: toys. Parents’ toy selection as well as parental
responses to toy play serve as primary influences in learning gender roles
368 M. Kollmayer et al.

6
5.31
4.97
desirability 5

4
3.34
2.95
3

1
"feminine" toys "masculine" toys

daughters sons

Figure 5. Desirability of gender-stereotyped toys for own child, by gender of child.

(Wood, Desmarais, & Gugula, 2002) as gender-stereotyped toy play leads to

the promotion of different skills in boys and girls, with girls practicing domestic
roles and boys practicing agentic roles (e.g., Cherney, Kelly-Vance, Gill Glover,
Ruane, & Ryalls, 2003; Li & Wong, 2016). We conducted a survey with 324 par-
ents of 3–6 year old children to examine parents’ explicit and implicit gender
stereotypes. The results showed that when asked explicitly, parents report egal-
itarian (not gender-stereotyped) attitudes towards gender roles. Nevertheless,
when asked implicitly about the desirability of different toys for their own child,
parents prefer gender-stereotyped toys for their children, see Figure 5. There
seems to be a gap between parents’ explicit and implicit attitudes: They explicitly
describe themselves as progressive, but implicitly transmit traditional gender
roles to their children. Parents of daughters find toys related to qualities of nur-
turance, attractiveness, and beauty desirable for their children, while parents of
sons prefer toys conducive to competition, aggression, and construction (see
also Campenni, 1999; Freeman, 2007).
Dresel, Heller, Schober, and Ziegler (2001) conducted the third study we
report to illustrate parental influences on gender-stereotyped educational
careers with 311 parents of 8th grade grammar school students. They exam-
ined how parents rate their 13–14 year old children’s qualification for different
study subjects. The results showed that in accordance with traditional gender
stereotypes, parents see STEM subjects (= Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics) as less suitable for girls, while they see languages and teaching
as less suitable for boys, see Figure 6. Of course, this doesn’t mean that parents
explicitly embrace gender stereotypes. It might also be the case that parents
prefer jobs for their children, in which the probability is high that the job envi-
ronment is not hostile to them, or they prefer jobs for their children according to
their own job experiences. Nevertheless, also in these cases gender-stereotypes
play an important role in parents’ expectations for their children because job
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 369

engineering 3.23

mathematics 1.4

medicine -0.13

-2.75 languages

-2.61 teacher-training

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
difference in suitability (boys - girls)

Figure 6. Gender differences in qualifications for different study subjects as assessed by

parents.

environments as well as parents’ own job experiences are gender-stereotyped,

too. Parents might transport their expectations directly and indirectly e.g., when
discussing possible fields of study with their children. This might be one rea-
son for the differences in career planning described above and in turn for the
continued horizontal segregation of the labor market (see also Tenenbaum &
Leaper, 2003; Tomasetto, Mirisola, Galdi, & Cadinu, 2015).
Next, we illustrate schools’ role in the perpetuation of gender differences
based on three empirical studies examining teachers’ and student teachers’
beliefs, as well as teaching materials.
Heller, Finsterwald, and Ziegler (2010) examined beliefs about gender-spe-
cific aptitudes in mathematics and physics teachers at German gymnasiums
(= college preparatory high schools). They found the same gender stereotypes
concerning qualifications for different study subjects Dresel et al. (2001) found in
parents: Whereas teachers would suggest that girls pursue careers in education,
medicine or languages, they would advise boys to study mathematical, engi-
neering or technological subjects. Gender-stereotyped beliefs about students’
qualifications have a strong impact on teacher behavior (for an overview of
gender differences in teacher-initiated teacher–student interactions see Jones
& Dindia, 2004) and in turn on students’ self-concepts and motivation (see also
Tiedemann, 2000; Wolter, Braun, & Hannover, 2015).
One might argue that these gender-stereotyped judgments result from
teachers’ experiences, but the results of the following study indicate that teach-
ers’ experiences play a minor part in the development of gender-stereotyped
beliefs. Schober and Finsterwald (2016) conducted a survey of 244 education
students who had not yet taught in schools, asking them about their attributions
of girls’ and boys’ success and failure in mathematics. The results showed that
for girls, the education students attributed success in mathematics primarily
to effort, and failure in mathematics mainly to a lack of talent. For boys, they
370 M. Kollmayer et al.

engineering 3.31

mathematics 1.06

medicine -1.19

-3.12 languages

-5.57 teacher-training

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
difference in suitability (boys - girls)

Figure 7. Gender differences in qualifications for different study subjects as assessed by

teachers.

showed the opposite attribution pattern, attributing success in mathematics

primarily to talent and failure mainly to a lack of effort, see Figure 7. These attri-
butions lead girls and boys to receive different kinds of feedback, which have
different motivational consequences (Finsterwald, Schober, Jöstl, & Spiel, 2012).
Generally, girls are more often praised for effort, and boys for ability (e.g., Kerr,
2000; Zorman & David, 2000).
Another factor to be considered when talking about schools’ role in the per-
petuation of gender stereotypes is teaching materials. Finsterwald and Ziegler
(2007) conducted an analysis of textbooks, focusing on the implicit communi-
cation of gender stereotypes in pictures contained therein. They examined 28
textbooks (Grades 1–4) and included a total of about 300 pictures depicting
more than 800 people in their analysis. Results revealed that adult female char-
acters are represented less frequently than adult male characters. Moreover,
they found differences in the fields of action male and female characters were
depicted in: Men were represented at their job more often than women, whereas
women were represented in a family/household context and during leisure time
more often than men. With regard to adult characters’ personal attributes, men
were represented as more individualistic, more competitive and more willing
to take a risk than women. In terms of child characters, girls were depicted as
more submissive than boys. Thus, teaching materials not only support students’
learning, but also convey socially shared cultural knowledge, such as stereotypes
(see also Hintermann, Markom, Üllen, & Weinhäupl, 2014; Moser, Hannover, &
Becker, 2013), especially when teachers use them without reflecting on gender
stereotypes.
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 371

80

70 67

60 56

number of mentions
53
50
41
40
30
30
20
20 17
8
10

0
talent effort talent effort
success failure
girls boys

Figure 8. Education students’ attributions of success and failure in mathematics for boys
and girls.

Interventions: reflective coeducation

As described above, gender-stereotyped expectations play a central role in the
perpetuation of gender differences, as they determine the behavior of impor-
tant others and thus lead to vicious cycles in the development of children’s
gender-stereotyped motivation and performance. Teachers – in school as well
as in kindergarten – are promising starting points for enacting change (e.g.,
Hattie, 2012); they are much easier to reach than parents, and in turn reach
more children themselves. There is robust evidence that in addition to teach-
ers’ attitudes, also their instructional practices influence gender differences;
for example, gender differences in classes decrease when teachers are able to
foster aspects of individualization, autonomy and self-regulation (Lüftenegger
et al., 2012). Consequently, to move forward in promoting gender fairness in
education across the lifespan, from our point of view, evidence-based training
programs for teachers focusing on reflective coeducation are needed. The aim
of reflective coeducation is to ensure that girls and boys are taught together in
a way that enables them to become aware of their individual competences and
develop them without limitations arising from gender stereotypes (Finsterwald,
Schober, Jöstl, & Spiel, 2013). This is in contrast to approaches assuming that
single-sex education might prevent gender differences in educational careers.
Halpern and colleagues (Halpern et al., 2011) convincingly argue that there is no
well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students’
academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases
gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.
Based on a current action theory in the field of intervention research – the
actiotope model of Ziegler, Heller, Schober, and Dresel (2006) – we created
the training program REFLECT (Finsterwald et al., 2012; see also Schultes, Jöstl,
372 M. Kollmayer et al.

Finsterwald, Schober, & Spiel, 2015) to achieve the following goals: (1) expand-
ing secondary school teachers’ relevant objective action repertoire, providing
them with the knowledge necessary to change their teaching (e.g., knowledge
of the causes of gender differences, the effects of stereotypes, opportunities for
fostering motivation in all students), (2) expanding secondary school teachers’
subjective action space (e.g., enhancing their self-efficacy with regard to motiva-
tion enhancement in boys and girls), (3) promoting secondary school teachers’
reflection on their own contributions to the formation of gender differences,
resulting in changed teaching goals, and finally (4) reducing secondary school
students’ gender stereotypes.(Figure 8)
In order to reach these goals, the program followed a course of four consec-
utive phases. In Phase 1, REFLECT was developed and executed by a group of
researchers. As participants, we chose a total of 38 teachers from 26 schools
distributed all over Austria in cooperation with the pedagogical universities. In
Phase 2, the training, blocked into four modules of two days each, was realized
over the course of 7 months. Most participants simultaneously taught education
students at pedagogical universities and were trained to subsequently take on
a multiplication function. In Phase 3, teachers were supported in systematically
integrating the contents of the training into their teaching in the context of five-
week projects in their classes. The class projects were developed and realized
by the teachers themselves, and supervised by the REFLECT trainers. Phase 4
focused on evaluating the efficacy of REFLECT. The summative evaluation was
carried out by means of a training-control-group design with a multi-method,
multi-informant approach. The results of the evaluation clearly show the effec-
tiveness of the program: In comparison to the control group, participants’ objec-
tive action repertoire increased (goal 1), as did their subjective action space
(goal 2) (Schober et al., 2012). Significant positive effects were also found among
the students involved: their knowledge of gender issues increased during the
program (Schultes et al., 2015), which is a very important precondition for reduc-
ing students’ gender stereotypes (goal 4). In the last phase, we also produced
a training manual and distributed it to all pedagogical universities to support
the implementation of REFLECT in general teacher education.
As children’s gender-stereotyped educational careers don’t start in schools,
we subsequently created a similar training program for the elementary sec-
tor (Kollmayer, Schultes, Schmolmüller, Spiel, & Schober, 2015). In four half-
day modules, kindergarten teachers learn about (1) developmental theories
concerning children’s adoption of gender typical preferences and behaviors,
(2) gender stereotypes in kindergarten-settings (with a special focus on books
and toys), (3) possibilities for reducing gender-stereotypes in kindergartens by
providing corresponding materials and by interacting with the children in a
gender-sensitive way, and (4) possibilities for gender-sensitive parental work.
The four modules contain input elements as well as exercises. Between the mod-
ules, the kindergarten teachers work on reflection exercises that support them
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 373

in integrating the contents of the training into their day-to-day work and reflect
on opportunities and obstacles. Moreover these reflection exercises support
teachers in practicing their role as multipliers in their kindergarten. In the last
module dealing with parental work, we design a parent-teacher conference on
gender stereotypes in kindergartens together with the kindergarten-teachers.
In role plays they also practice how to address gender stereotypes in parental
work without triggering resistance.

Resume: consequences for the educational system

In order to prevent gender differences in education arising from gender stere-
otypes, educational systems in Europe are supposed to base their work on the
available scientific knowledge. As there is no well-designed research showing
that single-sex education reduces gender differences in students’ academic
performance (Halpern et al., 2011), we argue in favor of reflective coeducation
becoming an obligatory topic in basic and further education for school and
kindergarten teachers. Teacher education should build knowledge about the
causes of gender differences in student performance and student motivation
and about teachers’ (unintentional) contributions to these gender differences.
This includes a deliberate reflection on the fact that gender stereotypes always
constitute restrictions on individual possibilities and potentials. As parents are
very important socializing agents but quite hard to reach, teachers’ parental
work is crucial for initiating reflection on gender stereotypes and their effects in
parents, too. Teachers should be empowered to educate and teach in a way that
focuses on the individual and his/her competence development. They should
know how to foster learning motivation and self-regulation in all students
regardless of their gender. Therefore, role models for boys and girls should be
provided in teaching materials, and teachers should learn about opportunities
to consider students’ previous knowledge and interests in their instructional
designs. A positive view on heterogeneity should become a pivotal educational
goal for teachers, leading them to actively promote students’ social competence
and ability to deal with diversity. Especially in the current European situation
with respect to incoming refugees, not only the consequences of gender ste-
reotypes for educational processes should be scrutinized, but also the conse-
quences of ethnical, national or religious stereotypes. The principles of reflexive
coeducation offer promising opportunities for these challenges and allow all
children to exploit their potential without being restricted by stereotypes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
374 M. Kollmayer et al.

Funding
This work was partially supported by the following Austrian federal ministries: Education,
the Arts and Culture; Women and Public Service; Transport, Innovation and Technology;
Labor, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection; Family and Youth.

References
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory:
Toward a cognitive – Social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219–248.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Review, 88, 354–364.
Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender Schema theory and its implications for child development:
Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 8, 598–616.
Berenbaum, S. A., Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender development. In W. Damon
& R. Lerner (Eds.), Advanced child and adolescent development (pp. 647–696). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive
and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 5, 665–692.
Campenni, C. E. (1999). Gender stereotyping of children’s toys: A comparison of parents
and nonparents. Sex Roles, 40, 121–138.
Carli, L. L., & Bukkato, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and social influence: A
developmental perspective. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental
social psychology of gender (pp. 295–332). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cherney, I. D., Kelly-Vance, L., Gill Glover, K., Ruane, A., & Ryalls, B. O. (2003). The effects
of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18–47 months.
Educational Psychology, 23, 95–106.
Dresel, M., Heller, K. A., Schober, B., & Ziegler, A. (2001). Geschlechtsunterschiede
im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Bereich: Motivations- und
selbstwertschädliche Einflüsse der Eltern auf Ursachenerklärungen ihrer Kinder in
Leistungskontexten [Gender differences in mathematics and science: Parents’ harmful
influences on their children’s motivation and self-esteem]. In C. Finkbeiner & G. W.
Schnaitman (Eds.), Lehren und Lernen im Kontext empirischer Forschung und Fachdidaktik
[Teaching and learning in the context of empirical research and didactics] (pp. 270–
288). Donauwörth: Auer.
European Commission. (2013). Women and men in leadership positions in the European
Union, 2013. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2014). Gender balance on corporate boards: Europe is cracking the
glass ceiling. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2015). Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy
for equality between women and men – A review of the situation and recent progress.
Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Evans, E. M., Schweingruber, H., & Stevenson, H. W. (2002). Gender differences in interest
and knowledge acquisition: The United States, Taiwan and Japan. Sex Roles, 47, 153–
167.
Finsterwald, M., Jöstl, G., Popper, V., Hesse, N., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2012). Abschlussbericht
reflect: Genderkompetenz durch Reflexive Koedukation [Final report of reflect: Gender
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 375

competence through reflective coeducation]. University of Vienna. Unpublished

report.
Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., Jöstl, G., & Spiel, C. (2012). Motivation und Attributionen:
Geschlechtsunterschiede und Interventionsmöglichkeiten [Motivation and
attribution: Gender differences and interventions]. In H. Stöger & A. Ziegler (Eds.),
Mädchen und Frauen in MINT: Bedingungen von Geschlechtsunterschieden und
Interventionsmöglichkeiten [Girls and women in STEM: Gender differences and
interventions] (pp. 193–212). Berlin: LIT-Verlag.
Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., Jöstl, G., & Spiel, C. (2013). Reflexive Koedukation [Reflective
coeducation]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie [Dorsch –
encyclopedia of psychology] (p. 837). Bern: Hogrefe.
Finsterwald, M., & Ziegler A.(2007). Geschlechtsrollenstereotype in Schulbuchabbildungen
der Grundschule [Gender stereotypes in illustrations of textbooks for primary
school]. In P. Ludwig & H. Ludwig (Eds.), Erwartungen in himmelblau und rosarot.
Effekte, Determinanten und Konsequenzen von Geschlechterdifferenzen in der Schule
[Expectations in blue and pink. Effects, determinants and consequences of gender
differences in school] (pp. 117–142). Weinheim: Juventa.
Freeman, N. K. (2007). Preschoolers’ perceptions of gender appropriate toys and their
parents’ beliefs about genderized behaviors: Miscommunication, mixed messages, or
hidden truths? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 357–366.
Galligan, K. M., & Kuebli, J. E. (2011). Preschoolers’ perceptions of their mothers’ and
fathers’ reactions to injury-risk behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1316–1322.
Gelman, S. A., Taylor, M. G., & Naguyen, S. P. (2004). Mother-child conversations about
gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 69, 1–14.
Granié, M.-A. (2010). Gender stereotype conformity and age as determinants of
preschoolers’ injury-risk behaviors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 726–733.
Hagan, L. K., & Kuebli, J. (2007). Mothers’ and fathers’ socialization of preschoolers’ physical
risk taking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 2–14.
Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., … Martin, C. L. (2011).
The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London:
Routledge.
Heller, K. A., Finsterwald, M., & Ziegler, A. (2010). lmplicit theories of mathematics and
physics teachers on gender-specific giftedness and motivation. In K. A. Heller (Ed.),
Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 239–252). Berlin: LIT.
Hintermann, C., Markom, C., Üllen, S., & Weinhäupl, H. (2014). Debating migration in
textbooks and classrooms in Austria. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society,
6, 79–106.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the
classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74, 443–471.
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281–388.
Kerr, B. (2000). Guiding gifted girls and young women. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J.
Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp.
649–657). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A.
Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 205–236).
New York: Greenwood Press.
376 M. Kollmayer et al.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts

and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–172).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kollmayer, M., Schultes, M.-T., Schmolmüller, A., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2015).
Geschlechtersensible Pädagogik im Elementarbereich - Ein Trainingskonzept für
KindergartenpädagogInnen und KindergartenleiterInnen [Gender-sensitive education
in the elementary sector – A training program for kindergarten teachers]. Vienna:
University of Vienna. Unpublished report.
Kollmayer, M., Schultes, M.-T., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2016). Barbie girl & matchbox
boy? A topical view on parents’ explicit and implicit gender stereotypes. Manuscript in
preparation.
Li, R. Y. H., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed play and social abilities in boys and girls:
Are they related? Sex Roles, 74(9–10), 399–410.
Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C.
(2012). Lifelong learning as a goal – Do autonomy and self-regulation in school result
in well prepared pupils? Learning and Instruction, 22, 27–36.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 351–373.
Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view on sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby
(Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56–81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Morrongiello, B. A., & Hogg, K. (2004). Mothers’ reactions to children misbehaving in ways
that can lead to injury: Implications for gender differences in children’s risk taking and
injuries. Sex Roles, 50, 103–118.
Moser, F., Hannover, B., & Becker, J. (2013). Subtile und direkte Mechanismen der sozialen
Konstruktion von Geschlecht in Schulbüchern. Vorstellung eines Kategoriensystems
zur Analyse der Geschlechter(un)gerechtigkeit von Texten und Bildern [Subtle and
direct mechanisms of social construction of gender in textbooks. Presentation of a
category system for the analysis of gender (un)fairness of texts and pictures]. Gender,
3, 77–93.
OECD. (2012). PISA in focus: What kinds of careers do boys and girls expect for themselves?
(Vol. 14). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in
mathematics, reading and science (Vol. 1, Revised ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2015). Histogram illustrating the average gender wage gap across the 34 OECD
countries. OECD Employment Database 2014. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
gender/data/genderwagegap.htm
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2003). Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their violation:
The case of gender stereotypes. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The Psychological
Foundations of Culture (pp. 259–280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Retelsdorf, J., Schwartz, K., & Asbrock, F. (2015). “Michael can’t read!” Teachers’ gender
stereotypes and boys’ reading self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107,
186–194.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward
agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in
management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.
Schober, B., & Finsterwald, M. (2016). Student teachers gender-stereotyped attributions to
success and failure in mathematics. Manuscript in preparation.
Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., Jöstl, G., Popper, V., Hesse, N., & Spiel, C. (2012, June).
Development of gender differences: Current findings and evidence-based interventions
 European Journal of Developmental Psychology 377

in schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on Research in Teaching

and Teacher Education (EARLI – SIG 11), Bergen, Norway.
Schultes, M.-T., Jöstl, G., Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2015). Measuring
intervention fidelity from different perspectives with multiple methods: The Reflect
program as an example. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 102–112.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their
children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology,
38, 615–630.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The
socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34–47.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors
of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 144–151.
Tomasetto, C., Mirisola, A., Galdi, S., & Cadinu, M. (2015). Parents’ math-gender stereotypes,
children’s self-perception of ability, and children’s appraisal of parents’ evaluations in
6-year-olds. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 186–198.
Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self-
concept, career aspiration, and career choice: Implications for cognitive development.
In A. McGillicuddy-DeLisi (Ed.), The development of sex differences in cognition (pp.
93–124). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Wolter, I., Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2015). Reading is for girls!? The negative impact
of preschool teachers’ traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related
motivation and skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1267.
Wood, E., Desmarais, S., & Gugula, S. (2002). The impact of parenting experience on
gender stereotyped toy play of children. Sex Roles, 47, 39–49.
Ziegler, A., Heller, K. A., Schober, B., & Dresel, M.(2006). The actiotope: A heuristic model
for the development of a research program designed to examine and reduce adverse
motivational conditions influencing scholastic achievement. In D. Frey, L. v. Rosenstiel,
& H. Mandl (Eds.), Knowledge and action (pp. 147–173). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Zorman, R., & David, H. (2000). Female achievement and challenges toward the third
millennium. Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute.
Copyright of European Journal of Developmental Psychology is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.