My issue with the study (or the writeup of the study, if that's the case) is they don't define what "more likely" actually meant. How many children were in each classroom? Were the numbers equally divided by gender? When the results were that the kids gender-labeled classroom were "more likely" to have gender-biased responses--how much more likely?

Let's say there were 10 boys and 10 girls in each class. Did the non-gender-labeled class have just four kids who answered in this biased way while the gender-labeled class had 14? Or were the numbers four in one class and five in the other? Is that result because the gender labeling actually made them more likely to answer that way or was it a variation based on the kid's lifetime of experience?

To that end, was there a study at the beginning, before the experiment? Do we know that the gender labeling increased the bias? For example, did a kid who previously didn't have a bias develop one in that short time? Did a kid who came in with a bias lose it along the way because he or she was in a non-gendered classroom?

Further, in the gender-labeled classroom, how were the tasks assigned? If the study required that the boys and girls are treated equally, why were there boys-only/girls-only assignments in the first place? Why not one boy and one girl pass out the scissors and one boy and one girl pass out the glue? Isn't that more equal than one gender gets one task while the other gets a different task?

I'm left wanting more substance here. It's very interesting to consider, I am just not sure this experiment supports the conclusion.

More Posts