ABSTRACT Title of dissertation: KOREAN AMERICAN CHILDREN?S EVALUATIONS OF PARENTAL GENDER EXPECTATIONS OF CHILDREN?S GENDER-RELATED PEER ACTIVITES Jennie Hyun Chung Kim, Doctor of Philosophy, 2004 Dissertation directed by: Professor Melanie Killen Department of Human Development The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of children?s social reasoning about parental authority and gender expectations of boys? and girls? participation in gender stereotypic peer activities. Participants were 102 third and sixth grade Korean American children who were interviewed about six stories in which a boy and a girl desire to engage in gender-congruent, gender-incongruent, and gender neutral peer activities. A series of assessments were administered for each story in which participants were asked to make several judgments and provide a reason for their judgments regarding gender expectations, parental jurisdiction, autonomy, the fairness of gender bias, and cultural expectations. In addition, participants? beliefs of parental gender-expectations were assessed using a stereotype knowledge measure. The findings in this study demonstrated that Korean American children?s evaluations of parental expectations for children?s participation in gender stereotypic peer activities were multifaceted. Participants? decisions involved different forms of reasoning that varied according to the features of the context such as fairness, gender stereotypes, authority, autonomy, and culture. Overall, Korean American children supported participation in gender related activities using personal choice reasons to support their decisions. However, when issues such as authority, autonomy, and exclusion were made salient, participants? evaluations differed, particularly between third and sixth grade children and in some cases, between boys and girls. Younger children often deferred to parental decisions and supported gender stereotypes more often than older children. Further, girls were more willing to reject stereotypic expectations than were boys appealing to gender equity. Thus, children use moral, social-conventional, and stereotypic reasons when evaluating parental expectations of children?s engagement in peer-related activities. Examining Korean children?s conceptions of gender-based expectations and exclusion in the family elucidates the complex nature of decisions individuals must make in these types of situations which reflect real life issues for many families from different cultures. The results of this study contribute to theories about culture, social reasoning, family relationships, and gender expectations. KOREAN AMERICAN CHILDREN?S EVALUATIONS OF PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS OF CHILDREN?S GENDER-RELATED PEER ACTIVITIES by Jennie Hyun Chung Kim Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2004 Advisory Committee: Professor Melanie Killen, Chair Professor David Crystal Professor Barbara Finkelstein Professor Kenneth Rubin Professor Min Wang ?Copyright by Jennie Hyun Chung Kim 2004 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My long journey has finally come to an end. Thanks be to God! It is only by the grace of God that I was able to attain this degree. Not only did He sustain me through the challenging process of achieving this Ph.D, but He provided me with incredible family members, professors, colleagues, and friends who were each instrumental in helping me reach the end of this long journey. I have truly been blessed through each of these people. Of my family, I would like to first thank my husband, Peter, for his steadfast love, sacrifice, and patience through the years of my schooling. I especially thank him for his unconditional support which enabled me to reach my goals. My love and thanks also go out to my daughter, Emily, who brought great joy and new meaning to my life when she was born two and a half years ago. Her laughter and silly antics provided great respite in times of stress. I also thank my parents, Mike and Young Lee who have been among my greatest supporters from the start of my graduate studies. Without their incredible support and sacrifices in assisting me to finish my schooling, I would not have been able to achieve this degree. Many road trips from Alabama to Maryland were made on my behalf by my parents so that my mother could help care for my daughter during periods of important deadlines. In particular, I am grateful to my mother for her prayer support and cherish our walks together during the breaks I took from writing. I also thank my brother, Jeff, my sister-in law, Heejin, and my nephew, Stanley for their loving support. Also, I iii would like to thank my parents-in-law, Chang Sik and Shin Ja Kim for their constant prayer support over the years. Aside from my family, I am most grateful to my advisor, Melanie Killen, for her incredible mentorship during my schooling. I cannot adequately put into words, my appreciation for all that she has done for me over the years. She has not only challenged, supported, and helped me through my schooling, but she has been a great teacher? imparting not only academic knowledge, but life lessons. She is a great role model and an inspiration for what I can strive to achieve in the future. Other professors have also been instrumental in the attainment of my degree. I would especially like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Ken Rubin, Jim Byrnes, Barbara Finkelstein, David Crystal, and Min Wang for their invaluable advice and feedback which has led to a better dissertation. Also, I would like to thank them for the supportive environment they provided during my dissertation defense which allowed for a great discussion and a planting of thought provoking ideas for future research. I have also been fortunate to have had wonderful graduate colleagues whom I am grateful to for their camaraderie. Over the years, I have had great support from labmates, from Stacey Horn and Alicia Ardila-Rey in the early years, to Heidi McGlothlin, Christy Edmonds, Yoonjung Park, and Yunhee Shin in the middle years and in more recent years, Alaina Brenick, Sasha Henning, Nancy Margie, Stefanie Sinno, and Holly Bozeman. In particular, I would like to thank my officemate, Heidi McGlothlin, for her support and iv friendship over the years and also Yoonjung Park, who has been a great friend and supporter of my dissertation project. I am also grateful to friends outside of school who have supported me through their prayers, phone calls, emails, and company. In particular, I?d like to thank my oldest and dearest friend, Julie Chang for her confidence in my ability to achieve this degree. Also, I?d like to thank Jin Kim who has encouraged me with grace and optimism during our phone calls and Tina Mullinix who made me laugh with her humor and encouraged me to finish school. I would also like to thank Claire Kim who graciously helped to watch Emily and also Jane Nam who helped out selflessly during a time I needed some help the most. Finally, the achievement of this degree would not have been possible without the children who participated in my study and their parents. Many thanks go to them as well as the Education staff and Program coordinators at Bethel Korean Presbyterian Church, Global Mission Church, and Korean American Church of Philippi who graciously gave me permission to conduct research in their churches. I am especially grateful for the overwhelming support I received from Joseph Park, Daniel Baik, Young-chan Han, Jane Nam, Jean Choe, and Lily Sok at these research sites. Also, I want to thank Esther Lee and Susie Park, great research assistants who helped out at these research sites. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures????????????????????????????...viii Chapter I: Theoretical Rationale......................................................................................... 1 Chapter II: Literature Review........................................................................................... 19 Introduction................................................................................................................... 19 Gender Stereotypes ....................................................................................................... 19 Overview................................................................................................................... 19 Developmental Patterns ............................................................................................ 21 Role of Culture.......................................................................................................... 25 The Role of Parents................................................................................................... 27 Social Reasoning about Gender Stereotypes ............................................................ 31 Social Reasoning about Exclusion................................................................................ 32 Overview................................................................................................................... 32 Exclusion in the Peer Context................................................................................... 34 Exclusion in the Family Context.............................................................................. 41 The Role of Culture .................................................................................................. 42 Social Cognitive Domain Theory ................................................................................. 45 Overview................................................................................................................... 45 Developmental Aspects ............................................................................................ 47 Evaluations of Prototypic and Complex Social Issues ............................................. 49 Children?s Conceptions of Autonomy and Parental Authority................................. 51 Autonomy, Authority, and Culture ........................................................................... 55 Korean Culture.............................................................................................................. 60 Overview................................................................................................................... 60 Family Structure........................................................................................................ 63 Gender Expectations in the Family........................................................................... 65 Issues of Autonomy in the Family............................................................................ 67 Immigration and Cultural Identification ................................................................... 68 Overview of Present Study ........................................................................................... 72 Purpose and Design................................................................................................... 72 Hypotheses................................................................................................................ 75 Chapter III: Methodology ................................................................................................. 82 Participants.................................................................................................................... 82 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 85 vi Measures ....................................................................................................................... 85 Translations................................................................................................................... 91 Design ........................................................................................................................... 92 Reliability Coding......................................................................................................... 92 Chapter IV: Results........................................................................................................... 93 Overview....................................................................................................................... 93 Evaluation of Gender Target Stories............................................................................. 95 Evaluation of Gender Bias.......................................................................................... 112 Evaluation of Cultural Generalizability...................................................................... 118 Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM) ....................................................... 135 Chapter V: Discussion .................................................................................................... 139 Children?s Autonomy and Gender-related Activities ................................................. 140 Authority and Children?s Gender-related Activities................................................... 142 Cultural Generalizability and Cultural Awarenss of Gender Exclusion..................... 148 Children?s Conceptions about Parental Gender Stereotypic Expectations................. 150 Cultural Influences...................................................................................................... 151 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 152 Tables.............................................................................................................................. 157 Figures ............................................................................................................................ 177 Appendix A: Summary of Design .................................................................................. 188 Appendix B: Consent Forms........................................................................................... 191 Appendix C: Parental Demographics Questionnaires .................................................... 193 Appendix D: Gender Related Activities Interview......................................................... 195 Appendix E: Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM)...................................... 202 Appendix F: Korean American Children?s Acculturation Scale (KACAS)................... 203 Appendix G: Justification Coding Categories ................................................................ 204 References....................................................................................................................... 205 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Hypotheses??????????????. ?????...156 Table 2: Demographic Information of Participant?s Parents???..?..?????159 Table 3: Korean American Children?s Birthplace and Self Ethnic-Identity ????.160 Table 4: Korean American Children?s Responses to Acculturation Assessment??.161 Table 5: Proportion of Judgments for Evaluation of Participation ???????...162 Table 6: Proportion of Justifications for Evaluation of Participation Judgment??...163 Table 7: Means for Locus of Decision Judgment?????????????......164 Table 8: Proportion of Justifications for Locus of Decision Judgment ????.?...165 Table 9: Proportion of Judgments for Denial of Autonomy????...????.?..166 Table 10: Proportion of Justifications for Denial of Autonomy Judgment??...??167 Table 11: Proportion of Judgments for Gender Bias and Generalizability of Gender Exclusion?????????????????????.......168 Table 12: Proportion of Justifications for Gender Bias Judgment???????.?169 Table 13: Justifications for Generalizability of Gender Exclusion Judgment...............170 Table 14: Proportion of Judgments for Generalizability of Fairness and Equality.?..171 Table 15: Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability of Fairness Judgment ?...172 Table 16: Proportion of Judgments for Generalizability of Occurrence and Change?173 Table 17: Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability of Equality Judgment ?...174 Table 18: Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability of Change Judgment ??.175 Table 19: Mean Scores for Parental Gender Expectations Measure ??..???..?.176 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Evaluation of Participation assessment????????????????????178 Figure 2: Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Ballet Activity.???..?..???????????????...179 Figure 3: Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Football Activity?????????????????....??180 Figure 4: Responses to Locus of Decision judgment?????????????181 Figure 5: Percentage of reasoning responses for Locus of Decision judgment???182 Figure 6: Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Denial of Autonomy Assessment?????????????????.??????....?183 Figure 7: Percentage of Reasoning Responses for Denial of Autonomy judgment?..183 Figure 8: Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Gender Bias assessment????184 Figure 9: Percentage of reasoning responses for Gender Bias Judgment?????.185 Figure 10: Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Generalizability of Gender Exclusion in Korea??????????????.????..186 Figure 11: Mean ratings for Parental Gender Expectations Measure????.??...187 1 CHAPTER I Theoretical Rationale Research on children?s gender stereotypic expectations has focused on how this type of knowledge guides participation in social activities (Ruble & Martin, 1998). For example, children?s toy choices and play activities are often in line with gender stereotypes (Liben & Bigler, 2002; Ruble & Martin, 1998). In addition, children have more favorable attitudes towards children who engage in peer activities that are in line with gender stereotypic expectations, such as girls playing hopscotch and boys playing football (Zucker, 1995). The extent to which children rely on gender stereotypes is less clear, however, in complex situations involving fairness, such as exclusion of a child from a peer group or a peer activity for gender reasons (Killen, McGlothlin, & Lee-Kim, 2002b). In recent studies, children?s reasoning about the fairness of excluding a child in the peer context based on gender expectations has been shown to be multifaceted (Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002; Killen, Pisacane, Lee-Kim, & Ardila-Rey, 2001; Killen & Stangor, 2001). When asked to evaluate a decision involving gender expectations and fairness considerations, such as whether girls can exclude a boy from doll-playing, children have different priorities depending on the context. In straightforward situations, for example, they gave priority to fairness (including someone) and in complex situations they gave priority to gender expectations (doll- playing is for girls). In these studies, children were asked to evaluate exclusion from peer activities (such as playing with toys or belonging to after school clubs). What has yet to 2 be examined is how children evaluate gender based exclusion from peer activities involving parental authority. Moreover, for children who are members of ethnic cultures where adherence to authority and gender expectations is foundational to the cultural ideology guiding the family system (Hurh, 1998), these issues may be particularly salient in their evaluations of parental expectations in the context of peer activities. Thus, the central aim of the present study was to investigate Korean American children?s evaluations of participation in gender-typed peer activities with a focus on parental authority and cultural expectations. For children belonging to certain ethnic cultural groups, having to negotiate competing considerations such as stereotype knowledge, fairness, authority, and autonomy, may be particularly salient. That is, depending on the ideology of a particular ethnic culture, some of these factors may have more bearing on how children prioritize competing considerations when evaluating gender based exclusion. In particular, this may be true for children belonging to non-Western traditional cultures, such as Korea, a society that has strict gender-role expectations and one that is highly authority oriented (Kim & Choi, 1994). However, in general, little is known about children?s gender stereotype knowledge and reasoning about exclusion from different ethnic cultural groups. Therefore, another goal of the present study was to address this gap by examining Korean American children?s conceptions of parental gender expectations regarding gender-typed peer activities (e.g., football, ballet) and how multiple issues bear on these expectations in Korean American children. 3 Korean American children provided the focus of this study for several reasons. First, to date, most of the studies on children?s reasoning about gender based exclusion and gender stereotype knowledge have been limited to non-Asian U.S. samples. Children from Korean American families in the U.S. may have different conceptualizations and beliefs about gender-related social issues than their U.S. counterparts. That is, Korean American children, who are part of an ethnic culture in which adherence to traditional gender roles is emphasized (Kim & Choi, 1994; Kim, Yang, Atkinson, Wolfe & Hong, 2001; Min, 1998) may have strong conceptions about gender expectations stemming from the home environment which may in turn, influence their evaluations about gender based exclusion. Examining differing cultural perspectives on the evaluation of exclusion are needed, as beliefs and customs from other cultures may bring to light, a unique and different conceptualization that may challenge what is already known about a particular social phenomenon (Lobel, Gruber, Govrin, & Mashraki-Pedhatzur, 2001; Rubin, 1998). Second, the Korean family structure, based on a hierarchal social system which stresses children?s complete submission to and acceptance of parents? decision-making (Kim & Choi, 1994), has implications for their conceptions about authority and issues of autonomy when evaluating parents? expectations about engaging in certain peer activities. This extends to Korean immigrant families in which first generation Korean parents strive to maintain a family system based on their cultural roots (Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998). Thus, for this reason, Korean American children with Korean immigrant parents were targeted in the present study. 4 Finally, Korean American children are in the unique position of being socialized in two cultures that are considered by cultural theorists to have contradictory ideologies about certain social issues, such as gender equality and individual autonomy (Drachman, Kwon-Ahn, & Paulino, 1996; Kim & Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Particularly for Korean immigrant parents, there is a great effort to maintain strong ties to Korea and retain cultural values and the practice of traditions in the family (Chang, 2003; Min, 1998; Pyke, 2000). Some of which may be at odds with certain values and traditions of U.S. culture (Ying, Coombs, & Lee, 1999). This adds another dimension of complexity in trying to understand how children from dual cultures coordinate and negotiate multiple issues when evaluating complex decisions about gender based exclusion from peer activities in the home. Therefore, a number of assessments were included in the present study intended to measure Korean American children?s views about their ethnic cultural membership in addition to general conceptualizations about Korean culture. The model enabling this work, social-cognitive domain theory, provided the theoretical framework for examining the multifaceted nature of children?s reasoning used to evaluate this type of complex social issue. According to this model, three conceptually distinct domains of knowledge develop out of the individual?s social interactions: moral, societal, and psychological (see Smetana, 1995a; Tisak, 1995; Turiel, 1998). The moral domain includes conceptions of equality, fairness, justice, rights and welfare. In contrast, the societal, or social conventional domain of knowledge includes conceptions about social groups, social conventions, and social customs, such as rules that are arbitrarily 5 constructed by authority figures and assist in coordinating social interactions and promote social order (e.g., taking turns by raising hands). Lastly, the psychological or personal domain is concerned with psychological systems including conceptions such as autonomy, self, and identity which are considered outside the jurisdiction of moral or social concerns. In prior research, the forms of reasoning children used in evaluating gender based exclusion reflected these three distinct domains of knowledge (Killen et al., 2001; Killen & Stangor, 2001). For example, appealing to issues of fairness and gender equity for the victim of exclusion pertained to the moral domain of knowledge, whereas reasons based on gender stereotypes referred to the social conventional domain of knowledge. In contrast, reasons based on personal choice (autonomy) reflected the psychological domain of knowledge. In this study, based on prior findings, it was expected that Korean American children?s reasoning would also be multifaceted and reflect the coordination of these different domains of knowledge when evaluating parental gender expectations in the peer context. In earlier studies on children?s evaluation of gender based exclusion, researchers examined how individuals coordinate stereotype knowledge with moral considerations, such as the fairness of gender based exclusion (Killen et al., 2002a; Killen et al., 2001; Killen & Stangor, 2001; Theimer, Killen, & Stangor, 2001; Schuette & Killen, 2002). In these studies, children and adolescents were asked to evaluate exclusion based on gender in a range of contexts and were found to have judgments that were multifaceted. Children use multiple forms of reasons in their evaluations, including fairness (?It?s not fair?), 6 group functioning (?It?s good for boys to have their own club so they can do boy things?), and stereotypes (?Girls don?t like the same things boys do?). The main findings from these studies indicated that children?s social judgments concerning stereotypes and issues of fairness (e.g., exclusion) involved coordination of various factors when evaluating this type of complex social situation and that these judgments varied according to the context. Thus, another aim of the present study was to examine how Korean American children coordinated issues of fairness with multiple issues involving parental authority and ethnic cultural membership. The focus on parental authority is an important factor to consider when evaluating exclusion of a child from peer activities, as parent?s expectations play an important role in their children?s involvement in social activities (Eccles, Frome, Yoon, Freedman- Doan, & Jacobs, 2000; Lytton & Romney, 1991; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). For example, parents often explain their choice of gender stereotypic toys and activities for children in terms of gender role expectations (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990). It might be expected that Korean American children would defer to parental authority if their decision to deny a child from participating in a peer activity was in line with gender expectations. For instance, if a parent denies a boy from taking ballet because of his gender, a child evaluating this type of exclusion may judge that the parent has legitimate authority because it support adherence to gender expectations. It is unclear, however, whether their viewpoint of parental decisions of this nature would change if issues such as fairness or autonomy were made salient. Thus, Korean American children?s reasoning about exclusion from peer activities involving parental authority may require 7 coordination of not only fairness and gender stereotypes but include other competing factors, such as autonomy and authority jurisdiction, which are often points of conflict between children and their parents (Smetana, 1986; Smetana, 1995b). In order to examine parental authority expectations, assessments in the present study varied according to whether parental authority intersected with autonomy, fairness, or gender stereotypes in the context of stereotypic peer activities. It was expected that for some contexts, children would defer to authority while in others, defer to autonomy. While Korean American children may view the home as one that is legitimately under the jurisdiction of parents, and legitimate for adherence of gender-expectations, it is not known how children evaluate parental jurisdiction in the context of gender-typed peer activities that involved exclusion. In a study by Schuette and Killen (2002), children were more likely to evaluate exclusion from household activities (e.g., excluding boys from cooking) as legitimate, which is counter to the studies on gender-related exclusion in other contexts, such as peer group activities at school (e.g., excluding a boy from an all-girls? club; Killen et al., 2002a). Whether Korean American children would view the legitimacy of parents? authority to extend to peer activities outside the home may be a complex issue. Korean American children, on one hand, may have a positive orientation towards parental authority, perceiving their relationship with parents to be warm and nurturing (not necessarily strict or demanding) (Kim & Hurh, 1987; Yee, 1987), and thus give parents more authority over decisions about peer activities when it is based on gender expectations. 8 In contrast, however, choice of peer activities may be viewed by Korean American children as an issue of personal jurisdiction and not under parental control (Smetana, 1988; Smetana, 1995b; Tisak, 1986). As indicated in previous research on predominately European-American and African-American samples, children who evaluated the exclusion from the victim?s perspective, used reasons of personal choice for why a group should not exclude an individual for reasons of gender (e.g., ?It?s her choice whether she wants to join or not?; Killen et al., 2002a). Therefore, it was expected that in the present study, Korean American children would more likely defer to parents for choice of peer activities aligned with gender expectations, but at the same time, when evaluating exclusion, view it as wrong based on issues of fairness. Moreover, age may be a factor in Korean American children?s reasoning. In prior research, younger children, compared to older children, were found to be more authority oriented and less likely to coordinate multiple considerations when evaluating exclusion (Killen et al., 2002a). Thus, it was expected that younger Korean American children would be more likely to defer to parental authority for deciding children?s peer activities than were older children. However, younger children (as were older children) were expected to evaluate exclusion as wrong when competing considerations were not present. In prior studies, children judged straightforward cases of exclusion as wrong, using reasons of fairness (Killen et al., 2001). A key factor in determining how Korean American children give priority to one consideration over another when evaluating gender stereotypic peer activities, may depend largely on contextual factors. That is, evaluations may differ depending on the 9 gender stereotypic nature of the activity and whether a girl or boy is engaging in opposite sex-typed activities. For instance, Korean American children may more likely support children?s autonomy in gender-congruent participation (e.g., a girl learning ballet) since it supports gender expectations. Yet when evaluating gender-incongruent participation in the same activity (e.g., a boy learning ballet), reject autonomy based on gender expectations (?boys don?t usually do ballet?). In the present study, assessments included evaluations of both a girl and a boy separately, desiring to participate in both gender- congruent and gender-incongruent peer activities. Of particular relevance to the present study was gender-incongruent participation, as research on prior U.S. samples indicated that cross-gender behavior is often viewed as more favorable for girls than for boys (Carter & Patterson, 1982; Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002; Fagot, 1985; Martin, 1990; Moller, Hymel, & Rubin, 1992; Yee & Brown, 1994). Based on this finding, it might be expected that Korean American children?s reasoning would support gender-incongruent participation for girls, more so than for boys. Yet, in a recent study comparing Korean, Japanese and U.S. samples, native Korean children were found to be tolerant of cross-gender behavior equally for both girls and boys whereas U.S. children were less tolerant of cross-gender behavior for boys (Park, Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002). For Korean American children, since peer activities are outside of the home context, their evaluations of cross-gender behavior may be more in line with American findings. It might be expected that Korean American children in the present study would evaluate girls engaging in male-typed activities as more acceptable than boys engaging in female-typed activities using reasons based on 10 fairness (?She should have a chance to play?) and autonomy (?It?s up the her whether she wants to play football?), whereas for boys engaged in cross-gender participation, these issues would be less of a priority than adhering to gender stereotypes. Thus, another goal of the present study was to examine children?s reasoning about gender-congruent versus gender-incongruent participation in gender stereotypic peer activities and how parental expectations, autonomy, and fairness impacted their evaluations. Conceptions of authority and gender-role expectations remain strong in the Korean family, both in present day Korea and those residing in the U.S. (Chang, 2003; Kim, 1993; Min, 1998). Despite social changes brought about by the industrialization and modernization of Korea in the past several decades, Confucian ideals of filial piety and adherence to gender roles continue to influence individual attitudes and behavior in the Korean family context (Helgesen, 1998; Macdonald, 1996). The powerful effect of these ideals are not limited to native Korean families, however, but extend to families in the U.S. started by Korean immigrants, particularly in urban areas where strong ethnic networks support the maintenance of important aspects of Korean culture which include the traditional family system (Min, 1998). At the same time, Korean American children receive messages from contemporary American culture, which often challenge Korean expectations. Thus, it was of interest to determine when Korean American children defer to authority expectations regarding peer-related activities, or view these activities as issues of autonomy. Based on Korean ideology, the family is modeled after a hierarchal social system that holds fathers in superior positions (e.g., breadwinner) while mothers are held in 11 subordinate roles (e.g., household manager) (Kim & Choi, 1994; Lim, 1997). Son and daughter roles are differentiated along similar gender lines. For example, Korean daughters are expected to assist their mothers in household chores, whereas sons are not required to share in these tasks (Yee, 1987). Moreover, beyond the home, boys are expected to be leaders of their social activities, while girls are expected to act demurely in social settings (Arnold & Kuo, 1984). Clearly, boys appear to have more favorable gender expectations, and in fact, boys, compared to girls, have been found to be more cognizant of cultural-specific gender-stereotypes for males than for females (Lee & Sugawara, 1994), which can be a result from being part of a culture that greatly values and benefits the male gender (Kim & Choi, 1994; Min, 1998). Given that these expectations are also consistent with contemporary American cultural messages, it was expected that Korean American boys? evaluations regarding gender based exclusion would be supportive of gender stereotypes than would evaluations from Korean- American girls. There have been a number of cross-cultural studies showing that individuals, from a wide range of cultures and countries, reason about social issues using moral, social- conventional, and psychological domains of social knowledge (for a review, see Killen, McGlothlin, & Lee-Kim, 2002). Of particular relevance to this project were studies conducted in Korea, in which Korean children and adolescents were found to make distinctions between morality and social conventions (Song, Smetana, & Kim, 1987). Moreover, their concepts of authority were shown to be differentiated, and not unilateral, as would be expected of a traditional culture. For example, when asked to judge 12 situations involving moral commands, both authority and moral considerations were coordinated in Korean children?s evaluations (Kim, 1998; Kim & Turiel, 1996). What is less known, however, is how Korean American children with a Korean family background evaluate authority figures that make decisions regarding social commands, such as parents? decisions to exclude their children from peer activities for gender reasons. On the one hand, previous research on gender based exclusion has indicated that children have a strong sense of fairness and notions of autonomy (Killen et al., 2002a), yet on the other hand, in the context of the Korean family, there are strong expectations for adhering to gender-roles and parental authority (Yi, 1983). There is a coexistence of autonomy and authority issues which may lead to conflicts, particularly for Korean American children who come from a traditional family culture yet are part of a broader culture that has modernized values (Kim, O?Neil, & Owen, 1996). Thus, analyses were conducted regarding how Korean American children weigh autonomy and authority decisions about peer activities. While children are expected to passively obey, respect, and seek parental authority in important matters which may result in a restriction of autonomy (Kim & Choi, 1994; Rohner, & Pettengill, 1985), autonomy is not devalued nor absent in the Korean family. In fact, as it has been shown in other traditional cultures, autonomy is granted more favorably to males than it is to females (Wainryb & Turiel, 1994). For example, boys are encouraged by their parents to explore their environments outside of the home and choose their own social activities, whereas girls are discouraged from venturing outside the home (Ha, 1985). Again, similar to gender-roles, there is a 13 different set of expectations for boys and girls in the family which favors the male gender, leading to an expectation that in the present study, Korean American boys would grant autonomy to males more than to females. The extent to which children view exclusion based on gender as a moral issue (e.g., fairness) has been tested in prior studies based on theoretical criteria used to differentiate between moral transgressions (e.g., hitting) from social conventional transgressions (e.g., wearing pajamas to school) (Turiel, 1983, 1989). One of these criteria, generalizability, was used to evaluate whether children in the U.S. viewed exclusion as a moral issue in another country (Killen et al., 2002a). In other words, whether or not children?s evaluations were contingent on a particular culture was tested. Prior research, which has been limited to U.S. samples, indicated that most children viewed exclusion from peer activities for reasons of gender as wrong even in another country, however, some children condoned exclusion based on cultural considerations (e.g., social traditions) (Killen et al., 2002a). In these studies, children were asked to evaluate exclusion in a nonspecific country (?What about in another country??). What has yet to be examined is how children evaluate the generalizability of exclusion to a familiar country (?Is it okay if only girls are allowed to take ballet in Korea??). For Korean American children, examining whether their evaluations of exclusion based on gender generalizes to Korea (versus the U.S.), not only extends prior research on cultural generalizability, but offers a unique means of elucidating their conceptions about gender and fairness in Korean culture. 14 Particularly for Korean American children, who have ties to both Korean and American cultures, their view of gender related exclusion from peer activities in Korea may reflect their biculturalism. One on hand, their evaluations may be more in line with American values, since children?s involvement in peer activities typically take place in the mainstream culture. On the other hand, Korean American children may be more inclined to use reasons related to cultural traditions (e.g., ?It?s okay in another country because they have a different way of doing things?; Killen et al., 2002a) that stem from exposure to cultural practices in the family context. When faced with competing considerations, Korean American children are expected to give priority to fairness and gender equity than to social traditions or customs when evaluating gender based exclusion from peer activities in Korea based on prior research (Killen et al., 2002a). Overall, Korean American children are expected to support the rights and fairness of children in Korea to engage in opposite sex-typed peer activities over adherence to social and cultural stereotypes. Yet, in order to assess a broader understanding of Korean American children?s cultural awareness, in addition to understanding how Korean American children evaluate gender-related exclusion from peer activities in Korea, it is also important to assess what their general knowledge and beliefs are about these social issues in Korea. For example, whether Korean American children are cognizant of the occurrence of gender-related exclusion from peer activities in Korea raises an important question as to the distinction that Korean American children may make between their judgments of exclusion versus the occurrence of exclusion in Korea. It is unclear whether Korean American children 15 would be knowledgeable about gender-related issues in Korea. In a pilot study used for cultural validity of the measures used in this project, native Korean children were asked whether exclusion based on gender occurred in peer activities such as baseball, ballet or sleepover activities (Shin, 2002). Contrary to expectations, Korean children were found to vary in their knowledge as to the occurrence of gender exclusion for these activities. The variability found in Korean children?s knowledge about gender-related exclusion in Korea indicated that exclusion from stereotypic activities such as ballet may not be a salient issue or a common occurrence in Korean culture. Thus, in the present study, whether Korean American children would be aware of gender related exclusion of these peer activities in Korea was an open question. Moreover, the extent to which Korean American children may think about these types of social issues in Korea, for example, whether social injustice such as denial of equal access to gender-specific activities should be changed, is also unclear. Since most of these children?s exposure to Korean culture is expected to be limited to the family context, local Korean American communities (e.g., church) and cultural events (annual Korean Culture Festivals), their knowledge about social issues in Korea in general, may be limited. In sum, the overall aim of the present study was to examine the nature of Korean American children?s social reasoning about parental decisions regarding gender-related exclusion from peer activities. Based on prior research, children?s social reasoning was expected to be multifaceted, reflecting coordination of multiple considerations (Killen et al., 2002a). Several factors were expected to bear on children?s reasoning, such as issues of fairness, parental authority and gender expectations, gender stereotype knowledge, and 16 autonomy. One of the goals of the present study was to examine how each of these factors may influence children?s social reasoning about parental decisions to include or exclude a child from gender stereotypic peer activities. Children in the present study were therefore asked to judge whether a boy or girl could participate in a gender stereotyped activity (e.g., ballet, football), followed by a series of questions asking them to consider parental authority jurisdiction, children?s autonomy, gender-related exclusion, and cultural considerations. The extent to which children may regard parental decisions to be gender biased and unfair, or legitimate may largely depend on contextual factors. Thus, another goal of the present study was to examine the context of gender stereotypic peer activities. To examine this, participants in the present study were asked to evaluate children?s participation in both female and male-typed stereotypic activities. Children in the present study were asked to evaluate both a girl and a boy desiring to participate in gender congruent and gender incongruent peer activities. It was expected that children may judge the legitimacy of parental authority or children?s autonomy differently according to these different contexts. Also, age differences were expected, with older children focused on issues of autonomy more than younger children, as conceptions about personal choice become very salient in early adolescence (Smetana, 1995b). For children belonging to ethnic cultural groups that emphasize more traditional, or conservative views on parental authority and gender role expectations, such as Korean American children, their evaluations may reflect more complex forms of reasoning. To date, there has been little examination of the influence of cultural factors on children?s 17 social reasoning about gender-related exclusion by researchers. Thus, another main goal of the present study was to examine how cultural expectations may influence children?s evaluations about parental decisions involving gender-related exclusion from peer activities. For example, based on cultural theorizing that Korean immigrant parents impart strong conceptions about filial piety and gender role expectations to in the family system (Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998), it might be expected that Korean American children would be supportive of parental authority and adherence to gender expectations in their evaluations regarding the jurisdiction of parents to decide participation in gender stereotypic activities when these issues were made salient to them. However, the extent to which Korean American children?s reasoning would reflect cultural viewpoints on authority and gender expectations might depend on their cultural identification with Korean culture in the family. Therefore, cultural assessments were included in the present study to examine this aspect. A final goal of the study was to examine Korean American children?s conceptions about gender exclusion in Korea as a means of exploring the cultural awareness or expectations participants in the present study may have regarding their heritage culture. It was expected that while Korean American children would view gender based exclusion of children from stereotypic peer activities in Korea as wrong, they may acknowledge that it may be more legitimate for this type of social exclusion to occur in Korea due to cultural ideology. In particular, older children were expected to view gender exclusion occurring in Korea differently than in the U.S., since they have had longer exposure to Korean cultural ideology in their home than younger children. Overall, older children 18 were expected to be more sensitive to contextual variations when reasoning about complex decisions involving issues of fairness, authority, autonomy, and gender stereotypes. 19 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In this chapter, four bodies of literature contributing to the goals of the present study will be reviewed. First, research from the gender literature, specifically related to gender stereotypes, roles, and expectations will be reviewed. Additionally, this section will focus on gender stereotypes and expectations in the family, parental, and cultural contexts. Second, exclusion research, from a domain perspective, will be reviewed emphasizing gender-based exclusion and contextual differences, including culture. Third, the theoretical framework of social cognitive domain theory will be reviewed. This section will include an overview of the theory, and a review of issues and contexts relating to autonomy, authority, family, and cultural contexts with an emphasis on prior work that has been conducted in Korean culture. Finally, Korean culture will be reviewed, with a focus on the cultural background of Korean American children and immigrant Korean families in the U.S. Issues related to Korean culture, such as social traditions and expectations, autonomy, parental authority, and the family context will be reviewed. Gender Stereotypes Overview Past research on children?s development of gender stereotypes has been extensive. In a recent review of gender development research, Ruble and Martin (1998) indicated 20 that the number of studies on sex-roles alone over the past two decades reached near five thousand. This is not surprising as the study of gender stereotypes in young children carries salience for many areas of social and psychological functioning (e.g., perceiving social cues, trait development, and behavioral consequences). For example, examining children?s gender stereotypes has significant implications for understanding how children view and construct an aspect of themselves and others (e.g., boy/male vs. girl/female) and affects behavioral choices for activities (e.g., toys: dolls, trucks and social activities: baseball, ballet) and future roles (e.g., firefighter, nurse) (Fagot, 1985; Ruble & Martin, 1998; Weinraub, Clemens, Sockloff, Ethridge, Gracely & Myers, 1984). Yet, though many studies on gender stereotypes have been generated from this area of research; for the most part, there has been little study on this construct in terms of how children reason about gender stereotypic judgments in various contexts (e.g., Martin, Wood, & Little, 1990; Stoddart & Turiel, 1985; Smetana, 1986). Furthermore, even less research has been done in terms of examining the role that culture may have in shaping the development of gender stereotypes. This finding is particularly surprising considering gender stereotypes are embedded in the social understandings (or social conventions) of a given culture and develop out of perceptions or beliefs about ?group? membership (in this case, males vs. females) (Mackie, Hamilton, Susskind, & Rosselli, 1996; Stoddart & Turiel, 1985). In this respect, a reasonable speculation would be that young children?s development of gender-related stereotypes (e.g., gender-role expectations) would be greatly influenced by the ideologies of the respective culture. Instead, most of the studies in this area of 21 research have focused on pinpointing developmental age trends or identifying the dimensions of stereotype knowledge (e.g., preferences for sex-typed toys, activities, and playmates); thus, lacking consideration of the processes involved in describing the psychological nature of gender stereotypes (e.g., the nature of making social judgments) or the implications of cultural differences (e.g., Albert & Porter, 1983; Fagot, 1985; Kuhn, Nash, & Brucken, 1978; Weinraub, et al., 1984). Developmental Patterns Despite the limitations of past research on examining the psychological processes of gender-role stereotypes, there has been much progress in the way of establishing when gender-related stereotypes begin to emerge, the nature of its development, and the types or categories of stereotypes made by children in North America. For example, studies in North America have indicated that by age two, children have some awareness of sex-role knowledge (Weinraub et al., 1984), and that by age four or five, children have developed a well-defined set of gender-role stereotypes (defined as beliefs or assumptions one possesses of sex-appropriate characteristics and behaviors) for objects (e.g., toys), activities (e.g., playing dolls), and adult roles (e.g., cooking) (e.g., Albert & Porter, 1983; Fagot, 1985; Signorella, 1987). More specifically, for objects and activities (including playmates), most researchers have looked at children?s gender-role stereotypes in terms of sex-appropriate preferences (e.g., Weinraub et al., 1984). In most cases, gender-role stereotypes were related to same-sex preferences with knowledge of gender stereotypes influencing greater preferences for same-sex toys (e.g., boys choosing cars), play behaviors (e.g., girls playing kitchen), and playmates (e.g., boys preferring to play with 22 other boys) (Etaugh & Liss, 1992; Fagot, Leinbach, & Hagan, 1986; Kuhn et al., 1978; Munroe, Shimmin, Munroe, 1984; O?Brien & Huston, 1985). There was however, one study by Weinraub and her colleagues (1984), in which it was found that no relation existed between stereotypes and sex-appropriate toy preferences in children before age three. This may suggest that in very young children, toy preferences may not necessarily indicate the development of gender-role stereotypes. In the area of future adult roles, researchers have shown that children with more gender-role stereotype knowledge tended to have more stereotypes about future gender roles (e.g., Etaugh & Liss, 1992; Kuhn et al., 1978). In one particular study by Kuhn et al. (1978), children between the ages of two and three were asked about future roles they will have as adults. Surprisingly, they found that both boys and girls believed that boys ?will be the boss, and mow the grass? and girls will ?clean the house, be a nurse or a teacher?. However, boys (alone) believed that they ?will be a governor, doctor or fly a plane? and that girls ?will cook the dinner?, whereas girls believed they ?will take care of babies?. As indicated by these examples, boys were found to have stronger stereotyped beliefs about roles than girls, a finding which has been confirmed in other studies (e.g., Baruch & Barnett, 1986; Etaugh & Liss, 1992). Further, boys compared to girls, were found to be more rigid in their stereotypes from this age group through middle childhood (e.g., Edlebrock & Sugawara, 1978; Katz & Ksansnak, 1994). Research on children?s gender-role stereotypes for traits or characteristics (e.g., male and feminine characteristics such as ?adventurous? or ?gentle?) has indicated that stereotypes appear in children around three years old and increase with age. In one 23 longitudinal study, Reis and Wright (1982) asked children between the ages of three and five to assess the development of gender stereotype knowledge about traits. By age five, a majority of the children in this study had possessed knowledge of gender-role stereotypes characterizing adults in the U.S. culture (e.g., girls cry a lot, boys fight). In middle-childhood, children?s knowledge of gender-role stereotypes become more sophisticated, as cognitive abilities become more advanced (Katz & Ksansank, 1994). This may in part, be due to more opportunities children have to choose and participate in social activities (e.g., sports) which require the application or use of gender- role knowledge (McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 1999). For instance, by middle-childhood, children?s peer activities have been identified as having the tendency to be gender- segregated (Eccles, Jacobs, Harold, Yoon, Arbreton, Freedman-Doan, 1993). This would suggest that children in this age group may develop an increased awareness of gender- related stereotypes, as they relate to social activities. Since middle-childhood is a time in which social competencies are especially important (Rubin et al., 1998), adherence to social conventions, such as gender-segregated activities, may be accepted more readily, contributing to gender-related stereotypes. In particular, research on children?s views towards boys? and girls? cross-gender behavior points to the impact of gender stereotypes have on social activities. Across these studies, boys? engagement in opposite sex-typed behavior was viewed more negatively than girls? and in general, less accepted by peers (Fagot, 1985; Moller et al., 1992; Ruble & Martin, 1998; Zucker, 1995). Additionally, North American research has indicated interesting patterns of developmental trends from studies examining the nature of flexibility in the application 24 of these gender-role stereotypes to social judgments (e.g., sex-role transgressions) (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 1982; Martin, Wood, & Little, 1990; Smetana, 1986; Stoddart & Turiel, 1985). Generally, the findings have been mixed (e.g., Stangor & Ruble, 1987). While some researchers have found preferences for sex-typed occupations and activities to decrease with age (Fagot, 1985b), others have found flexibility to increase through childhood and adolescence (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 1982). Although, results have often been inconsistent (e.g., Stoddart & Turiel, 1985), most studies have suggested that depending on the type of sex-role stereotype (e.g., preferences for same-sex objects versus cross-gender transgressions), very young children and early adolescents are less flexible in their gender-stereotypic beliefs than children in middle childhood (ages seven to nine) (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 1982; Fagot, 1985). In one specific study, Stoddart and Turiel (1985), found non-linear (?U-shaped?) age trends in a sample of children ranging from five to thirteen years of age indicating that differences in the flexibility of children?s reasoning about gender-role transgressions (e.g., boy dressing up in female clothing) varied according to age. This finding of a ?U-shaped? pattern of flexibility in judgments based on gender stereotypes is of special interest, because a non linear developmental trend suggests that with age, children do not merely accumulate gender-role knowledge statically, but are instead actively reasoning and evaluating the nature of gender roles as they apply them to social judgments. In other words, children at different ages may reason differently about gender-related stereotypes (e.g., younger children focus on physical characteristics while older children weigh psychological characteristics). These results are not surprising 25 given that the theoretical approach (social cognitive domain theory; Smetana, 1995a) guiding studies such as this one offers a unique and functional framework for examining the reasoning behind social judgments. In this area of research (as in others), social cognitive domain theory has been especially useful in revealing the complexity of children?s conceptions of gender roles, unlike prior studies, which have often focused on the outcomes or the acquisition of sex-role stereotypes (Etaugh & Liss, 1992; Fagot, 1985; Kuhn et al., 1978; Reis & Wright, 1982; Weinraub et al., 1984). (For a review of social cognitive domain theory, see Smetana, 1995; Turiel, Killen & Helwig, 1987; Turiel, 1998). Role of Culture An important aspect to understanding children?s conceptions of gender stereotype knowledge is to examine the role of culture. Since gender stereotypes are rooted in the social customs of a given culture, consideration for how the ideologies of the respective culture influence the nature of an individual?s gender-related stereotypes (e.g., gender- role expectations) is warranted. No doubt, variations exist across cultures in the socialization of gender-related traits and behaviors (e.g., more traditional cultures employ stricter gender boundaries) in young children (e.g., Weisner & Loucky, 1994). This has important implications for understanding how cultural ideologies may dictate, to some extent, children?s constructions of, and adherence to gender stereotypes, with respect to the values placed on certain gender-role behaviors and traits (e.g., stereotype of Japanese women being submissive is negatively valued; Rolandelli, 1991) (Ruble, 1988). In other words, the development of, and conceptualization of certain gender stereotypes may be 26 culturally specific. If this is the case, then the generalizability of previous findings from studies of middle class European-American children would be challenged (e.g., Fagot, 1985; Fagot & Leinbach, 1983; Martin & Little, 1990; Weisner & Loucky, 1994). In general, researchers looking specifically at the role of culture with respect to the development of children?s conceptions of gender-related stereotypes have been lacking. There have been cross-cultural and ethnic studies of gender-role development in young children; however, most of these studies have focused on finding cross-cultural validity of widely used gender-role measures (e.g., Harris, 1994) or have been limited to testing the universality of developmental sequences for certain gender-related concepts (e.g., the stages of gender understanding; Munroe et al., 1984). In particular, with regard to East-Asian cultures, such as Korea, where traditional gender-roles are strongly embedded in everyday life, few have examined the cultural impact on children?s conceptions of gender-role stereotypes. However, a few studies have been conducted on Korean children?s gender stereotype knowledge. In one study, by Lee and Sugarawa (1994), children?s gender-related stereotype knowledge was measured. A culturally relevant measure of sex-trait stereotype (Sex-Trait Stereotype Measure II, ?SSMII?; Lee & Sugarawa, 1982) based on a stereotype measure used with U.S. samples, was devised and tested on Korean children ranging from first through sixth grades. This instrument involved a picture story questionnaire depicting thirty-two descriptions of characteristics representative of male and female roles, in which children were asked to assign a described sex-trait to three silhouette drawings (male, female or both). 27 Interesting observations were made by the authors of this study. First, in constructing the Korean version of the SSMII, culturally unique stereotypes were found and tested. For example, ?yamchun han? meaning ?modest and well-behaved?, relevant only to females, was one of the stereotypes incorporated into the Korean version. In addition, broader cultural differences were found between Korean and European- American children. Overall, Korean children (especially males) were found to have stronger stereotypes when compared to prior studies with European-American children. The authors concluded that socio-cultural and familial influences were an important next step to studying these cultural differences in the awareness of gender stereotypes. This supports the view that cultural influences play an important role in understanding children?s knowledge and application of gender stereotypes, especially in a culture such as Korea where delineations of gender-roles remain strong. As an example, children?s conceptions of gender roles may be influenced by cultural expectations in the family that place fathers in an external role, deciding issues and responsible for economic plans, whereas mothers are expected to fulfill an internal role characterized by having to nurture the children and manage the household (Yi, 1993). The Role of Parents Another important dimension to understanding children?s conceptions of gender stereotypes is to examine the role of parents. Parents, especially in a young child?s life, are a key source of their children?s gender-role socialization (Katz, 1987). Parents? own gender stereotyped beliefs shape their expectations and goals for their children in gender- typed activities, as well as influence the degree to which they facilitate their children?s 28 competence in these activities (Lytton & Romney, 1991). Particularly in the family context, parents convey gender stereotypic expectations through household activities which influence children?s gender related inferences about gender roles (e.g., A mother with gender stereotypic expectations that females should cook, expects her daughter to learn to be a good cook; Eccles et al., 1993). In fact, children?s preferences for activities have been linked to the level of traditionalism in the home environment (Serben, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993). As an illustration, in a study by Blair (1992), parents? division of household labor along traditional gender lines, influenced children?s sex- typed attitudes and preferences for chores. Girls in this study were found to prefer spending time in the kitchen, whereas boys were found to prefer spending time outside using tools on the lawn. In another study, Crouter, Manke, and McHale (1995) found that when parents divided household chores along traditional gender lines, children?s involvement in gender-typed tasks (feminine or masculine tasks) increased. Therefore, in a traditional culture, like Korea, where strict gender-roles are a part of everyday life in the family context (e.g., household tasks, Kim & Hurh, 1987), it might be expected that parents have a stronger impact in shaping their children?s conceptions of gender stereotypes than parents in non-traditional cultures. Particularly in Korean culture, where fathers and mothers fulfill roles that are clearly defined along gender lines in the home (Kim, 1993), this has implications for children?s gender role development as children?s initial exposure to gender-typed behavior, and consequently, their early formations of gender-role stereotypes, begins in the home. Thus, the nature of gender 29 role knowledge may be best understood in the context of the family for children with ties to Korean culture. Research on the intersection of cultural and parental influences on gender stereotype development in children, though lacking, have mainly focused on the formation of gender-roles. Typically, researchers were interested in making links between parents from more traditional cultures and children?s gender-role stereotypes. In one study, Weisner and Loucky (1994) examined non-conventional and conventional parents? influence on children?s gender-roles and understanding. Although this study did not specifically focus on cultural factors, its findings may be relevant and useful for examining cultural influences. In this study, ?non-conventional? referred to a commitment by the parents to endorse gender egalitarian parenting practices; whereas, ?conventional? was construed as being equivalent to a more traditional parenting approach (e.g., gender-specific roles). An important outcome of this study was the finding that children from non- conventional families displayed less stereotyping of male objects and were more likely to make non gender-typed responses. The authors attributed this outcome to be a reflection of children?s understanding of the behaviors and attitudes valued by their parents. For example, in this study, fathers from non-conventional families were more supportive of their children in a less gender-typed manner and domestic tasks, viewed as egalitarian, were shared by parents. Thus, the authors concluded that parents? beliefs about traditionalism in families are likely to shape children?s understanding of how the socio- cultural world operates. These results have valuable implications for other cultures. For 30 example, how do the practices of more traditional cultures influence their children?s gender-role development? One goal of the present study was to examine how children with ties to a traditional culture, such as Korea, evaluate parental expectations about gender-related activities. In another study, researchers examined whether three-year old boys and girls conceptualized gender role knowledge differently, as a function of differences in the way male and female roles are portrayed in the culture (O?Brien, Peyton, Mistry, Hruda, Jacobs, Caldera, Huston, & Roy, 2000). The purpose of their study was to test whether the traditionalism of parental attitudes was related to children?s gender concepts at this young age. In general, they found that boys were more knowledgeable about male roles than female roles; whereas girls were equally familiar with both male and female roles. Also, boys, compared to girls, had greater gender-stereotyped attitudes. The researchers concluded that a society?s differential portrayal of values and expectations of gender roles (i.e., that the gender expectations and consequences of male roles are clearer and consistent; whereas boundaries for female roles are less clear and in general, less valued), were related to the differences in boys and girls gender-role cognition. However, the findings from this study did not indicate a significant relation between parents? traditional attitudes and children?s gender-role conceptions in this young age group. It was concluded that at age 3, parental attitudes and behaviors may not be the most salient source of influence regarding their gender-role knowledge. Clearly, more research is needed to examine further, the relation between cultural influences, parental gender attitudes, and children?s gender role knowledge. 31 In sum, the few studies reviewed on cultural influences and differences in children?s development of gender-related stereotypes as well as parental influences indicate the need for more studies pertaining to this area of gender research. Little is known as to the influence cultures of differing ideologies have on children?s gender-role development. Clearly this is one of the limitations of the gender-role development literature. Another limitation is the lack of understanding how children apply their gender stereotypic knowledge to everyday social life, for example, social customs, family roles, and peer activities. Social Reasoning about Gender Stereotypes Gender-role stereotypes play an important role in how children make choices about toys, activities, playmates, or future roles (e.g., Fagot et al., 1992). This knowledge is used by individuals to discriminate between gender-related information and more importantly in organizing and selecting gender-appropriate behaviors (e.g., Fagot et al., 1992; Reis & Wright, 1982). For children especially, gender-role stereotypes are useful for organizing, operating, and interpreting behaviors in the social world as they develop. Therefore, gender-related stereotypes have a positive heuristic value in organizing information along gender lines (e.g., Mackie et al., 1996). Yet, there are also consequences to the development of certain gender-role stereotypes (e.g., devaluing of certain occupations associated with women), particularly when it bears on issues of fairness, such as exclusion from social opportunities as a result of gender biases (i.e., gender discrimination). 32 Although much research has established the nature of gender stereotype knowledge in children, it is less clear how and when children apply, or use this type of knowledge when reasoning about social issues, such as exclusion from social relationships (e.g., friends), or social activities (e.g., soccer club). Exclusion can take the form of a simple act of preventing a boy from playing with dolls, to more complex situations where a peer social club excludes a child based on their gender or race because group functioning would be hindered (i.e., the group takes priority over the individual). Thus, there may be times when gender-related stereotypes take precedence over fairness, such as, membership in the ?Boys Scouts?, for reasons of group functioning. At other times, exclusion based on gender is viewed as wrong, such as when a child is denied access to school simply because they are a girl or a boy. In order to understand the complex nature of how individuals reason about exclusion, Killen and colleagues (see Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002) have investigated these issues in several recent studies. Social Reasoning about Exclusion Overview In the past several years, a number of researchers have examined children?s social reasoning about inclusion and exclusion (Horn, Killen, & Stangor, 1999; Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002; Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002; Killen & Stangor, 2002; Killen, Pisacane, Lee-Kim, & Ardila-Rey, 2001; Schuette & Killen, 2002; Shin, 2002; Theimer, Killen, & Stangor, 2001). Drawing from developmental work on moral, social-conventional and psychological reasoning (social cognitive domain theory) and 33 social psychological theory on stereotypes, these studies were designed to investigate the different forms of reasoning children used when evaluating the exclusion of an individual based on social stereotypes (gender and race) from different social contexts (e.g., friendship, peer group, home). A number of questions formulated the nature of this research which attempted to bridge the gap between children?s gender knowledge and the application of that knowledge to evaluating unfair decisions based on gender stereotypes. In other words, to investigate the moral dimension of gender related judgments. For instance, what types of reasons do children use to reject or condone exclusion? When do children give priority to certain types of reasoning when evaluating exclusion? These are some of the questions that have been the main focus of these studies. Overall, to date, findings from these studies have established that children?s reasoning about exclusion is multifaceted. In other words, as may be expected, exclusion was not unilaterally viewed as wrong in all circumstances. Instead, children used different forms of reasoning when evaluating exclusion. There were times when exclusion was rejected due to issues of fairness, and at other times, exclusion was condoned for social conventional reasons, such as group functioning (?Girls need to have their own club so they can share secrets) or stereotypic reasons (?Boys don?t play dolls?) (e.g., Killen et al., 2001, Killen et al., 2002a). This was especially evident, as various studies focused on examining specific factors thought to bear on children?s reasoning about exclusion. So far, researchers have examined the role of gender, context, and social influences on children?s reasoning, in addition to developmental and ethnic group 34 differences. In particular, the type of stereotype (gender or race), the nature and context of exclusion (e.g., straightforward versus complex exclusion; friendship versus peer group versus home contexts versus different cultures), and external social influences (e.g., peer pressure versus authority influence) have been the focus of various studies (Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002; Killen et al., 2002a; Killen & Stangor, 2001; Killen et al., 2001; Shin, 2002; Schuette & Killen, 2002; Theimer, Killen, & Stangor, 2001). Collectively, these studies have included children ranging from preschool to high school age, as well as from diverse ethnic backgrounds, such as African-Americans, Asian- Americans, European-Americans, Hawaiians, and Latin-Americans. As a result, there have been several important findings relevant to understanding the nature of children?s conceptions about fairness, stereotypes, and other issues with respect to social reasoning about exclusion. With the exception of one study, however, none of these researchers have examined how children evaluate parental decisions to exclude sons or daughters from cross-gender-related activities (Schuette & Killen, 2002). Prior research on exclusion has focused on peers excluding individuals from peer related activities (Killen et al., 2002, Killen & Stangor, 2001). Further, with the exception of two studies, social reasoning about exclusion has not been examined in children with ties to traditional cultures (Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002; Park, Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002). Exclusion in the Peer Context In studies on exclusion judgments, children were asked to evaluate the decision of an individual or group to exclude someone on the basis of their gender or race. In one study, Killen et al. (2001) examined young children?s view of exclusion based on gender 35 in the peer group context (Killen et al., 2001). Preschool-aged children from three to five years old, were asked to evaluate whether it was okay for a group of girls playing a stereotypic activity (playing with dolls, playing teacher) to exclude a boy; and similarly, whether it was okay for a group of boys playing a stereotypic activity (playing with trucks, playing firefighter) to exclude a girl. For example, children were asked, ?Is it all right or not all right for the girls to tell John that he cannot play [dolls with them]? In this straightforward exclusion question, findings revealed that a majority of children rejected exclusion, using reasons based on fairness (e.g., ?It?s not fair?). This finding was important in showing that children gave priority to fairness over stereotypes. However, when presented with a less straightforward situation where a group of girls or boys has room for only one child to join and they have to choose between a girl and a boy, children were more apt to use stereotypes in their inclusion decision. The increase in complexity led to variation in children?s evaluations. As an illustration, when children were asked, ?Who should the group pick? How come they should pick him/her?? children?s responses were mixed. Results indicated that about half of the children chose the child who fit the stereotype (e.g., picking the girl for the doll playing activity) and used social conventional reasoning (?because dolls are for girls?) to justify their responses, whereas the other half chose the non-stereotypic child for reasons of fairness. Next, when presented with a counter probe (moral or social conventional), which was intended to challenge their initial choices, those children who initially chose the child who fit the stereotype were more likely to change their choices when presented with a moral probe (?What if it would be more fair to give Tom a chance to play with 36 dolls?), than were children who initially chose the child who did not fit the stereotype. In other words, when confronted with the issue of fairness, children were more apt to change their original choices, which was not the case for the stereotype probe (?What if they should pick Sally because playing with dolls is something that girls do??) indicating that the moral probe was more powerful than the social conventional probe. In sum, one of the significant findings of this study showed that, despite the strength of stereotypes evident in young children?s play activities (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 1982), when presented with an exclusion scenario involving gender stereotypes, children pointed to the wrongfulness of exclusion. In straightforward exclusion, that is, where an individual was excluded from a social context because of their gender or race, fairness reasoning took precedence over the maintenance of stereotypes. In cases where exclusion was more complex, such as having to choose between two children for a stereotypic activity, children?s reasoning reflected the multifaceted nature of the decision. In this case, both stereotype (social conventional) and fairness reasoning was equally used; however, when presented with counterprobes, issues of fairness took priority over stereotype reasoning. In a following study, older children, from elementary to middle school age (first, fourth, and seventh grades), were asked to evaluate exclusion based on gender and race in peer group contexts (Killen & Stangor, 2001). More specifically, children were asked about decisions made by four after-school clubs (ballet, baseball, math, and basketball) to include or exclude individuals that did not fit the stereotype of the club. For example, in a gender-based exclusion scenario, a boy is excluded from joining a ballet club; in a race- 37 based exclusion scenario, a Black child is excluded from joining a math club. Children?s evaluations of this straightforward exclusion condition replicated findings from the preschool study (Killen et al., 2001) described above. Again, a vast majority of children rejected straightforward exclusion using reasons of fairness. However, when asked to evaluate more complicated exclusion conditions, children?s responses were multifaceted, that is, fairness reasoning was no longer predominately used, but stereotypes emerged in their reasoning. Similar to the Killen et al. (2001) preschool study, children were asked whom the group should choose to join their club when faced with the decision to include either the child who fit the stereotype or the child who did not fit the stereotype. However, this study differed from prior studies, in that another dimension, qualification (equal or unequal) of the child being chosen, was included in this exclusion context. For example, in the equal qualifications condition, children were told, ?A boy and a girl want to join the club but there is room for only one more person to join and the boy and girl are equally good at ballet? Who should the club pick? Why?? whereas, in the unequal qualifications condition, the child that did not fit the stereotype was more qualified to join the clubs than the child who fit the stereotype. Overall, these findings indicated that when reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in gender related peer group contexts, children made stereotypical considerations when condoning exclusion based on gender or race. Additionally, significant context, gender, and developmental differences were found. When comparing children?s view of exclusion based on gender and race, exclusion in the race context was 38 considered more wrong than in the gender context. Also, girls compared to boys, had a stronger sense of fairness, evidenced by their prioritizing fairness over stereotypes across all contexts. Further, when comparing younger and older children, with age, adolescents (7 th graders) were more likely to use group functioning reasons (e.g., Choose her because she?s better at ballet and that?s what the club is about?) to justify choosing the child who fit the stereotype of the group. This age finding reveals that as children become older, a variety of issues are weighed when making judgments about social issues. For example, children have considerations for the group as well as for the individual being excluded. Yet, whether children?s coordination of these issues would differ depending on contextual variations (e.g., friendship versus peer group contexts, stereotypic versus non stereotypic contexts), and whether age differences would be found beyond the middle age group remained unanswered. In order to address these questions, in a subsequent study, Killen et al. (2002a) expanded investigation of children?s social reasoning about exclusion by examining various contexts of exclusion, external sources of influence on exclusion, and ethnic group differences. Children from elementary to high school age and from different ethnic groups, African-American, Asian-American, Euro-American, and Latin-American, were asked to evaluate gender- and race-based exclusion of children from three different contexts (friendship, peer group, school). These contexts reflected three levels of social exclusion: individual (friendship), social (peer group), and societal (school), which were considered to be familiar occurrences of exclusion. Participants in this study were asked to evaluate gender- or race-based exclusion of an individual from each of these contexts. 39 For example, in the friendship context, children were asked, ?Is it all right for Tom to not want to be friends with Sally because she?s a girl??, in the race-based exclusion in the peer group context, children were asked, ?Is it all right for an all-White music club to not let Kevin join because he?s Black??, and in the gender-based exclusion in the school context, children were asked, ?Is it all right for Amy to not be allowed to go to school because she?s a girl?? Overall, results confirmed earlier findings that a majority of children rejected exclusion using fairness reasons. Yet, depending on the context (friendship, peer group, school) children used multiple forms of reasoning. For example, children viewed exclusion in the friendship context as a matter of personal choice (?It?s Tom?s decision who he wants to be friends with?) and thus more of a legitimate context of exclusion, whereas for the peer group context, children considered group functioning and stereotype reasons for condoning exclusion (?If a girl joins, then the boys in the club won?t be able to talk about what they want?). Children?s reasoning also differed according to their age and ethnicity. Older children (high school students), compared to younger children (elementary school students) were more likely to use multiple forms of reasoning, especially in the friendship and peer group contexts, as evidenced by considerations for personal choice and group functioning. Children from different ethnic groups appeared to be more sensitive to issues of exclusion as reflected by their reasoning. For example, when asked to evaluate whether a White boy should let a Black boy be his friend, African-American children, compared to other ethnic groups, were more likely to use multiple forms of reasoning when evaluating this type of exclusion, including fairness 40 (?it?s not fair?), empathy (?he will be very sad?) and integration (?White and Black kids need to learn to get along?). This suggests that minority children, in identifying with the victims of exclusion, expressed a greater understanding about exclusion in their reasoning. Further, Killen and colleagues (2002a) found that children?s reasoning also varied according to external sources of influences on exclusion. For each of the three contexts, children were asked to evaluate exclusion in light of social consensus (peers, townspeople), authority influence (parents, government), and generalizability (cultural expectations). As an example, in the friendship context, children were asked to consider the influence of peer pressure, ?A group of Tom?s friends do not think he should be friends with Sally because she is a girl. Do you think it?s still okay for Tom to want to be friends with Sally even though she is a girl?? Although overall, children rejected these multiple sources of influence when evaluating exclusion based on gender or race, some children?s responses varied according to the external influence probe and the context of exclusion. In both the friendship and peer group contexts, but not the school context, children took into account the external influence probes in their reasoning responses. When asked to evaluate authority influence on the exclusion of a child from the music club (e.g., ?What if his parents think the club should/should not let Kevin join because he?s Black??), some children?s reasoning yielded to parental authority as a reason to condone or reject exclusion. In addition, a small minority of children, in their response to the generalizability probe (?What about in another culture??) viewed exclusion in another country as legitimate due to different customs and social traditions conveying that the 41 wrongfulness of exclusion does not necessarily apply to other cultures. These findings raise important questions regarding children?s conceptions about authority and cultural considerations when evaluating the wrongfulness of exclusion. How do children evaluate parents and not peers, excluding children based on gender reasons? What forms of reasoning are used by children to evaluate the wrongfulness of parental decisions based on gender stereotypes? The aim of the present study was to address these questions. Exclusion in the Family Context Most of the research on exclusion, thus far have focused on children?s evaluations of social exclusion by children or a group of children of an individual in peer related contexts. Much less is known as to how children evaluate non peers, such as parents? exclusion of children for gender reasons. However, there has been one study on children?s social reasoning about gender exclusion in the family context which involved parental decisions about household activities (Schuette & Killen, 2002). In this study, children from kindergarten, third, and fifth grades, were interviewed about gender-based inclusion and exclusion involving four household chores, two male-stereotyped and two female-stereotyped (e.g., ?Who should help the mother cook, the son or daughter?). Overall, findings from this study indicated that children used social conventional reasoning and stereotypes when making their decisions as to which child should participate in a particular household chore. However, when children were asked to consider issues of fairness, children were more likely to change their evaluations and increase their use of moral reasons. Another important finding was that boys, compared to girls, viewed male-stereotypic activities more strongly than female-stereotypic 42 activities. Boys were more likely uphold gender expectations about male-stereotypic household activities. Thus, compared to earlier studies on gender exclusion in the peer context, the findings from this study suggest that children may be more willing to use social conventional reasoning (e.g., gender stereotypes) when gender exclusion involves home activities decided by parents. Yet, children?s evaluations about parental decisions involving gender exclusion in activities outside the home may be viewed quite differently than activities that occur in the home. While children may view parents to have legitimate jurisdiction over household activities, they may not believe that parents have the similar authority to decide activities that occur outside the home, such as peer activities. Thus, in order to address this gap in this area of research, the main goal of the present study was to examine parental gender exclusion of children in the context peer related activities. Another goal of the present study was to examine the influence of cultural expectations on the reasoning used by children when evaluating parental decisions involving gender exclusion. The Role of Culture Research focused on the role of culture on the nature of children?s reasoning about exclusion has been very limited. While children?s reasoning about exclusion in other cultures has not been examined, children?s and adolescents? evaluative judgments (e.g., ?Is it all right to exclude??) have been examined in other cultures (Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002; Park, Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2003). In one study, Killen, Crystal, and Watanabe (2002), surveyed children from fourth through tenth grades, from 43 the U.S. and Japan, on their evaluations of excluding a peer from a group for six reasons (being aggressive, unconventional appearance, acting like a clown, cross-gender behavior, slowness in sports, and sad personality). Results indicated that overall, children, irrespective of culture, judged it wrong to exclude. However, there were some differences regarding age, gender and culture. Younger children (fourth graders), compared to older children were more likely to judge exclusion as wrong for contexts considered to require the jurisdiction of adults (being aggressive, slowness in sports). In addition, overall, females were more likely to judge exclusion as more wrong than were males. More specifically, American females were the most likely to judge exclusion as wrong, compared to Japanese males and females; whereas American males were most likely to judge exclusion as being legitimate. Further cultural differences indicated that Japanese students, more than American students, judged excluding someone who dyed their hair green as more wrong and American students, compared to Japanese students, were less willing to exclude a child from a peer group because of their personality (e.g., being sad). The findings from this study suggest that children from different cultures may weigh differently, the issues involved in evaluating exclusion. In a subsequent study, Park, Killen, Crystal, and Watanabe (2003) extended this work by examining exclusion judgments of Korean children and adolescents using the same survey. Findings were contrary to predictions that Korean and Japanese students would be similar in their judgments. This prediction was based on Korea and Japan sharing an East Asian heritage. In fact, Korean student?s evaluations differed from Japanese students. Overall, Korean students rated exclusion as more wrong than children 44 from Japan or the U.S. More specifically, Korean students evaluated exclusion of children with disruptive behavior (aggressive children, and children acting like a clown) as the most legitimate. Surprisingly, given the traditional gender roles present in Korean culture, Korean students were found to be tolerant of cross-gender behavior. Further, gender differences were not found in Korean children?s judgments, whereas gender differences were found in Japanese and American children. Whether these findings regarding Korean children would apply to Korean American children, who participate in both Korean and American culture raises interesting issues regarding the role of culture. To address this question, Korean American children were sampled in the present study. In sum, research on children?s social reasoning about exclusion has shown that most children view exclusion as wrong, and appeal to issues of fairness and equality when justifying their evaluation. However, when exclusion becomes more complicated and multiple considerations need to be weighed, children?s reasoning about exclusion based on gender and race are multifaceted. Coupled with developmental and ethnic group differences in social reasoning, these studies have shown the complexity and thoughtfulness by which children differ in their evaluations about exclusion involving social stereotypes. However, more studies examining other contexts, cultures, and other social factors that may play a role in children?s view of exclusion, are needed to fully explore the multifaceted nature of exclusion based on social stereotypes. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to extend this work by investigating Korean American children?s evaluations of parents? decisions to exclude children from 45 gender related social activities. Next, the theoretical framework enabling this work, referred to as social cognitive domain theory, will be described in detail below. Social Cognitive Domain Theory Overview Social cognitive domain theory, or more commonly referred to as ?domain theory?, offers a theoretical framework for examining the development of moral and social reasoning in children and adolescents (Turiel, 1998). Unlike stage models of moral development (Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1932), which have narrowly defined the development of children?s moral reasoning as hierarchical and global, social cognitive domain theory has posited that children develop three distinct domains of social knowledge: moral, societal, and psychological (see Tisak, 1995; Turiel, 1983, 1998). Distinct features characterize each of these three domains. The moral domain addresses how individuals ought to behave towards one another and includes issues such as those pertaining to equality, fairness, justice, rights, and welfare. Prototypic examples of moral transgressions include hitting and stealing. The societal domain includes conceptions such as social groups, social conventions, and social relations. Much of the research examining this domain has focused on ?social-conventional? reasoning which concern rules which are arbitrarily constructed and assist in coordinating social interactions and promote social order (e.g., taking turns speaking by raising hands, wearing uniforms to school). Social customs are also included in this domain, which are often used to characterize social traditions in various cultures (e.g., formal bowing to elders in the family and community). In contrast, the psychological domain is concerned with 46 psychological systems and includes conceptions such as personal decision-making, personality, self, and identity, all of which are outside the jurisdiction of moral or social concerns. Much of the research in this domain has focused on issues of personal choice (e.g., choosing one?s own friends, issues of autonomy). Over the past twenty years, numerous studies have demonstrated that these domains of social and moral judgments are in fact, conceptually distinct and considered to develop independently of one another (Smetana, 1995a; Tisak, 1995; Turiel, 1998). They are constructed out of the individual?s interactions with the environment (e.g., social interaction) from which knowledge about these domains are formed (Turiel, 1983, 1998). In having these distinct domains, it presupposes that individuals have differential social experiences, which relate to the qualitatively distinct conceptions about morality, social practices, and personal issues. So, for example, children may begin to form basic conceptions of equality in the moral domain from experiencing this for themselves and abstracting from their personal experiences (e.g., from not having a turn playing with a toy come to understand that individuals should be treated equally). Early research has focused on the criteria and content of these separate domains, as well as developmental aspects and contextual differences in social reasoning. Using an interview method, which has been and continues to be the primary tool for examining children?s and adolescents? social reasoning, researchers from this model have been able to analyze the criteria by which individuals use to delineate the boundaries of moral, social-conventional, and personal domains. As an example, a typical interview measure from this theoretical perspective asks children and adolescents to evaluate a transgression 47 and then justify, or provide reasons for their judgments. By using this methodology, researchers have assessed that children and adolescents reason differently about moral and non-moral domains of social knowledge. For example, when asked about harming another child (moral transgression), children respond that it is wrong even when an authority figure or a group of peers decide that it is all right and it would be wrong even in another country; whereas when asked about wearing pajamas to school (social conventional transgression), children respond that it is okay if a teacher, or classroom of peers, or a culture decides that it is all right (Tisak & Turiel, 1984). Therefore, moral issues were found to be obligatory, not contingent on authority, rules, or social (group) practices; while social-conventional issues were considered to be contingent on rules, authority, social customs and coordination. Moreover, latter research examining the psychological domain has shown that personal issues are regarded to be within the individual jurisdiction and considered apart from social regulation (e.g., choice of friends) (for a review, see Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 1998). Developmental Aspects Developmentally, these domain distinctions have been shown to begin as early as age three, at which point, children are able to judge moral transgressions to be more wrong (e.g., hitting is wrong because you get hurt) than social conventional ones (Smetana, 1995a). This indicates that young children have a rudimentary distinction between moral and non-moral domains of knowledge with a concentration on physical consequence of moral issues (Killen, 1991). With age, children have been shown to evaluate social knowledge with increased flexibility and complexity. For example, 48 children between the ages of five and seven are mainly concerned with moral and social issues they have had direct experience with upholding social regularities as a way to organize and understand their social world (e.g., upholding gender stereotypes) (Turiel, 1983; Nucci, 2001). In contrast, children around eight to ten years of age do not hold strictly to social regularities (e.g., cross-gendered behavior is okay; Carter & Patterson, 1982) and are not limited to making distinctions in their social judgments to only issues they have experienced or were familiar with, but instead, are able to apply their judgments to unfamiliar issues (Davidson, Turiel, & Black, 1983). Yet, children in this age group still have difficulty coordinating various aspects of social reasoning when evaluating multifaceted social issues. In these instances of evaluating complex issues, such as evaluating the exclusion of a daughter from helping her dad fix the car because of gender stereotypes (having to coordinate issues of fairness, authority, gender roles), when unclear about how to weigh competing issues, children between eight and ten years old often resort to using social knowledge that they are familiar about (?Sons usually help their father with the car, daughters can help their moms?) (Schuette & Killen, 2002). Children between ten and twelve years of age, however, when presented with evaluating complex social issues, have an increased conceptual ability to coordinate multifaceted issues of social reasoning. Children are able to recognize the functional value of social conventions, that contextual variability exists, and that there are exceptions to the rule; however, more abstract forms of social conventions are still difficult to grasp (for a further review of these and other developmental issues, see Nucci, 49 2001; Turiel, 1983, 1998). Thus, children in these latter two age groups (eight to ten years of age and ten to twelve years of age) have differing conceptual abilities to coordinate multiple issues that involve social conventions. In order to examine more closely, the developmental differences in children?s social reasoning about complex social issues that intersect concepts of fairness, gender stereotypes, autonomy, and authority, children from the lower and upper limits of these two age groups were the focus of the present study. More specifically, children from eight to nine years of age (third graders) and from eleven to twelve years of age (sixth graders) were recruited for the present study. It was expected that there would be differences in the way in which children from these two age groups coordinate multiple issues when evaluating parental decisions involving children?s participation in gender stereotypic activities. Evaluations of Prototypic and Complex Social Issues Earlier studies on the development of domain distinctions in children?s social judgments focused on reasoning about prototypic transgressions, in other words, straightforward issues pertaining to each domain requiring primarily one form of reasoning. For example, ?hitting? is a prototypical moral transgression that children and adolescents reason as ?unfair?, whereas, ?wearing pajamas to school? is a prototypic social conventional transgression that is considered to be a violation of school rules, and ?choosing friends? is a prototypic personal issue which children view as being a personal choice decision (e.g., Killen, 1991; Nucci, 2001; Smetana & Bitz, 1996). Moreover, studies have not been limited to North American contexts, but in fact, children and adolescents across many different cultures have been found to conceptually distinguish 50 between moral and non-moral domains of social knowledge, including South American, East Asian, East Indian, African, Europe, and Middle-Eastern cultures (for a complete listing, see Killen, McGlothlin, & Lee Kim, 2002). These studies indicated that children and adolescents across all cultures viewed clear-cut moral transgressions, such as unprovoked harm, as being wrong, and independent of rules or cultures. In other words, moral issues were treated as universal. However, some differences were found in cultures regarding social conventional issues, especially in more traditional cultures. For example, Korean children and adolescents, compared to U.S. samples, were found to use more reasoning associated with cultural traditions, such as social status, roles and appropriate behavior when reasoning about conventions (e.g., ?It is our traditional courtesy to respect adults?) (Song, Smetana, & Kim, 1987). This finding suggests that children and adolescents from different cultures may evaluate social issues differently, using reasoning according to cultural norms and expectations. One of the goals of the present study was to examine how cultural norms and expectations influence Korean American children?s evaluations about important social issues, such as gender discrimination of children from social activities in Korea. In more recent years, researchers have moved away from establishing domain distinctions using prototypic moral and non-moral transgressions, and have instead examined various areas of social development (e.g., autonomy, Nucci, 2001) using a social-cognitive domain perspective. Additionally, more recent studies have examined complex and ambiguous social issues (e.g., drug use, Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991) that require children and adolescents to weigh and coordinate different forms of reasoning. 51 These are issues that children and adolescents have predominately evaluated using multiple forms of reasoning which reiterates the multifaceted nature of social and moral reasoning from a social cognitive domain perspective. In the previous section, a current research agenda examining gender- and race- based exclusion as a complex social issue that children evaluated using multiple forms of reasoning was described in detail. Other examples of issues that have been studied are parental and adolescent conflict in the home (Smetana, 1989), children?s conceptions of personal choice and autonomy in the school, home, and cultural contexts (Nucci, 1981, 1996, 2001), religion (Nucci & Turiel, 1993), children?s conceptions of affective consequences (Arsenio, 1988), adolescents? and young adults? conceptions of civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech; Helwig, 1997), reasoning about social conflicts, such as subordination, in cultures such as the Druze and Jewish children of Israel (Wainryb, 1993, 1995; Wainryb & Turiel, 1994), and conflict resolution in young children in varying contexts (e.g., home and school) and cultures (e.g., Columbia, Japan) (Ardila- Rey & Killen, 2001; Killen & Sueyoshi, 1995). As evident from this sample list of research areas, domain theory has been used to examine how children and adolescents evaluate a diversity of important social issues. In particular, this framework has been useful for examining children?s social reasoning about autonomy and authority related conflicts in the family context. Children?s Conceptions of Autonomy and Parental Authority Through many studies, researchers have established that children and adolescents have strong conceptions about autonomy-related issues (Nucci, 2001) and parental 52 authority (Tisak, 1986). Autonomy related issues, such as children?s personal decision- making, has been defined as preferences or choices pertaining primarily to oneself, apart from social regulations or rules, or as a matter of right or wrong. (Nucci, 1996, 2001). For example, choice of friends, hairstyle, and hobbies are all considered to be issues under personal jurisdiction (Nucci, 2001). The personal domain is an important aspect of social interactions, particularly in the family context, as the development of autonomy is thought to begin at the home, where children?s first experiences with autonomy involve negotiations with parents (Nucci, 2001). In one study, Nucci and Weber (1995) examined social interactions between three and four year olds and their mothers. They found that the social interaction reflected domain differences in the way parents interacted with their children. Mothers were more willing to negotiate personal choice issues, such as choices in activities, but were more restrictive with moral and social conventional issues. Moreover, mothers were more likely to give direct social messages regarding moral and social conventional issues than they were with personal issues. Children, however, were most likely to challenge parental authority when it concerned personal issues in comparison to social-conventional or moral issues (which was rarely challenged) indicating that children as young as three and four years of age distinguish between matters of personal choice from moral and social conventional issues. Young children?s conceptions about personal issues also applied to different contexts, such as the preschool context in which personal issues were considered by children to be the child?s decision, and not up to the adults (Killen & Smetana, 1999). Children?s autonomy has also been examined from the perspective of 53 parents from various cultures. As an example, research in both the U.S. (Nucci & Smetana, 1996) and Brazil (Nucci et al., 1996) has shown that mothers regard development of autonomy and individuality as an important aspect of development for their children. More importantly, mothers from these studies believed that their children should have choices over certain activities to establish a sense of autonomy. In older children, issues of autonomy were also found to be salient, especially in the family context. Research has focused on children?s and adolescents? reasoning about issues pertaining to the personal domain, as well as to moral and social conventional domains. Most studies have examined issues of conflict between parents and children. Findings have indicated that adolescents? social reasoning about family issues is multifaceted. In one study, Smetana (1989) examined the reasoning children and adolescents (ten to eighteen year olds) used to evaluate family conflicts. Conflicts were found to be issues centered around household chores, physical appearance, doing homework, interpersonal relationships, and regulation of social activities. Overall, results indicated that adolescents and parents used different forms of reasoning. Adolescents viewed these types of conflicts as being under personal jurisdiction, whereas parents interpreted the same conflicts in terms of conventional issues. In subsequent studies, Smetana (1995b, 1998) has shown that adolescents view issues pertaining to morality as legitimate under parental authority, more so than for social conventional issues; however, those issues pertaining to the personal domain have been matters of conflicts between children and parents. As an example, children and adolescents identify issues of appearances and friendship choices as under their control; 54 whereas parents believe they should have authority to control these issues. Moreover, with age, there is an increase from early adolescents to early adulthood in judgments that parents do not have jurisdiction over personal issues (Smetana, 1988). These findings reiterate that parents and children often reason differently about the same issues leading to different interpretations of the same event. This is especially true of domain mixtures of personal and conventional issues but not with moral events which parents are considered to have legitimate authority by children. Although, parental authority is a powerful source of influence in childhood, research on children?s conceptions of authority in the family context has shown that children?s reasoning about authority is heterogeneous. There are times when children and adolescents do not evaluate parental commands as legitimate, particularly when the command involves committing a moral transgression (e.g., murder, stealing) and also, authority mandates are context dependent (Laupa, 1991; Tisak, 1986). In one study, regarding contextual differences in reasoning about authority commands, Tisak (1986), examined whether children?s conceptions of parental authority in children from ages six to ten years old, was legitimate in various contexts (stealing, family chores, friendship choice). Findings indicated that children?s reasoning about authority varied according to the different contexts, which paralleled issues from the moral, social conventional, and personal domains. Parental authority to be most legitimate in stealing (e.g., ?don?t steal?) but less so for family chores (e.g., ?you need to wash the dishes?), and even less for friendship choice (e.g., ?you shouldn?t be friends with that boy?). Children?s distinctions about parental authority in these contexts, however, increased with age indicating that 55 younger children are more likely to view parents to have jurisdiction over a wider range of contexts. Children?s conceptions about authority figures other than parents were also examined. Tisak and colleagues (2000) compared children?s conceptions of authority of both moms and teachers in home and school contexts (Tisak, Crane-Ross, Tisak, J., & Maynard, 2000). They found that children viewed mothers as having more legitimate authority in the home than in the school, whereas teacher?s authority was viewed as more legitimate in the school versus the home. This finding reiterates that children?s evaluations about authority are heterogeneous, that is, children consider many factors when reasoning about authority jurisdiction. Therefore, from a social cognitive domain perspective, children and adolescents conceptually distinguish issues in the personal domain from the moral and social conventional domains regarding personal decision making (e.g., choice of activities, appearance; Nucci, 2001). In addition, their reasoning about parental authority has been found to be heterogeneous. Yet, what is less known, is how children and adolescents from other cultures reason about these types of issues, especially in traditional cultures, where issues of autonomy and authority are grounded in social traditions and customs. Autonomy, Authority, and Culture Research on the multifaceted nature of children?s and adolescents? reasoning about autonomy and authority issues has not been limited to U.S. samples, but in fact have included other cultures, including traditional ones. Examining social reasoning in traditional cultures is of particular importance because in traditional cultures, where 56 social customs and conventions may be strictly adhered to, it might be argued that children and adolescents would prioritize social forms of reasoning over moral and personal issues when evaluating complex social situations involving issues of autonomy and authority. Moreover, based on cultural theorizing, members of traditional cultures, characterized as being ?collectivistic? implies a unilateral orientation towards maintaining social harmony with one another, thus their social reasoning can be expected to be homogeneous (Kim, Triandis, Kagiticibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Yet, research from the domain perspective, has indicated that this is not necessarily the case. As an example, in studies examining social reasoning of members in the Druze culture, which has been characterized as being highly traditional and hierarchically organized, children?s and adults? reasoning were found to be heterogeneous (Turiel, 2002; Wainryb, 1995; Wainryb & Turiel, 1994). More specifically, researchers found that individual?s reasoning was multifaceted for various types of conflicts, including issues of autonomy and authority. In a study examining personal entitlements, Wainryb and Turiel (1994), interviewed adolescents and adults from Druze and Jewish (considered non-traditional) communities in Israel, about conflict situations related to personal issues. Despite strong conceptions of male-dominated authority in the Druze culture, adolescents and adults in this community were found to have conceptions of personal choice and entitlements. Children?s conceptions of issues of autonomy and authority have also been found in other cultures characterized as being traditional. For example, children?s reasoning about issues in the personal domain was examined in Colombia (Ardila-Rey & Killen, 57 2001) and China (Yau & Smetana, 2004). Results from both of these studies confirmed that young children belonging to these cultures conceptually distinguished the personal domain from the moral and social conventional domains. Similar findings of children?s domain distinctions were also found in Korea, however, only moral and social conventional domain distinctions (and not the personal domain) were examined (Song et al., 1987). In a study by Song, Smetana, and Kim (1987), Korean children from kindergarten through twelfth grade were interviewed about prototypical moral (hitting, stealing) and conventional transgressions (greeting elders cordially, eating food with fingers). Overall, children respective of age, made distinctions between moral and conventional issues. Age related differences, however, were found in the permissibility of conventional transgressions. Younger children (kindergarten and third graders) were more likely than older children to judge these types of social conventional transgressions as wrong. Results indicated that similar to prior research on U.S. samples, Korean children?s social reasoning consisted of conceptual distinctions between domains of social knowledge, however the content of their conventional reasoning differed. Compared to American children?s reasoning, there was more emphasis on social status, social roles, social coordination (e.g., appropriate gender role behavior), and cultural traditions (e.g., social courtesy) by Korean children. This suggests that cultural ideologies (e.g., customs) may have played a role in the content of Korean children?s social conventional reasoning. Korean children were also found to have differentiated concepts of adult authority (Kim & Turiel, 1996; Kim, 1998). This is of particular interest, because Korean children 58 have been characterized as having a strong authority orientation (Pettingill & Rohner, 1985). However, research on Korean children?s conceptions about authority has found that their reasoning did not reflect a unitary orientation towards authority, as would be expected. In one study, Kim (1998) interviewed children from first through fifth grades about authority commands on ambiguous moral issues such as ?lost property?, ?sharing candy?, and ?disposing of trash?. Children were presented with stories about different authority figures (principal, teacher, class president) and a non-authority figure, a student, who gave commands about the different types of moral issues (finding money, sharing, trash disposal). Results indicated that Korean children?s reasoning took various factors into consideration when making judgments about the legitimacy of adult authorities. More specifically, authority figures giving commands that were consistent with the moral demands (returning the money, sharing candy with others, dumping trash in appropriate containers) were evaluated as being more legitimate than those authority figures who gave commands contrary to upholding morality (keeping the money, not sharing, putting trash bags out in the hallway). Therefore, Korean children did not have a unilateral orientation towards authority but took into consideration the type of command given and contextual factors when evaluating authority related issues. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that similar to other cultures, Korean children and adolescents conceptually distinguish between the moral, social- conventional, and personal domains of social knowledge in addition to having differentiated concepts of adult authority. Unique to Korean children however, was their emphasis on different reasons for evaluating acts related to the social conventional 59 domain, such as social role expectations (courtesy for elders), customs, and emphasis on social status. This finding has implications for the present study since Korean American children, despite their limited exposure to Korean culture in the home and family participation in local Korean communities, may also make similar references to cultural conventions in their social reasoning when evaluating parental authority and gender expectations. Yet to what extent Korean American children would have social conventional reasoning that is reflective of cultural viewpoints on authority and gender expectations is unclear, since in the present study, children are asked to evaluate an issue of greater complexity than a simple social transgression such as neglecting to bow one?s head when greeting elders. Thus, when evaluating the wrongfulness of parental decisions based on gender to deny children participation in social activities, whether Korean American children would refer to cultural expectations was an open question in the present study. It was expected that cultural influences may be more apparent in Korean American children?s reasoning when asked more directly about these issues in the context of occurring in Korea. Next, Korean cultural viewpoints on authority, autonomy and gender expectations in relation to Korean American children and their immigrant parents are described in the following section. 60 Korean Culture Overview Confucian principles which promote adherence to gender roles and respect for a hierarchical structure of authority characterize Korean culture as being traditional (Cha, 1994; Kim & Choi, 1994; Park & Johnson, 1984). Not only are Confucian values the cornerstone of national Korean culture but remain central in the life of Korean immigrants and their families in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998). In order to appreciate fully, the cultural ideology guiding Korean immigrant parents? socialization of their children in the U.S., it is necessary to understand the source of these principles that exist in the larger sphere of Korean culture (Min, 1998). Thus, for the purpose of elucidating the traditional values central to Korean families in the U.S., an overall depiction of the broader Korean culture is followed by a narrower focus on the ethnic culture of first generation Korean American families in the U.S. In this paper, ?first generation? Korean American families refer to Korean immigrant parents who immigrated to the U.S. with very young children or had children subsequent to immigration (Hurh, 1998). Historically, Confucian principles promoting harmony have guided Korean social life, placing great emphasis on family order as an ideal model for all social relationships (Macdonald, 1996). In past, expectations of conformity and acceptance of a patriarchal social structure were influential, establishing hierarchical structures which placed men in superior positions or roles (e.g., strong breadwinner and decision maker) and women in subordinate roles (e.g., passive servant-oriented wife) for the sake of minimizing social conflict (Kim, 1993; Yi, 1993). In present day Korean culture, this ideology, though 61 diminished as a result of modernization, continues to influence the guiding social principles or customs, members adhere to when engaging in certain social contexts. In particular, Confucian ideals have remained strong in the family context as Korean parents? child-rearing practices and familial relationships reflect conformity to traditional gender roles and filial piety (Cho & Shin, 1996; Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998; Park & Cho, 1995). In the broader culture, with the modernization of Korean society, there has been a movement towards egalitarian principles in the area of gender related practices and customs, such as more opportunities for women to hold political positions of power (Soh, 1993). Yet at the same time, women holding positions of power have the delicate task of balancing their gender equality status in their career while adhering to social customs that reflect a male dominant culture (e.g., adhering to seating protocol that favor males) which in Korean, is referred to as having ?nunchi? (intuitive cognitive assessment of delicate behavior situations; Soh, 1993). Even in rural parts of Korea, as a result of modernization, there has been change in more stringent traditional practices, such as equal expectations for both sons and daughters to pursue educational goals in major cities; yet for daughters, there is still an expectation that they continue to take part and be educated in domestic tasks at the same time (Lee, 1998; Macdonald, 1996). Thus, modern day Korea can be described as being a ?patriarchal democracy? where there is a coexistence of gender equality principles in the broader culture (e.g., education of gender equality in schools), yet in a more intimate context such as the home, traditional roles are maintained which can often lead to social conflicts (Soh, 1993). 62 This coexistence of contradictory ideologies of gender equality and male superiority is especially notable, as this depiction of Korean culture is contrary to a more common characterization by culture theorists, who describe Korea as a collectivistic society (Cha, 1994, Kim & Choi, 1994; Kim, et al., 1994). In a collectivistic culture, members form a collective identity with the goal of maintaining harmony with one another in its social systems by adhering to duty, obligation, and a priority to the group over the individual, whereas in a individualistic culture (e.g., U.S., Canada), members of this society strive to be unique and autonomous individuals distinct from family, religion, or community and a focus on rights and equality (Kim & Choi, 1994; Triandis, 1995). Global characterizations of cultures using this type of dichotomy pigeonhole cultures as being one way or the other and mask the complexity of social reality (Killen & Wainryb, 2000). Duty, obligation, and priority to the group are important issues reflected in the social traditions and customs of Korean culture (Song, Smetana, & Kim, 1987); however, issues of autonomy, rights, and fairness are also important to members of Korean culture (Cho & Shin, 1996; Soh, 1993). This is especially evident in the Korean family context, where issues of gender, autonomy, and parental authority may lead to conflicts related to issues of social coordination as well as individual goals (Nucci, 2001; Wainryb & Turiel, 1994). For the first generation Korean American family in the U.S., this coexistence of contradictory value systems may in fact be more salient and applicable, as Korean immigrant parents strive to maintain traditional Korean principles in the family that are considered to be at odds with the values of the broader U.S. culture regarding issues of gender equality and authority (Min, 1998; Kim & Choi, 63 1994; Kim & Markus, 1999; Kim, O?Neil, & Owen, 1996; Kwon & Kim, 1993; Yee, 1987). There is the clash of belief systems at a larger level between traditional Korean conservative views on gender and authority and the U.S. On a smaller scale, within the family, there may be conflicts between children?s and parents? expectations regarding issues of authority and gender expectations (Pyke, 2000). Thus for Korean American children, they are likely to experience dual ideologies at multiple levels, beginning with the family (Park, 1999). Family Structure Despite recent social changes in the broader culture of Korea, the family system has remained fairly traditional as evidenced by the maintenance of hierarchal relationships based on gender roles and authority expectations (Kim & Choi, 1994). Korean immigrant parents in the U.S. have in large part, also maintained this family structure, in which the father is considered to be the primary breadwinner, whereas the mother is responsible for household duties (Kim, O?Neil, & Owen, 1996). In addition to household management, mothers, more than fathers, are expected to take the primary responsibility for educating and socializing their children (Cho & Shin, 1996). With respect to husband and wife roles, traditionally, husbands have the role of giving commands to their wives, whereas wives have the role of obeying her husband and serving her family (Kim & Hurh, 1987). Despite changes in women?s roles outside of the home, there has been little change in adhering to this traditional family system (Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998). As an example, a large majority of Korean immigrant wives have assisted their husbands in breadwinning as they adapt financially to a new society, yet 64 their household duties have remained the same (Yee, 1987). In other words, although Korean immigrant women may experience traditionally male roles, expectations and obligations to carry out their traditional roles in the family (e.g., cooking, cleaning, managing their children?s education) have not changed as a result of additional duties (Hurh, 1998). Parental Authority Expectations in the Family As a result of Korean immigrant parents? adaptation and retention of traditional Korean family ideology, children are also expected to adhere to familial cultural expectations by their parents (Hurh, 1998; Kim, 1988; Yu, 1987). A primary obligation of children is to honor and obey their parents (filial piety; Hurh, 1998). This cultural view of respecting authority stems from Confucian ideology aimed at maintaining harmony in the hierarchical relationship between parents and their children (Kim & Choi, 1994; Park & Cho, 1995). Thus, children are deterred from expressing dissenting opinions or confrontational towards their parents (Min, 1998). Obedience and respect is not limited to parents, however, as Korean American children are also expected to be respectful towards other family authority figures (parents, uncles, grandparents), elders in the community, and authority figures in schools (teachers, principals) (Yi, 1993). Additionally, Korean American children are expected to seek and defer matters of importance to their parents? authority, in other words, seek permission before making important decisions (e.g., choice of career; Cho & Shin, 1996). Yet, as this type of parent-child relationship may be perceived as being stringent due to the strong emphasis on authority, Korean American children?s relationship with 65 their parents may actually be warm, nurturing, and not necessarily controlling or demanding as one would expect in a patriarchal family structure (Kim & Hurh, 1987; Rohner & Pettengill, 1985; Yee, 1987). In part, from a cultural viewpoint regarding obligation towards parents, a nurturing relationship may result from a two-way obligation expected between parents and children, in which children are obligated to share important matters with their parents and in return, parents respond sacrificially towards their children (Pai, 1993). This poses an interesting question as to whether Korean American children would be more supportive of parental authority when evaluating complex issues involving gender expectations and autonomy. In the present study, based on this cultural viewpoint, it was expected that in general, Korean American children would be more willing to defer to parental authority when asked to choose between parents and children to decide choice of activities. Gender Expectations in the Family Traditional ideology regarding gender roles in the Korean family remain largely unchanged, and continue to exert influence on immigrant families in the U.S. (Chang, 2003; Hurh, 1998; Kwon & Kim, 1993; Min, 1998). Korean immigrant parents have differential expectations of their children based on conservative gender ideology (Hurh, 1998). Some of Korean immigrant parents? more conservative gender socialization practices from Korea have changed, such as supporting equal educational opportunities for both sons and daughters, however gender expectations regarding household activities and extracurricular activities remain gender specific (Min, 1998). Overall, sons compared to daughters are expected to fulfill more traditional gender roles, such as taking out the 66 trash and engaging in strenuous physical athletic activities (Kim, 1993; Hurh, 1998; Sagara & Kang, 1998). Korean immigrant parents also have more preference and value of their sons compared to their daughters which leads to more favorable treatment of Korean American boys (Arnold & Kuo, 1984; Kim, 1993; Kim & Hurh, 1987; Min, 1998). Whether Korean American children are aware of differential preferences of sons over daughter has not been studied previously, however, research on Korean children?s awareness of gender-related expectations has demonstrated that they are aware of gender specific expectations, such as, ?boys are expected to be leaders of their social activities? and ?girls are expected to act demurely in social settings? (Arnold & Kuo, 1984). In addition, Korean children have been found to learn early on the appropriate gender roles in the home context (Lee & Sugawara, 1994). They are aware of the sharp division of household roles, as Korean daughters are expected to assist their mothers in preparing meals, clean the house and other related chores, whereas sons are not required to share in these tasks (Drachman, Kwon-Ahn, & Paulino, 1996; Yee, 1987). In one study, Lee and Sugawara (1994) surveyed Korean children from first through sixth grades on their awareness of cultural gender stereotypes. Overall, although both boys and girls were found to be aware of male-stereotypes, boys were found to be more aware of male- stereotypes than female-stereotypes, this was also especially true for younger children, compared to older children. These findings suggest that Korean boys have a stronger awareness of gender stereotypes specific to their gender due to the nature of being in a male-dominated culture (Lee & Sugawara, 1994). Based on these Korean findings, it was expected that Korean American children in the present study would also have strong 67 gender related knowledge, since Korean American children are expected to have similar exposure by their parents to traditional gender ideology in the home. Also, since little is known as to the extent of Korean American children?s awareness of gender expectations, a gender stereotype assessment was included in the present study in order to address this gap in the research. Issues of Autonomy in the Family Similar to cultural ideology regarding authority and gender expectations in the family, the principles guiding the nature of autonomy in the family are rooted in Confucianism. In the broader Korean culture, based on Confucian principles of maintaining social order and harmony, individuals in the subordinate position are expected to sacrifice personal interests for the benefit of the group or for those individuals in the dominant position (Kim & Choi, 1994). In the family context, wives, considered to be in the subordinate position are expected to deny their needs and submit to their husbands. Subordination also applies to children who are expected to comply with parents? directives without challenging them (Kim & Choi, 1994). Compliance, in addition to conformity, is highly valued, especially in Asian cultures, like Korea and also extends to Korean cultures abroad such as Korean immigrants in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998; Kim, & Markus, 1999; Min, 1998; Roe & Cochrane, 1990). However, this does not necessarily mean that children and wives blindly engage in compliance across all social contexts. There are times when Koreans or Korean Americans may seem outwardly submissive towards authority figures, yet, in reality they are not willing to give up their personal interests (Kim, 1988). Moreover, Korean children do not take a unilateral 68 orientation towards authority figures (as reviewed earlier), but take into account, the legitimacy of authority and nature of the act (Kim, 1998). When granting autonomy, gender differences exist. Korean and Korean immigrant parents are more likely to grant autonomy more frequently to boys than to girls (Ha, 1985; Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998). Based on gender expectations, boys are generally allowed to have more independence and are encouraged to explore their environments outside the home, yet girls are discouraged for reasons surrounding issues of safety and protection of virtue (Ha, 1985; Min, 1998). Also, boys, compared to girls are given more freedom when choosing their extracurricular activities outside the home (Min, 1998). Yet in the area of education, Korean immigrant parents in particular, support the autonomy of both daughters and sons to pursue academic interests, as this is one of the primary reasons Korean immigrants move to the U.S., that is, to afford their children better opportunities for education (Hurh, 1998; Lee, 2002). Immigration and Cultural Identification Two other primary reasons that Korean immigrants cited as reasons for transplanting themselves or their families to the U.S. was to have a better life than they had in Korea (financially and in social status) and to be reunited with relatives already residing in the U.S. (Hurh, 1998). These factors are thought to have contributed to the rapid rise in the Korean population in the U.S. over the past three decades (Mantzicopoulos & Oh-Hwang, 1998). By the 2000 Census, Korean population in the U.S. reached over one million, with over 90% of Korean Americans residing in major cities or suburbs across the U.S. (Yu & Choe, 2003). Yet, despite Koreans representing a 69 significant ethnic minority in the U.S., Korean American children have been under represented in sociological and developmental research. To date, most of the research on Korean American children?s social development has been in limited to the area of social play, which attributed different types of play behaviors between Korean American children and their U.S. counterparts to cultural differences (Farver, Kim, & Lee, 1995; Farver, Kim & Lee-Shin, 2000). Therefore, one of the aims of the present study, with its focus on Korean American children was to contribute meaningfully to the present body of research on this ethnic cultural group. The bicultural participation of Korean American children in both American and Korean cultures offers a unique opportunity for exploring the implications contradictory ideologies may have on these children?s conceptions about parental authority, autonomy, and gender role expectations. Since Korean American children are exposed to both traditional views on gender and authority in the family and what is considered contradictory American values through their schools and in the broader American culture (Drachman, Kwon-Ahn & Paulino, 1996; Yu, 1987), whether the nature of Korean American children?s conceptions about a particular issue that is considered contradictory matches their American counterparts, poses an interesting question. As an example, an issue of conflict for Korean American children may concern children?s gender expectations. In the family, Korean American children (as described earlier) may engage in traditional gender roles and have exposure to conservative views on gender through their parents, yet in the school context, children may learn about the importance of gender equality and egalitarian division of household labor (Kim, O?Neil, & Owen, 1996). What 70 is the nature of Korean American children?s reasoning about gender roles and how do children negotiate these differences as they have the difficult task of coordinating conflicting ideologies? Also, does age make a difference? Younger children may be more likely to adopt their parents? values but adolescents, with more exposure to mainstream American culture, may be more non-traditional (Yu, 1987). The extent to which their conceptions about authority, autonomy, and gender stereotypic expectations are in line with Korean or U.S. culture, however, is most likely related to their Korean immigrant parents? acculturation to U.S. culture and their own enculturation to Korean culture. Whereas acculturation is defined by cultural theorists as a process of acquiring knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the host culture, enculturation is referred to as the process of acquiring knowledge, norms and behaviors of one?s own ethno-cultural group primarily within the family context (e.g., Lee et al., 2003). The acculturation process of Korean immigrants has been characterized as being minimal with respect to acquiring behaviors and attitudes of the host culture (Hurh, 1998). A better characterization of the cultural and social adaptation of Korean immigrants has been described as ?adhesive adaptation? which refers to adding certain aspects of the host culture to the immigrant?s existing tradition (Hurh, 1998). Due to a combination of strong Korean social systems in the U.S. (e.g., Korean churches, Korean cultural societies), pride in Korean heritage, and the ability for Korean immigrants to preserve traditional cultural norms and values through encapsulation in urban areas with large Korean populations (Hurh, 1998; Kim, et al., 2001; Min, 1998), Korean Americans, 71 in general, have been identified as being one of the most successful ethnic minority groups to retain their cultural heritage (Hurh, 1998; Lee, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003; Min, 1998). For Korean American children, their acquisition of biculturalism or ?double consciousness? of both Korean and American values and behaviors is expected to involve both acculturation and enculturation processes (Lee, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003; Park, 1999). In fact, there has been some agreement by cultural theorists and psychologists that bidimensional processes more adequately describes the cultural adaptation of ethnic cultural groups to both the host culture and their culture of heritage (Kim, et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2003 Phinney & Flores, 2002; Phinney, Romero, Navo, & Huang, 2001). Thus, in order to adequately describe the cultural identification of the Korean American children sampled in the present study, a cultural assessment was included. Since children of Korean immigrants were target, it was expected that the sample in the present study would represent bicultural identification. In sum, issues of autonomy, authority and gender expectations that are grounded in Korean cultural ideology are important aspects of Korean American family life. Exploring the cultural expectations of these issues, help to elucidate how Korean American children may evaluate about parental decisions to exclude a child from gender stereotypic activities. Several factors such as Korean parents? immigration and cultural identification are also important to understanding Korean American children?s conceptions about these issues. 72 Overview of Present Study Purpose and Design In the present study, third and sixth-grade Korean American children were interviewed. The purpose of the present study was to investigate multiple factors proposed to influence Korean American children?s social reasoning about parental decisions to include or exclude children from participating in gender stereotypic activities. Overall, four issues were proposed to influence children?s evaluations concerning parents? authority in deciding boys? and girls? participation in stereotypic peer activities: 1) fairness of exclusion (gender equity), 2) gender stereotypic expectations, 3) authority, and 4) autonomy (personal choice). While much research has established that children develop strong conceptions about each of these issues (Killen et al., 2002; Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995a), until recently, little research has focused on how children evaluate complex social situations that require coordination of multiple considerations which at times, may be at odds with each other. Examining the nature of children?s social reasoning about these issues has implications for understanding how children apply gender stereotype knowledge or views on parental authority when making judgments concerning gender related transgressions. As cultural theorists and cultural psychologists posit that Korean American children are exposed to more conservative, traditional views on gender roles and attitudes towards authority figures in the home, issues of authority and gender stereotypic expectations may be particularly salient for this group of children (Hurh, 1998; Kim et al., 2001). Thus, the present study sought to investigate social 73 reasoning about a complex set of issues involving parental gender related decisions about stereotypic peer activities in a sample of Korean American children. The interview consisted of three activities: football, ballet, and sleepover. Football was chosen to represent a male-stereotyped activity whereas ballet was chosen to represent a female-stereotyped activity. Similar activities have been used in prior studies examining children?s evaluation of stereotypic activities (Killen et al, 2001; Killen & Stangor, 2001). Sleepover was included in this study to serve as a control for examining children?s evaluations of gender stereotypic versus non-stereotypic activities. For each activity, two gender targets, a Korean American girl and then a Korean American boy, were presented separately and described as desiring to participate in the activity. Therefore, each participant was presented with a total of six stories, representing gender- incongruent, gender-congruent, and gender-neutral participation. For gender stereotypic activities, gender-incongruent stories were presented before gender-congruent stories. For the gender neutral activity, the female target was presented before the male target. This design allowed for comparison of differential expectations for boys and girls to participate in opposite sex-typed activities (for a summary of design, see Appendix A). Following the presentation of each story, Korean American children were asked a set of questions intended to assess children?s general views about the gender stereotypic (and non stereotypic) activities and their views on authority and autonomy jurisdiction over these activities. They were asked whether it would be okay for the target child to participate in that story (including why), who they thought should decide whether the target child could engage in that activity (including why), and whether they supported 74 parental decisions based on arbitrary reasons (including why). This last assessment was intended to assess the extent to which children would support parental authority. Next, following presentation of both gender target stories, children were asked whether they thought it was okay for parents to allow the gender-congruent target child but not the gender-incongruent target child, to participate in the activity. This question measured whether children viewed decisions made by parents that give preference to one gender over another as legitimate. For the stereotypic activities, the child fitting the stereotype of the activity was given preference (e.g., ?What if the boy was allowed to play football but not the girl??). For the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, children were asked to evaluate preference given to a girl over a boy based on cultural expectations. Overall, this was designed to assess whether children would view parental gender bias in moral terms (e.g., fairness, gender equality). The next and final set of assessments focused on Korean American children?s view about the cultural generalizability of gender-related exclusion from peer activities in Korea, as well as their general knowledge and beliefs about gender related issues in Korea. First, children were asked whether they thought gender based exclusion occurred in Korea and next, whether they thought it would be okay if gender exclusion did occur in Korea (including why). This assessment was used to examine the moral dimensions of reasoning about gender expectations in Korea. In addition, children were asked whether they believed that gender exclusion was unfair, whether the gender incongruent child should have equal opportunity, and whether gender exclusion conditions should change or remain the same in Korea. These assessments were included in order to provide a more 75 complex view of Korean American children?s conceptions about gender expectations and exclusion in Korea. Following the interview, two additional measures developed specifically for this study were given to all participants. The first assessment was a stereotypic expectations measure based on previous research on sex-role stereotypes in Korean children and adolescents (Lee & Sugawara, 1994; Min, 1998). This measure, referred to as the Parental Gender-Expectations Measure (PGEM), was designed to assess Korean American children?s knowledge of gender stereotypic expectations in the family context which included evaluation of gender expectations in three contexts: (1) Household chores, (2) Academic/career achievement, and (3) Play activities (see Appendix X for complete PGEM measure). The second assessment was a cultural measure designed to assess the degree to which Korean American children identified with Korean and American culture. This measure, referred to as the Korean American Children?s Acculturation Scale (KACAS), was based on a review of acculturation theory and measures pertaining to Asian immigrants in the U.S. (Kim et al., 1999; Suinn, Rickard- Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987). Items such as language use, practice of Korean customs, social relationships, and food habits, identified as common indicators across existing acculturation measures were included in this assessment (Franco, 1983; Kim et al., 1999; Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992 ) (for complete KACAS measure, see Appendix F). Hypotheses The overall goal of this study was to examine the nature of Korean American children?s social reasoning about parental authority and gender expectations of boys? and 76 girls? participation in gender stereotypic peer activities. Assessments were designed to focus on how Korean American children weighed multiple issues, such as fairness of exclusion, autonomy (personal choice), gender stereotypes, parental authority, and cultural expectations. Children?s prioritizing of these issues was expected to vary according to the features of the context, that is, whether participation by a child was gender-congruent or gender-incongruent and whether the activity was stereotypic or non stereotypic. It was expected that overall, Korean American children?s reasoning would be multifaceted, reflecting coordination of moral (fairness, gender equity), social conventional (gender stereotypes, parental authority, cultural expectations) and psychological (autonomy) domains of knowledge. Therefore, there were specific hypotheses regarding how these issues may contribute to children?s evaluations. (For an overview of hypotheses, see Table 1). Children?s autonomy and gender-related activities. Based on research that children consider peer activities to be a personal choice matter (Smetana, 1988), it was hypothesized that overall, participants would support children?s participation in gender- related peer activities using autonomy reasons. However, the degree to which Korean American children would support boys? or girls? participation in Football, Ballet, and Sleepover, was predicted to differ depending on the stereotypic nature of the activity. More specifically, it was predicted that participants would view the Sleepover scenario as most legitimate for either a male or female child to participate in because of its gender- neutrality. In contrast, it was hypothesized that Football would be viewed as stereotypical for males and therefore evaluated positively for boys than for girls and 77 likewise, Ballet would viewed as stereotypical for females and therefore evaluated more positively for girls than for boys. Overall, it was hypothesized that Korean American children?s evaluations of Football and Ballet would reflect support for gender-congruent participation in stereotypic activities. This expectation is based on research that children have positive attitudes towards adherence to gender stereotypic behavior (e.g., Carter & McCloskey, 1984; Martin, 1990; Moller, et al., 1992). In addition, it was expected that participants would use social-conventional reasoning for decisions based on gender expectations (Carter & Patterson, 1982; Stoddart & Turiel, 1985). Regarding gender-incongruent participation, it was hypothesized that participants, particularly males, would judge a boy?s participation in Ballet as less acceptable than a girl?s participation in Football using gender stereotype reasoning, based on research findings that children view boys engaging in cross-gender behavior more negatively than girls engaging in cross-gender behavior (Fagot, 1985; McCreary, 1994; Moller, et al., 1992; Serbin, Powlishta & Gulko, 1993; Schuette & Killen, 2002). Likewise, age differences were expected. It was hypothesized that younger children would be more likely to rely on gender stereotype reasoning over fairness or personal choice reasoning, whereas older children would support children?s autonomy to participate in any type of activity, irregardless of stereotypic expectations (Killen et al., 2002). Authority and children?s gender-related peer activities. Participants? evaluations regarding the role of authority in deciding children?s participation in gender-related activities was expected to differ depending on the age of the participant and stereotypic nature of the activity. Based on previous findings (Laupa, 1986; Kim & Turiel, 1996; 78 Tisak, 1995), overall, younger participants were expected to appeal to parental authority (e.g., ?It?s up to the parent?), more so than older participants when evaluating questions pertaining to whether the child or parent should decide a boy?s or girl?s participation in any activity. For gender-stereotypic activities, younger participants were predicted to support denial of a boy learning ballet more than a girl playing football and use a mixture of authority (e.g., it is up to the parent) and gender expectation reasoning (e.g., ballet is not for boys) to support their decisions. Overall, Korean American children were expected to defer to authority for cross-gendered activities (boys learning ballet, girls playing football) because of priority given to parental gender expectations and authority. However, when asked to evaluate whether it is okay for a parent to deny a child?s participation in an activity because of an ambiguous reason (watching television), Korean American children, regardless of age, were expected to reject this reason as being legitimate for justifying exclusion from a social activity and support their judgments using moral (fairness) reasoning. This hypothesis was based on prior research findings that show children in the U.S. and Korea do not hold a unilateral view of authority jurisdiction (Kim, 1998; Kim & Turiel, Laupa & Turiel, 1986). Cultural generalizability and cultural awareness. Overall, most Korean American children were predicted to evaluate denial of a child from gender-related peer activities for reasons of gender in Korea as wrong, giving priority to fairness over cultural expectations or traditions. However, evaluations were expected to differ depending on the gender and age of the participant. Korean American boys, in particular, were predicted to condone denial of a child?s participation in cross-gendered activities (e.g., only girls, and 79 not boys being allowed to take ballet) in Korea, giving priority to cultural gender expectations and social customs. In addition, it was predicted that younger children would be less likely to generalize the wrongfulness of exclusion to Korea, based on prior research on cultural generalizability in the context of exclusion (Killen, et al., 2002). Predictions for Korean American children?s responses regarding cultural awareness, however, were less clear because of the absence of any prior research on this specific issue. In general, participants were expected to recognize cultural differences, that is, view gender expectations regarding stereotypic peer activities in the United States to be different from Korea. However, the ability to recognize differences between the U.S. and Korea, or to be knowledgeable about the occurrence of exclusion based on gender expectations was hypothesized, to depend largely on the degree to which participants? family environments were ?Korean?. In addition, the age of the participant was also predicted to be a factor. Participants with families that were more ?Korean? were expected to have more knowledge of Korean cultural expectations, as were older children compared to younger children. Along similar lines, predictions regarding participants? views on gender-related social issues in Korea, that is, whether social circumstances of gender inequality should change in Korea, were mixed. Overall, it was unclear as to whether Korean American children would view change (to allow girls to play football or to allow boys to take ballet) as necessary in Korea, based on prior research that children viewed support of upholding social traditions as a legitimate reason for condoning exclusion (e.g., ?It?s their custom to not let boys do ballet?; Killen et al., 2002). However, for Korean American girls, who may have been subject to subordinate 80 gender expectations and granted less autonomy by their parents (Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998), their evaluations of change in Korea may be viewed positively, reflecting priority of fairness and gender equity over cultural traditions, especially for activities denied to female children for gender reasons. Parental gender stereotypic expectations. Overall, it was predicted that Korean American children would be aware of Korean parents? gender expectations regarding Play Activities (dolls, trucks), Family Chores (setting the table for dinner, setting up the VCR), and Academic/Career Activities (doing well in school, having a successful career). For stereotypic Play Activities and Family Chores, participants? responses were expected to reflect traditional gender expectations in the family, that is, for girls to be expected to play dolls and set the table for dinner and for boys to be expected to play with trucks and set up the VCR. In contrast, participants were expected to view that parents would expect both boys and girls to succeed in Academic/Career Activities (considered non- stereotypic). Based on earlier work that found children viewed play activities as more stereotypic than other types of activities such as household chores or future roles, participants, in particular younger children, were predicted to view parents to have stronger gender expectations for Play activities than for Family Chores or Academic/Career Activities (Killen et al., 2001; Schuette & Killen, 2002). In addition, Korean American boys, compared to girls, were predicted to have stronger awareness of parental gender expectations for male-typed activities, based on prior research that found Korean boys were more cognizant of male stereotypic expectations in the Korean family than Korean girls (Lee & Sugawara, 1994). 81 Korean American children?s cultural background. Based on acculturation theory and research (Kim, Kim, & Rue, 1997), Korean American children were predicted to be bicultural, that is, to identify with and participate in both Korean and American cultures. However, the nature of participation in Korean and American activities was expected to differ according to whether they occurred within the context of the family. More specifically, in the family context, Korean American children were expected to eat primarily Korean food, practice more Korean rather than American customs and celebrate more Korean than American holidays and traditions. In contrast, Korean American children?s friendships, music preferences, and self ethnic identification were expected to reflect biculturalism, being both Korean and American (e.g., have both Korean and American friends). Summary. In sum, the present study was designed to investigate Korean American children?s evaluation of parental expectations about gender-related peer activities. This study extends prior research on exclusion based on gender by evaluating the role of authority and cultural expectations in deciding participation in gender-related peer activities. Furthermore, the findings from this study are expected to contribute to several bodies of literature, including social-cognitive domain theory, cultural influences on development, social reasoning about exclusion, and children?s view on gender stereotypic expectations. 82 CHAPTER III Methodology Participants Participants were 102 Korean American 3 rd grade children (N = 53) and 6 th grade children (N = 49) from middle-class Maryland suburbs outside of Washington, DC. Participants were nearly evenly divided gender in both grades. Third graders (M = 8.81 years, SD = .51) consisted of 26 boys and 27 girls. The mean ages for third grade boys and girls were the same. Sixth graders (M = 11.92 years, SD = .47) consisted of 20 boys and 29 girls. The mean age for sixth grade boys was 11.95 years (SD = .53) and the mean age for sixth grade girls was 11.90 years (SD = .44). All children with parental consent were interviewed (for consent forms, see Appendix B). The overall participation rate was 40%. In order to recruit Korean American children for this study, initial contact was made to ten directors of Korean children?s social programs located in two Maryland suburbs with a large percentage of Korean residents 1 . Korean children?s social programs were typically offered through large Korean churches and included programs such as Korean language and dance schools, academic enrichment camps, Korean American children?s and youth after school clubs (e.g., ?Awana?), and Korean American vacation bible schools. These programs were open to all Korean children in the community regardless of religious affiliation or host church membership. It was estimated by 1 According to the 2000 census records (United States Census Bureau, 2000), the population of the first suburb had 5% Koreans and the second suburb had 2.5% Koreans. These are relatively high percentages of Koreans compared to the overall state population of .7% Koreans and the overall U.S. population of .4% Koreans. 83 program directors that 40% of the children participating in these programs were not affiliated with the host church. Six program directors at three of the largest and oldest Korean churches (membership exceeding 500 persons) in this region agreed to participate in this study. Both Korean and English versions of child consent forms were mailed to parents of children identified for participation in this study (for consent forms, see Appendix B). Participants? parents demographics. To assess the family socio-cultural background of participants, parents were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire pertaining to immigration, income level, educational level, and language preference (see Appendix C for a complete version of the questionnaire). Both English and Korean versions of this form, along with a cover page stating that the questionnaire was completely anonymous and confidential was attached to the child consent form mailed to parents. The return rate of the demographic questionnaire was 100%. As shown in Table 2, overall, parents were representative of well-educated, first generation Korean immigrants with middle to high socio-economic status, most were born in Korea (97%) and most have resided in the U.S. for more than 10 years (79%). A majority of parents reported their household income level to be above $50,000 (81%). The median income level was between $75,000 and $100,000. Also, a vast majority of parents had some college education or higher (87%). Finally, a majority of parents reported that they communicated to their children using both Korean and English (65%) indicating that most were bilingual. However, some parents had a greater preference for speaking 84 Korean than English as one-third of parents reported that they only spoke Korean to their children (33%). Participants? cultural background. Based on the children?s cultural assessment (for a complete description, see below under Measures), Korean American children sampled in the present study, regardless of gender and grade, were bicultural. That is, children?s ethnic identity, family practices, peer relationships, and personal interests were both Korean and American. As shown in Table 3, a majority of children were born in the U.S. (78%) and identified themselves as Korean American (78%). Yet, there were still a considerable number of children born in Korea and considered their ethnic identity as Korean (20%). As shown in Table 4, in the family context, although most children used both Korean and English to speak to their parents (49%), there were some children who spoke either mostly Korean (21%) or mostly English (30%), indicating that there was some variability among children?s language patterns at home. In contrast, practice of Korean customs (e.g., bowing to elders), was adhered to by all children to some degree and a majority of children responded that their family celebrated both Korean and American holidays and traditions. Finally, when asked about mealtimes, a vast majority of children reported that they ate mostly Korean or both Korean and American food. Children?s peer relationships and music preferences were also bicultural. A majority of children had both Korean and American friends (67%). Regarding the type of music children enjoyed, most children listened to both Korean and American music; however, a significant number of children listened to mostly or only American music. 85 Procedure All participants were individually interviewed in a one-time session by a female Korean American graduate student in a quiet setting. Interviews, lasting approximately thirty-five minutes were audio-taped for transcription and translation purposes. Children were told that their responses were completely confidential and anonymous, that there was no right or wrong answers, and that their participation was voluntary and that they may choose to stop at any time. At the start of each interview, participants? biographical information (name, birthdate, grade, gender, ethnicity) provided by parents or program directors was verified with each child (see cover page of interview, Appendix C). Interviews were conducted in Korean for those participants who were more comfortable conversing in Korean. The vast majority of interviews were conducted in English (99%). Measures The interview session consisted of three instruments presented in the same order for each participant: 1) Gender Related Activities Interview, 2) Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM), and 3) Korean American Children?s Acculturation Scale (KACAS). Both the Gender Related Activities Interview and the PGEM have been extensively pilot tested and conducted with native Korean children as part of a cross- cultural study (see Lee-Kim, Park, Killen, & Park, in prep) and with Korean adults as part of a larger project on parental gender expectations (see Killen, Park, & Lee-Kim, in press) (for complete instrument, see Appendix E).The KACAS was developed for this dissertation project and was based on a review of acculturation measures that have been used extensively in previous studies (for the complete instrument, see Appendix F). 86 Gender Related Activities Interview. Participants were interviewed about three hypothetical scenarios involving a Korean American child?s desire to participate in a gender stereotyped or gender neutral social activity. The names of the children in the stories reflected common Korean American children?s names. Three activities were presented to participants: 1) Football (male stereotyped), 2) Ballet (female stereotyped), and 3) Sleepover (gender neutral) Activities. For each activity, there were two Gender Target Stories: one in which a girl (female gender target) wants to participate in the activity and one in which a boy (male gender target) wants to participate in the same activity. Depending on the stereotype of the activity, each Gender Target Story was either gender incongruent (the child did not fit the gender stereotype for the activity) or gender incongruent (the child fit the gender stereotype for the activity). For gender stereotyped activities, the gender incongruent story was presented prior to the gender congruent story. As an example, for the Football activity, a girl wanting to play football (gender incongruent) was presented before a boy wanting to play football (gender congruent). For the gender neutral activity, Sleepover, the female gender target was presented before the male gender target based on cultural expectations (Hurh, 1998). Dependent measures and coding for the Gender Related Activities Interview. Each activity consisted of assessments divided into three sections presented in the same order: (1) evaluation of Gender Target Stories, (2) evaluation of Gender Bias, and (3) evaluation of Cultural Generalizability. The presentation of each Gender Target Story was followed by a series of questions evaluating participation by the gender target in the activity. The first assessment, Evaluation of Participation, asked participants to judge 87 whether the child in the story could participate in the activity and to provide reasoning to support their judgment (?Is it okay or not okay for the child to participate in this activity? Why??). In the second assessment, Locus of Decision, participants were asked to choose whether the child or parents should decide the child?s participation in the activity and provide reasoning for their choice (?Who should decide, child or parents? Why??). The third and final assessment for this section, Denial of Autonomy, asked participants to evaluate a parent?s decision to deny the child?s participation in the activity for an arbitrary reason and to provide reasoning for their judgment (?What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want her/him to take a nap or to watch TV, would that be okay or not okay? Why??). In this section, for Evaluation of Participation and Denial of Autonomy, judgment responses of ?okay? were coded as 0, and ?not okay? were coded as 1. For Locus of Decision, judgment of ?child? to decide was coded as 1, and judgment of ?parents? to decide was coded as 2. All reasoning (or justifications) responses were coded using the Justification Coding Categories (for a full description, see Justification Coding System section below). In the following section, Gender Bias, participants were asked to evaluate whether it is okay for one child (gender congruent target) to be allowed to participate in the activity but not the other child (gender incongruent target) and to provide reasoning for their judgment (?Is it okay or not okay if the gender congruent child is allowed to participate in this activity but not the gender incongruent child? Why??). For this 88 assessment, judgment responses of ?okay? were coded as 0, and ?not okay? were coded as 1. Reasoning responses were coded using Justification Coding Categories. In the final section, participants were asked to evaluate a series of questions regarding the Cultural Generalizability of children?s autonomy and gender preferences in Korea. In the first assessment, Occurrence, participants were asked whether participation in the activity by one gender compared to the other occurs in Korea (?Do you think this happens in Korea that one gender is allowed to participate in this activity but not the other gender??). In the second assessment, Gender Exclusion, participants were asked to evaluate whether it is okay for only one gender to be allowed to participate in an activity in Korea and to provide reasoning for their judgment, (?What if only one gender was allowed to play football, would that be okay? Why??). The third assessment, Fairness, asked participants to consider the fairness of excluding one gender but not the other, from participating in an activity and to provide reasoning for their evaluation, (?What if the excluded gender group in Korea felt it was unfair that they could not participate in this activity, do you agree it?s unfair? Why??). In the next assessment, Change, participants were asked to evaluate whether gender exclusion conditions should change in Korea (?Do you think things should change in Korea, Why??). In the fifth and final assessment, Equality, participants were asked whether it would be all right for the excluded gender to participate in the activity in Korea and to provide reasoning to support their judgments (?Do you think it would be okay for the excluded gender in Korea to participate in the activity? Why??). 89 In this section, for Occurrence, Fairness, and Change, judgment responses of ?yes? were coded as 0 and ?no? were coded as 1. For Gender Exclusion and Equality, judgment responses of ?okay? were coded as 0, and ?not okay? were coded as 1. Once again, all reasoning (or justifications) responses were coded using the Justification Coding Categories (for a full description, see Justification Coding System section below). Parental gender expectations measure (PGEM). Following the Evaluation of Gender Related Activities, all participants were asked to complete a 6-item survey assessing their beliefs of parental gender-expectations. The development of this measure was based on pilot work and previous findings (Lee & Sugawara, 1982; Lee & Sugawara, 1994; Schuette & Killen, 2002). The PGEM was comprised of gender stereotypic and non stereotypic expectations for three contexts, Family Chores (helping to set the table, helping to set up the VCR), Play Activities (playing with dolls, playing with trucks), and Academic/Career Achievement (doing well in school, getting a good job post-school). Family Chores and Play Activities items were gender stereotypic. Academic/Career Achievement items were non gender stereotypic. Thus, there were two male stereotypic items (helping to set up the VCR, playing with trucks), two female stereotypic items (helping to set the table, playing with dolls) and two non stereotypic items. Each participant received the same order of items, however, the order of items were counterbalanced to control for any type of response biases. For each item, participants were asked to assess parents? gender expectations using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = Always daughter, 2 = Sometimes daughter, 3 = Both, 4 = Sometimes son, and 5 = Always son. Participant responses to female stereotyped items (helping to set the table, 90 playing with dolls) were reversed scored so that higher scores would indicate stronger gender expectation responses (For a complete version of the PGEM, see Appendix E). Korean American children?s acculturation scale (KACAS). In addition, all participants were administered an 8-item questionnaire assessing Korean American children?s identification with Korean culture in the areas of family interactions, cultural practices and traditions, peer relationships, leisure activities, and ethnic identity. This measure was developed, based on a review of acculturation measures used in recent studies examining immigrant families and was designed to provide a broad description of the cultural orientation of this sample (Franco, 1983; Kim et al., 1999; Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992) (for complete measure, see Appendix F). The first five items asked participant whether language at home (What language do you speak at home?), friendships (What type of friends do you hang out with?), music preferences (What type of music do you like to listen to?), type of food eaten (What type of food do you eat?), and type of holidays and traditions celebrated in the family (What holidays and traditions do you celebrate?) were Korean, American, or Both Korean and American. Participants were asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = Only Korean, 2 = Mostly Korean, 3 = Both Korean and American/English, 4 = Mostly American/English, and 5 = Only American/English to respond to these items. Participants were also asked if they practiced Korean customs (e.g., greeting elders by bowing) using a scale from 1 = never, and 2 = sometimes, and 3 = always, their birthplace, whether they were born in Korea (coded as 1), America (coded as 2) or Other (coded as 3) and what their ethnic identity 91 was, whether they were Korean (coded as 1), Korean American (coded as 2), American (coded as 3), or Other (coded as 4). The order of items was the same for all participants. Translations Interviews were conducted in Korean for children who were more comfortable with Korean than English. All three instruments were translated into Korean by a graduate student fluent in both Korean and English. In addition, to ensure accuracy of the translation, the Korean version was back-translated into English by another graduate student fluent in both Korean and English. Justification Coding System Participants? reasoning responses, or justifications, were coded using a coding category system developed, based on previous research used to analyze social reasoning (Killen et al., 2001; Killen et al., 2002a; Smetana, 1995a; Tisak, 1995; Turiel, 1983). This coding category system was extensively pilot tested and used to code the same instrument in two studies part of a larger project on parental gender expectations (see Killen et al., in press; Lee-Kim et al., in prep). The categories used to code the justifications were: (1) Moral (fairness, gender equality) (e.g., ?Boys and girls are the same, the brother and sister should be treated equally?); (2) Social-conventional (authority jurisdiction and expectations, cultural expectations and traditions, gender stereotypes and expectations, family expectations) (e.g., ?It?s okay because parents know best?; ?It?s okay because boys shouldn?t do ballet?); (3) Personal (personal choice and autonomy, friendship, self- development) (e.g., ?Sandy can choose her own sport?); and (4) Undifferentiated 92 (uncodable, incomplete responses). (For a complete description of the coding categories, see Appendix G). Design A between- and within-subjects design was used. Between-subject variables included gender of the participant (male, female) and age level of the participant (3 rd grade, 6 th grade). All participants responded to all assessments. For the Gender Related Activities Interview, the within-subject independent variables were activity (Football, Ballet, Sleepover) and gender target story (female target, male target). Presentation of stories was counterbalanced in order to control for story order effects. Story order effects were not found in previous studies using the same interview (see Killen et al., in press; Lee-Kim et al., in prep). For the Parental Gender-Expectations Measure, the within- subject independent variables were participants? responses to context (Family Chores, Play Activities, Academic/Career Achievement) and gender stereotypic expectation (male or female) (for a summary of the design, see Appendix A). Reliability Coding Reliability coding was calculated on the reasoning data by two coders who independently coded 25 percent of the Gender Related Activities Interview. Inter-rater reliability using Cohen?s kappa coefficient was .87. Percent agreement between coders was 91.4%. 93 CHAPTER IV Results Overview Two sets of analyses were conducted. Results from the interview assessments, which address the main hypotheses of this study are reported first, followed by results of the parental gender expectations measure (PGEM). The first set of analyses, which was further divided into three sections, Gender Target Stories, Gender Bias, and Cultural Generalizability, was conducted using Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs) with repeated measures to test hypotheses pertaining to judgment and justification responses to interview questions. Follow-up analyses included univariate ANOVAs for between-subjects effects and t-tests for within-subjects interactions effects. When conducting follow-up analyses on main effects for activity and story, responses were collapsed across stories in order to examine activity effects, whereas responses were collapsed across activities in order to examine story effects. In cases where sphericity was not met, corrections were made using the Huynh-Feldt method. Initial analyses examining story order effects on the major variables were not significant, thus story order was not included in subsequent analyses. Justifications and judgments were analyzed with gender of participant, grade of participant, activities and stories as independent variables. The repeated-measures factors were activity (sleepover, football, ballet) and story (female-target, male-target). Detailed analytic procedures used for judgments and justifications are described separately below. 94 Judgment Analyses Judgment responses were coded dichotomously for all assessments. For evaluation judgments (e.g., Is it okay or not okay? Should things change?), ?okay? or ?yes? responses were coded as 0, and ?not okay? or ?no? responses were coded as 1. Judgment responses to Locus of Decision were coded as ?child? = 1 and ?parent? = 2. To test activity and story effects, 2 (gender of participant: female, male) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (activity: football, ballet, sleepover) x 2 (story: female-target, male-target) MANOVAs with repeated measures on the last two factors were conducted on participants? judgments for Evaluation of Participation, Locus of Decision, Denial of Autonomy, Gender Bias, and Cultural Generalizability (occurrence, gender exclusion, fairness, change, and equality) assessments. Follow-up tests were conducted as described above. Justification Analyses Justifications (reasons for why) were proportions of responses for each coding category (see Appendix G) and treated as a repeated measures within-subject variable. Researchers using a social-cognitive domain approach to analyzing categorical judgment and justification data have successfully used similar data analysis procedures in their studies (see Nucci & Smetana, 1996; Killen et al., 2002a; Smetana, 1986; Tisak, 1995; Turiel, 1998). A recent review of analytic procedures for this type of data indicated that ANOVA-based procedures are appropriate compared to log-linear analysis for this type of within-subjects design (see Wainryb, Shaw, Laupa, & Smith, 2001, footnote 4). Initial analyses were conducted on each assessment by the independent variables to identify justification categories with a frequency of .10 or higher. This method has 95 been used in similar studies for conducting analyses on justifications (Killen, et al., 2002a, Killen et al., in press). To test activity and story effects, 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (activity: football, ballet, sleepover) x 2 (story: male-target, female- target) repeated measures MANOVAs were conducted on justifications meeting this criteria. Follow-up analyses were conducted using the same procedures for judgment analyses. Evaluation of Gender Target Stories Evaluation of Activity Judgment: Is it okay or not okay for X to do this activity? It was hypothesized that children would evaluate a boy?s or girl?s participation in each activity differently, according to gender expectations. Engagement in gender- congruent and neutral activities was expected to be judged more positively compared to participation in a gender-incongruent activity. A within-subjects main effect for activity was not found. Overall, children did not evaluate participation in Football, Ballet, or Sleepover differently. However, an Activity x Grade interaction, F (1.91, 187) = 4.75, p < .01, ? p 2 = .05, was significant. Follow-up analyses indicated that for Football, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their evaluation. When asked whether it?s okay for a child to play football, 3 rd graders (M = .15, SD = .27) were more likely to judge it as not okay than 6 th graders (M = .01, SD = .07), p < .001. In contrast, 3 rd and 6 th graders did not differ in their evaluations of Ballet (3 rd : M = .05, SD = .15; 6 th : M = .04, SD = .14) or Sleepover (3 rd : M = .06, SD = .19; 6 th : M = .01, SD = .07) as a majority of children viewed participation in these activities as okay. 96 An Activity x Story interaction, F (1.86, 182) = 12.84, p < .001, ? p 2 = .12, indicated that children were less likely to condone gender-incongruent participation in stereotypic activities. As shown in Figure 1, in support of hypotheses, a girl playing football was judged less okay than a boy playing football as was a boy taking ballet compared to a girl taking ballet, p < .01. In addition, a minor difference for Sleepover activity was found. Contrary to predictions that boys would be granted more autonomy for participation in a gender-neutral activity, a boy going on a sleepover was less likely to be condoned than a girl going on a sleepover, p < .05 (for means, see Table 5). An Activity x Story x Grade interaction further qualified this effect as this finding was significant for only 3 rd graders, and not 6 th graders, p < .05. In addition, contrary to hypotheses that gender-incongruent participation would be evaluated less okay for a boy than for a girl, 3 rd graders judged a girl playing football as least okay compared to a boy taking ballet or a boy playing football, ps < .01. Both 3 rd and 6 th graders, however, judged it less okay for a boy to take ballet than for a girl to take ballet, ps < .05 (for means, see Table 5). A similar pattern between 3 rd and 6 th graders emerged as analysis of between- subjects effects revealed a main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 11.62, p < .001, ? p 2 = .11. Upon closer examination, once again, 3 rd graders were less likely to condone a girl playing football than were 6 th graders, F (1, 100) = 11.93, p < .001. In addition, as shown in Table 5, a minority of 3 rd graders judged a girl?s participation in any activity as less okay more often than did 6 th graders, F (1, 100) = 13.41, p < .001. Thus, in contrast to 6 th 97 graders, 3 rd graders were likely to consider gender-incongruent participation by a girl in a stereotypic activity, such as football as not okay. In sum, a majority of children supported a child?s participation in the different activities, regardless of the gender of the participating child and the stereotypic nature of activity. However, a minority of children differentiated their judgments according to the gender of the child and the stereotypic nature of the activity, as a girl playing football and a boy taking ballet was less likely to be condoned than gender-congruent participation in these activities. Justifications for Evaluation of Activity Judgment: Why is it okay or not okay for X to do this activity? In order to examine the reasoning used by children to evaluate participation by a boy and girl in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities, analyses were conducted on four justification categories indicated by initial analyses: Gender Equity, Gender Stereotypes, Personal Choice and Friendship. Type of justification. It was hypothesized that children?s reasons supporting their judgments would differ depending on whether the activity was stereotypic or non stereotypic and whether the gender target of the story was male or female. As expected, Analyses revealed a main effect for justification, F (2.31, 226.29) = 50.53, p < .001, ? p 2 = .34, an Activity x Justification interaction, F (3.87, 378.92) = 31.73, p < .001, ? p 2 = .25, a Story x Justification interaction, F (2.343, 229.63) = 5.08, p < .01, ? p 2 = .05, and an Activity x Story x Justification interaction, F (4, 392.27) = 26.70, p < .001, ? p 2 = .21. Supporting predictions, overall, children used Personal Choice (M = .46, SD = .28) 98 justifications to support their judgments about whether a girl or boy could engage in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities more than Gender Equity (M = .13, SD = .17), Gender Stereotypes (M = .18, SD = .28), or Friendship (M = .14, SD = .14) reasons, ps < .001. Thus, a majority of children viewed a child playing football, taking ballet, and going on a sleepover as a personal decision. As shown in Table 6, as expected, follow-up analyses on activity differences indicated that children used Friendship reasoning predominantly for the Sleepover activity, ps < .001, whereas, both Gender Equity and Gender Stereotypes justifications were used more often for the gender stereotypic activities, taking ballet and playing football than for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .001. As expected, children?s use of Personal Choice reasoning did not differ by activity (for means, see Table 6). Closer examination of how children?s reasoning differed by story (e.g., male-target: boy playing football, female-target: girl playing football) revealed that Personal Choice reasoning was used more frequently to support judgments regarding male target stories than for female target stories, p < .01, whereas Friendship reasoning was used to justify evaluation of female target stories more often than for male target stories, p< .05. Follow-up tests on Activity x Story x Justification further revealed the complexity of reasoning used by children in evaluating a boy?s or girl?s participation in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities. As hypothesized, children?s reasoning differed as a function of whether the gender target of the story matched the gender stereotypic expectations of the activity. Children overall, used moral reasoning more often to support gender-incongruent than gender-congruent participation for stereotypic activities. As 99 shown in Figures 2 and 3, Gender Equity reasons were used to support a girl more so than a boy, to play football, ps < .001, and likewise, a boy more so than a girl to take ballet, ps < .01 (for means, see Table 6). For example, a sixth grade girl, in support of boys taking ballet stated: ?It?s okay if Mike takes ballet because not many boys do ballet and he should have the chance to like girls do and it might like change the way he is, like attitude and stuff? In contrast, social conventional reasoning, was used significantly more to support gender-congruent participation in stereotypic activities than in gender-incongruent or - neutral activities. Gender Stereotypes were used to support a boy more than a girl to play football, and likewise, a girl more so than a boy to take ballet, ps < .001. As an example, a third grade boy referred to gender stereotypes when asked about a girl playing football: ?No, Sandy will get hurt if she plays football. Usually only boys play football because they?re good at it and they can play in the NFL when they grow up.? In addition, while overall, children used personal reasoning equally across girls and boys participating in Football and Sleepover (see Table 6 for means), children differed in their reasoning for participating in Ballet. Follow-up analyses revealed that Personal Choice was used to support a boy more often than a girl to take ballet, p < .001. Children were also found to differ in their use of Friendship reasoning. Overall, Friendship reasons were predominantly used for supporting both a boy and girl to go on a sleepover more so than for either to participate in Football or Ballet, ps< .001. Interestingly, children also used Friendship reasons more often to support a girl, more so than a boy, to go on a sleepover, p < .05 (for means, see Table 6). 100 Grade differences. It was also hypothesized that 3 rd and 6 th graders would differ in their reasoning used to support evaluation of a child participating in stereotypic and non stereotypic activities. Supporting predictions, a Justification x Grade interaction, F (2.31, 226.29) = 7.77, p < .001, ? p 2 = .07, an Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (3.87, 378.92) = 3.19, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03, a Story x Justification x Grade interaction, F (4, 392.27) = 26.7, p < .001, ? p 2 = .21, and an Activity x Story x Justification x Grade interaction F (4, 392.27) = 3.35, p < .01, ? p 2 = .03, were found. Closer examination of differences between 3 rd and 6 th graders overall use of justifications indicated that older children (M = .55, SD = .27) used more Personal Choice when explaining their evaluations than did younger children (M = .38, SD = .27), p < .01. In contrast, 3 rd graders (M = .24, SD = .20) used Gender Stereotypes more often than did 6 th graders (M = .11, SD = .16), to justify their judgments, p < .001. Thus, older children focused more on autonomy when evaluating participation in activities, whereas younger children relied more on social conventional reasoning. Follow-up analyses examining activity differences further revealed that 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their use of reasoning for gender stereotypic activities. Results indicated that social-conventional reasoning was used more frequently by 3 rd graders when evaluating participation in gender stereotypic activities, that is, evaluations of Football and Ballet, ps < .01, for boys and girls pertained to gender stereotypes (?Ballet is for girls?). In contrast, 6 th graders relied on personal reasoning to support participation in Football and Ballet, ps < .01, more often than did 3 rd graders (for means, see Table 6) 101 Closer examination of how younger and older children?s reasoning differed by story (e.g., male-target: boy playing football, female-target: girl playing football) revealed that for 6 th graders only, Personal Choice was used more frequently to support judgments regarding male target stories (M = .61, SD = .31) than for female target stories (M = .50, SD = .29), p < .01, whereas Friendship was used to justify evaluation of female target stories (M = .18, SD = .15) more often than for male target stories (M = .12, SD = .16), p< .001. Likewise, Gender Equity was used by 6 th graders more often for evaluating female-target stories (M = .15, SD = .20) than for male-target stories (M = .09, SD = .17), p < .05. Interestingly, 3 rd graders did not differ in their use of personal reasoning (Personal Choice and Friendship) or Gender Equity between stories, however, they were found to use social conventional reasoning for female target stories (M = .28, SD = .25) more often than for male target stories (M = .06, SD = .19), p < .01. Follow-up analyses on 3 rd and 6 th graders? use of justifications across activities and stories further revealed that younger and older children differed in their use of moral, social-conventional and personal reasoning when evaluating gender-congruent and gender-incongruent participation in stereotypic activities and also when evaluating the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover. Results indicated that younger children used moral reasoning predominately to support gender incongruent participation in stereotypic activities. As shown in Table 6, third graders appealed to gender equality to support a girl more so than a boy to play football and a boy more so than a girl to take ballet, ps < .001. Likewise, the same pattern was significant for 6 th graders for Football and Ballet, ps < .01, 102 Closer examination of social-conventional reasoning indicated that for 3 rd graders, Gender Stereotypes were used more often to support a boy more so than a girl to play football, and likewise, a girl more so than a boy to take ballet, ps < .001. A similar pattern was also significant for 6 th graders, ps < .001; however, social conventional reasoning was used to a lesser degree. Follow-up tests revealed that 3 rd graders compared to 6 th graders used Gender Stereotypes more often to support a boy playing football and a girl taking ballet, ps < .001 (for means, see Table 6). In addition, results revealed that younger children were more likely to use Personal Choice to support a boy than a girl to take ballet than were older children, p < .01. As an example, a third grade boy ultimately viewed a boy?s desire to take ballet to be a personal decision: ?I think it?s embarrassing but if it?s what he wants to do, then he can.? In contrast, older children used personal reasoning equally across these stories and to a higher degree than younger children, ps < .05, .01, for boy taking ballet and girl taking ballet, respectively. In contrast, for 6 th graders only, Friendship reasons were almost exclusively used for supporting both a boy or girl to go on a sleepover compared to evaluating a boy or girl to play football or for a boy or girl to take ballet, ps< .001. Further, for 6 th graders only, Friendship reasons were used more often to support a girl, than a boy, for the Sleepover activity, p < .001, whereas for 3 rd graders, Friendship reasons were used equally to support either a boy or girl to go on a sleepover (for all means, see Table 6). Summary. In sum, findings supported predictions. Whereas personal justifications were used most often, social reasoning about children?s activities varied by activity, 103 story, and grade. Overall, children used personal reasoning (Personal Choice and Friendship reasons) for supporting a child?s participation in sleepover, whereas both personal (Personal Choice) and moral reasoning (Gender Equity) were predominantly used to support gender incongruent participation in stereotypic activities, that is for a boy to take ballet and a girl to play football. In contrast, children were more likely to use Gender Stereotypes to support gender congruent participation in Ballet and Football (girl taking ballet, boy playing football). Overall, grade differences indicated that younger children used social conventional reasoning more often to support boys to play football and girls to take ballet, whereas older children appealed to personal reasoning (Personal Choice and Friendship) when evaluating participation across all activities. In contrast to expectations, Friendship reasons were used by 6 th graders to support a girl more than a boy to go on a sleepover suggesting that older children were more likely to view girls participating in sleepovers for maintaining or promoting friendship. Interestingly, for 3rd graders, Personal Choice reasons were used to support boys, more than for girls, to take ballet. This suggests that younger children appealed to the importance of autonomy for boys more so than for girls, in spite of gender stereotypic expectations regarding ballet. Locus of Decision Judgment: Who should decide if X can do this activity, X or parents? In the next evaluation, children were asked to choose between the child (coded as 1) and parents (coded as 2) to make the decision of whether a child could participate in each of the three activities. It was hypothesized that, overall, children would be more likely to choose the child over the parents to decide across all activities. However, 104 contrary to expectations, a main effect for activity was found, F (2, 196) = 23.44, p < .001, ? p 2 = .19, indicating that children?s evaluations differed by activity. As shown in Table 7, follow-up analyses revealed that children chose the parents to decide whether the child can participate in the Sleepover activity more often than in the Football or Ballet activities, p < .001. An Activity x Grade interaction, F (2, 196) = 12.93, p < .001, ? p 2 = .12, however, qualified the main effect for activity. While 3 rd graders? evaluations did not differ by activity, that is, they were more likely to choose the parents to decide the child?s participation across all activities, 6 th graders made a distinction between activities. As shown in Figure 4, when asked to choose between the child and parents for deciding participation, 6 th graders were more likely to judge that parents have jurisdiction for the Sleepover activity, more so than for football or ballet activities, ps < .001(for means, see Table 7). In addition, supporting predictions that 3 rd graders would be more likely to give parents jurisdiction over deciding participation in activities than would 6 th graders, a between-subjects main effect for grade, F (1, 96) = 14.61, p < .001, ? p 2 = .13, was found. Closer examination of the differences in responses between 3 rd and 6 th graders indicated that 6 th graders were more likely to judge that children should decide rather than parents. This was true for the football activity, where either a boy, F (1, 100) = 15.99, p < .001, or a girl, F (1, 100) = 28.92, p < .001, wanting to play football was considered to be the child?s decision, more so by 6 th graders than 3 rd graders. Taking ballet also was also an activity more likely to be evaluated as the child?s decision by 6 th graders than 3 rd graders. This finding applied to both a boy wanting to take ballet, F (1, 100) = 15.95, p < .001, or 105 a girl wanting to take ballet, F (1, 100) = 12.33, p < .001. However, in contrast to the other activities, going on a sleepover was considered to be more under the jurisdiction of the parent by both 3 rd and 6 th grade children (see Table 7 for all means). In sum, overall, children evaluated going on a sleepover activity as under parental jurisdiction compared to playing football or taking ballet. As hypothesized, younger children were more likely to choose parents to decide a child?s participation across all activities, that is, the type of activity did not matter. However, with age, children were more likely to base their evaluation of whether children or parents should decide participation in an activity by the type of activity involved. Compared to Football, or Ballet, 6 th graders were more likely to give parents jurisdiction over the decision of whether a boy or girl could go on a sleepover activity. In examining whether the target (gender-congruent, gender-incongruent) of the activity made a difference in children?s evaluations of who should decide, contrary to predictions, children did not base their judgments on the gender stereotypic expectations of the activity, that is, children did not evaluate a boy taking ballet or a girl playing football differently from a boy playing football or a girl taking ballet. Reasons for Locus of Decision Judgment: Why should X or parents decide whether X can participate in this activity? In order to examine the reasoning used by children to evaluate whether parents or children should decide participation in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities, analyses were conducted on two justification categories indicated by initial analyses: Personal Choice and Authority. 106 Type of justification. As expected, a main effect for justification, F (1, 98) = 21.57, p < .001, ? p 2 = .18, and an Activity x Justification interaction, F (2, 196) = 21.76, p < .001, ? p 2 = .18, was found. Overall, a majority of children used Authority reasons (M = .63, SD = .34) significantly more than Personal Choice (M = .33, SD = .34) justifications to support their judgments about whether children or parents should decide participation in activities, p < .001. As expected, closer examination of activity differences indicated that children appealed to Authority reasons to support their judgments for the gender- neutral activity, Sleepover, more than for Football or Ballet activities, ps < .001 (see Table 8 for means). In addition, Personal Choice was used more often to support judgments for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet, than for a child going on a sleepover, ps < .001. Grade comparisons. It was hypothesized 3 rd and 6 th graders would differ in their reasoning used to justify their judgments about who should decide whether a child can go on a sleepover, play football or learn ballet. As expected, a Justification x Grade interaction, F (1, 98) = 15.80, p < .001, ? p 2 = .14, indicated that overall, 3 rd graders (M = .76, SD = .33) appealed to Authority reasons more often than did 6 th graders (M = .50, SD = .31) to support their evaluations, p < .001. Whereas, overall, older children (M = .50, SD = .33) appealed to Personal Choice more often than did younger children (M = .20, SD = .31), p < .001. An Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (2, 196) = 11.20, p < .001, ? p 2 = .10, further revealed grade differences as 6 th graders used Personal Choice reasons more often than did 3 rd graders to support judgments for stereotypic activities, Football and 107 Ballet, ps < .001 (see Figure 5). Whereas, 3 rd graders appealed to authority more frequently than 6 th graders to support their judgments for stereotypic activities, that is a boy or girl playing football, and a boy or girl taking ballet, ps < .001 (for means, see Table 8). For example, when asked why parents should decide whether a boy could take ballet, a third grader replied: ?Parents should decide because they are smarter and because Mike might get teased?. Summary. Overall, social conventional reasoning was used more often than personal reasoning to support judgments as to whether children or parents should decide participation in activities. Closer examination revealed, that overall, children used Authority reasons for the Sleepover activity, whereas Personal Choice reasons were used for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet. This was particularly true for younger children who used Authority more often than older children overall to justify their judgments. Grade differences indicated that overall, younger children appealed to authority whereas older children referred to personal choice and autonomy for supporting their judgments about locus of decision. Denial of Autonomy Judgment: What if parents denied X participation in this activity solely based on an arbitrary reason, would that be okay or not okay? In order to assess how children evaluated parental denial of children?s autonomy, analyses were conducted on participants? responses to this assessment. Although, it was hypothesized that overall, children would evaluate a child being denied the opportunity to participate in an activity for arbitrary reasons as not okay, differences based on the activity and story were expected. Supporting predictions, a within-subjects main effect 108 for activity, F (1.53, 150.11) = 15.09, p < .001, ? p 2 = .13, and an Activity x Story interaction, F (2, 196) = 3.50, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03, were found. Follow-up analyses on activity differences revealed, that contrary to hypotheses that denial of autonomy from stereotypic activities would be judged as more okay than the gender-neutral activity, children were more likely to judge using arbitrary reasons to deny a child from going on a sleepover as more okay (M = .70, SD = .44), compared to taking ballet (M = .87, SD = .31) or playing football (M = .88, SD = .30), ps< .001. Interestingly, children viewed it equally wrong to use arbitrary reasons to deny autonomy to a child wanting to take ballet or play football. Closer examination of story by activity differences, that is, whether children?s evaluations differed according to the gender target and activity type, revealed that once again, the Sleepover activity was evaluated differently from the Football or Ballet activities. As shown in Table 10, children were more willing to accept parents? denial of autonomy for a girl going on a sleepover, compared to a girl playing football, p< .01, or a girl taking ballet, p< .001. A similar pattern emerged for the male target, as children were more willing to judge parents? denial of autonomy as acceptable for a boy going on a sleepover, compared to playing football or taking ballet, ps< .001 (for means, see Table 10). It was also hypothesized that older children would be more willing to reject parents? denial of autonomy than would younger children. As expected, analysis of between-subjects revealed a main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 22.06, p < .001, ? p 2 = .18, indicating that 6 th grade children?s responses were significantly different from 3 rd grade 109 children?s responses (see Figure 6). Follow-up analyses revealed that overall, younger children judged it less wrong for parents to use arbitrary reasons to deny autonomy than did older children. This finding was equally significant for all three activities, as 3 rd graders more often judged parents? denial of autonomy as okay than did 6 th graders for a child (boy or girl) going on a sleepover (Ms = .56, .85, SDs = .47, .36, for 3 rd and 6 th graders respectively), F (1, 100) = 12.31, p < .001, playing football (Ms = .77, .99, SDs = .39, .07, for 3 rd and 6 th graders respectively), F (1, 100) = 14.83, p < .001, and taking ballet (Ms = .76, .98, SDs = .39, .10, for 3 rd and 6 th graders respectively), F (1, 100) = 14.27, p < .001. In addition, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their judgments based on whether the target of the story was male or female. Once again, younger children were more likely than older children to judge denial of autonomy based on arbitrary reasons as less wrong. This finding was significant across stories where the target of the child was female (Ms = .70, .95, SDs = .35, .12, for 3 rd and 6 th graders respectively), F (1, 100) = 20.82, p < .001, and across stories where the target of the child was male (Ms = .69, .93, SDs = .35, .15, for 3 rd and 6 th graders respectively), F (1, 100) = 19.53, p < .001. In sum, children differentiated between these activities when evaluating whether it was all right to deny autonomy to a child for arbitrary reasons. Children viewed the Sleepover activity as under parental jurisdiction, more so than either the Football or Ballet activities. This pattern was also significant when examining story differences as a girl going on a sleepover was judged less wrong to deny autonomy than a girl playing football or taking ballet. Parallel findings were found for the male target across stories. Supporting predictions, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their evaluation of a parents? use of 110 arbitrary reasons for denying autonomy. Overall, across activities (football, sleepover, ballet) and stories (female target versus male target), younger children were more willing to judge parents? denial of autonomy as more okay than were older children. Thus, younger children were more willing to accept parental jurisdiction over these activities despite their use of arbitrary reasons. Reasons for Denial of Autonomy Judgment: Why is it okay or not okay if parents denied X participation in this activity solely based on an arbitrary reason? In order to examine the reasoning used by children to evaluate parents? use of arbitrary reasons for denying participation in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities, analyses were conducted on four justification categories indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Authority, Personal Choice and Self-development. Type of justification. As expected, a main effect for justification, F (2.52, 247.11) = 45.71, p < .001, ? p 2 = .32, and an Activity x Justification interaction, F (4.17, 408.38) = 37.88, p < .001, ? p 2 = .28, was found. Overall, a majority of children used personal reasoning, that is, Self-Development (M = .43, SD = .25) and Personal Choice (M = .33, SD = .27) more than Authority (M = .14, SD = .25), or Fairness (M = .05, SD = .12) reasons to support judgments about denial of autonomy, ps < .001. As expected, closer examination of activity differences indicated that children appealed to Authority reasons to support their judgments for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover (M = .26, SD = .42), more than for gender-stereotypic activities, Football (M = .08, SD = .25) and Ballet (M = .08, SD = .25), ps < .001. Similarly, Personal Choice was used for the Sleepover (M = .53, SD = .47) more than for a child playing football (M = .23, SD = .37) or taking ballet 111 (M = .23, SD = .38), ps < .001. Whereas, Self-Development was used more often to support judgments for gender stereotypic activities, Football (M = .60, SD = .44) and Ballet (M = .61, SD = .45), than for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover (M = .07, SD = .21), ps < .001. For example, when asked why parents should not deny a girl from playing football for an arbitrary reason, a sixth grade girl stated: ?You know like since Korea is strict and my parents always pressure me to do my homework all the time like every five minutes, but you need to have fun outside, too, like play football.? In contrast, a third grade boy, was supportive of the arbitrary reason used by parents to deny participation in the sleepover activity: ?You should obey your parents; naps are good for you.? Grade comparisons. It was hypothesized 3 rd and 6 th graders would differ in their reasoning used to justify their judgments about who should decide whether a child can go on a sleepover, play football or learn ballet. As expected, a Justification x Grade interaction, F (2.52, 247.11) = 8.63, p < .001, ? p 2 = .08 was found. Overall, 3 rd graders (M = .23, SD = .31) appealed to Authority reasons more often than did 6 th graders (M = .05, SD = .11) to support their evaluations, p < .001. Whereas, overall, older children (M = .42, SD = .27) appealed to Personal Choice more often than did younger children (M = .25, SD = .25), p < .001 (see Figure 7). Summary. Overall, a majority of children thought that it was not all right for parents to deny autonomy, and they used personal reasoning (Personal Choice and Self- development justifications) more often than social-conventional (Authority) or moral reasoning (Fairness) to support their judgments. Examination of activity differences 112 further revealed that children?s reasoning differed according to the type of activity. Children made references to parental authority and appealed to personal choice more often for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, than for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet. In contrast, Self-development reasons were used more often for a child wanting to play football or take ballet than for a child going on a sleepover. Finally, analyses of grade differences revealed that younger children more frequently appealed to parental authority whereas older children used personal choice reasons for supporting their judgments about parents? use of arbitrary reasons to deny a child from Football, Ballet, or Sleepover activities. Evaluation of Gender Bias In order to test hypotheses regarding children?s evaluation of parents? differential treatment based on the gender of the child, a 2 (gender of participant: female, male) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (activity: football, ballet, sleepover) MANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted on participants? judgments (coded as 0 = okay, 1 = not okay). For analyses of justifications, a 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (scenario: football, ballet, sleepover) repeated measures MANOVA was conducted on justifications meeting the criteria of .10 frequency or more. Follow-up analyses included t-tests for within-subjects effects and univariate ANOVAs for between- subjects effects. Gender Bias Judgment: Is it okay if X gets to participate in this activity but not Y? It was hypothesized that, overall, children would not judge it legitimate for parents to treat boys and girls differently based on gender expectations, that is, to let 113 boys, but not girls, play football and go to a sleepover, or girls, but not boys, take ballet. As expected, results indicated that overall, a majority of children disapproved of gender bias, however, children?s judgments differed according to the type of activity, as indicated by a within-subjects main effect for activity, F (2, 196) = 10.76, p < .001, ? p 2 = .10. Closer examination of activity differences revealed that children were more likely to state that it?s all right to allow girls, but not boys to take ballet (M = .74, SD = .44) and for boys, but not girls, to play football (M = .77, SD = .42) than for a girl, but not a boy, to go on a sleepover (M = .93, SD = .25), ps < .001. An Activity x Grade interaction, F (2, 196) = 6.89, p < .001, ? p 2 = .07, however, qualified the main effect for activity. Follow-up analyses indicated that as expected, this pattern of results were only found for 3 rd graders and not for 6 th graders, ps< .001 (see Figure 8). Sixth grade children did not significantly differ in their evaluations of parental gender bias across all activities (for means, see Table 12). In addition, other grade differences were found. Analysis of between-subjects effects revealed a main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 4.53, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04. Interestingly, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their judgments of gender bias for only the Football activity, F (1, 100) = 12.30, p < .001. As shown in Table 12, younger children were more willing to judge that it?s all right for boys, but not girls, to play football than were older children. It was expected that this pattern would be significant for parents? gender bias regarding ballet, however, 3 rd and 6 th graders did not differ in their judgments for this activity. Both younger and older children were more likely to condone parents? differential treatment of a boy wanting to take ballet. 114 In sum, supporting predictions, overall, a majority of children rejected excluding a child from an activity based on gender biases. However, children did differentiate their judgments according to the type of activity. Children were more likely to condone excluding a girl from playing football or a boy from taking ballet than a girl from going on a sleepover. Grade differences revealed that younger children were more likely to condone parental gender biases for gender stereotypic activities than were older children. However, for the Sleepover activity, similar to 6 th graders, a majority of 3 rd graders rejected parents? gender preference for a girl to go on a sleepover compared to a boy. In addition, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their judgments regarding a boy, not girl, being allowed to play football. Once again, younger children were more likely to support parents? gender preference for a boy, and not a girl, to play football. Reasons for Gender Bias Judgment: Why is it okay if X gets to participate in this activity but not Y? In order to examine the reasoning used by children to evaluate excluding a child from participating in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities based on gender biases, analyses were conducted on three justification categories indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Gender Equity, and Gender Stereotypes. Type of justification. It was hypothesized that overall, children would use moral reasoning to evaluate treating one gender different from the other gender as wrong; whereas social-conventional reasoning would be used to support condoning exclusion based on gender expectations. As expected, analyses revealed a main effect for justification, F (1.84, 180.66) = 60.75, p < .001, ? p 2 = .38, and an Activity x Justification 115 interaction, F (3.57, 349.38) = 15.67, p < .001, ? p 2 = .14, was found. Overall, a majority of children rejected gender bias and used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) to support their evaluations. Fairness (M = .56, SD = .29) was used more frequently than Gender Equity (M = .25, SD = .44) or Gender Stereotypes (M = .13, SD = .20) justifications, p < .001. Gender Equity was also used significantly more than Gender Stereotypes, p < .05. Thus, overall, only a minority of children used social-conventional reasoning to evaluate gender bias. Closer examination of activity differences indicated that children appealed to Fairness reasons to support their judgments for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover more than for gender-stereotypic activities, Football or Ballet, ps < .001. Whereas, children were more likely to appeal to gender equality reasons when evaluating gender preference for a boy to play football and a girl to take ballet than for a boy to go on a sleepover, ps < .001, .01, for Football and Sleepover and Ballet and Sleepover, respectively (for means, see Table 13). Although only a minority of children used Gender Stereotypes to evaluate gender bias, references to gender stereotypic expectations differed by type of activity. As expected, Gender Stereotypes were used more often when evaluating gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet than for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .001 (for means, see Table 13). Grade and gender comparisons. Children were also found to differ in their reasoning about gender bias depending on their grade and gender. Analyses revealed a Justification x Grade interaction, F (1.84, 180.66) = 7.70, p < .001, ? p 2 = .07, a Justification x Gender interaction, F (1.84, 180.66) = 3.12, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03, and an 116 Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (3.57, 349.38) = 2.79, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03. Overall, 3 rd graders (M = .19, SD = .24) appealed to Gender Stereotype reasons more often than did 6 th graders (M = .06, SD = .13) to support their evaluations across activities, p < .001. Likewise, boys (M = .19, SD = .23) made more frequent references to gender stereotype reasons when evaluating gender bias than did girls (M = .07, SD = .16), p < .01. In contrast, older children (M = .37, SD = .55) appealed to Gender Equity reasons more often than did younger children (M = .13, SD = .25), p < .001. In addition, results indicated that 3 rd and 6 th graders showed different patterns of reasoning by activities. As shown in Figure 9, although a majority of children used moral reasoning to evaluate gender bias, younger children were more likely to use social- conventional reasoning for gender stereotypic activities, whereas older children more frequently referred to reasons of fairness and gender equality. For the Sleepover activity, a majority (>95%) of both 3 rd and 6 th graders used moral reasoning to support their judgments about gender bias, however, the type of moral reasoning used, that is, Fairness versus Gender Equity justifications, differed. As shown in Table 13, a majority of 3 rd graders used Fairness justifications more than 6 th graders when evaluating gender bias for Sleepover, p< .01, whereas 6 th graders, in addition to using Fairness also made references to Gender Equity, which was used significantly more than 3 rd graders, p< .05. For example, a sixth grade girl appealed to gender equality when evaluating the sleepover activity: ?It?s not fair if only Sandy gets to go, both girls and boys should have the same opportunities.? 117 For stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet, although more than half of 3 rd and 6 th graders used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) to evaluate gender bias, 6 th graders appealed to gender equality more often than did 3 rd graders, ps < .05. In contrast, although more than half of the 3 rd graders used moral justifications to support their judgments about gender bias in the male stereotypic activity, Football, they also used social-conventional reasoning (Gender Stereotypes) and significantly more so than 6 th graders, p < .001 (see Table 13 for means). As an example, a third grade boy stated: ?It?s okay if only Henry gets to play because Sandy probably doesn?t have the ability because she?s a girl.? Summary. Overall, a majority of children viewed parental bias for one gender and not the other to participate in stereotypic and non stereotypic activities as wrong and used predominately moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity justifications) to support their judgments. However, for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet, although more than half of the children used moral reasoning, a minority of children used social- conventional reasoning to support their judgments condoning a boy, but not a girl being allowed to play football, and a girl, but not a boy being allowed to take ballet. Examination of grade and gender differences revealed that 3 rd graders and boys were more willing to refer to gender stereotypes to support their judgments than their counterparts. In addition, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their reasoning according to the type of activity evaluated. Whereas a majority of older children used moral reasoning to evaluate gender stereotypic activities, about one third of younger children were more willing to condone parental gender bias and used social conventional reasoning to support 118 their judgments. In particular, for the male-stereotypic activity, Football, 3 rd graders referred to gender stereotypes to justify their judgments more often than did 6 th graders. Evaluation of Cultural Generalizability In order to examine how Korean-American children evaluated boys? and girls? participation in gender stereotypic activities in Korea, analyses were performed on participants? responses for four assessments: occurrence, gender exclusion, fairness, change, and equality. It was hypothesized that overall, children would appeal to fairness and gender equity when evaluating adherence to gender expectations in Korea, however, to what extent culture may have a factor in their judgments was an open question. Therefore, to examine these assessments of cultural generalizability, 2 (gender of participant: female, male) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (activity: football, ballet, sleepover) MANOVAs with repeated measures on the last factor were conducted on participants? judgment responses. For analyses of justifications supporting these judgments, 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (grade: 3 rd , 6 th ) x 3 (scenario: football, ballet, sleepover) repeated measures MANOVA were conducted on justifications meeting the criteria of .10 frequency or more for each assessment. Follow-up analyses included t-tests for within- subjects effects and univariate ANOVAs for between-subjects effects. Occurrence: Do you think that in Korea, X is allowed to do this activity but Y is not? Children were asked whether they believed that in Korea, children were denied participation from activities on the basis of gender expectations, that is, boys, but not girls are allowed to play football and go on sleepovers, and girls, but not boys are allowed to take ballet. Analyses of occurrence (coded: 0 = yes it occurs, 1 = no it does not occur) 119 revealed a main effect for activity, F (2, 194) = 40.75, p < .001, ? p 2 = .30. Closer examination of activity differences revealed that a majority of Korean-American children expected that girls were allowed to go on sleepovers (M = .84, SD = .37) compared to girls being allowed to play football (M = .37, SD = .48) and boys being allowed to take ballet (M = .45, SD = .50), ps < .001. Thus, children were more likely to view exclusion based on gender expectations to occur for stereotypic activities in Korea. Contrary to expectations that older children would more likely express that gender-biased participation in activities occurred in Korea, grade effects were not found to be significant for this assessment. Evaluation of Gender Exclusion: If in Korea, X is allowed to do this activity but Y is not, do you think that?s okay or not okay? In a follow-up assessment, children were asked to judge whether it was okay for exclusion based on gender expectations to occur in Korea. It was hypothesized that overall, children would evaluate preferential treatment based on gender as wrong in Korea, yet they would be more willing to judge exclusion from stereotypic activities as okay. Supporting predictions, a main effect for activity, F (1.72, 175.99) = 11.83, p < .001, ? p 2 = .11, was found. Children were more likely to evaluate denial of participation for a girl from playing football (M = .74, SD = .44), and a boy from taking ballet (M = .75, SD = .43), as more okay than denying a girl from going on a sleepover (M = .93, SD = .25) in Korea, ps < .001. An Activity x Grade x Gender interaction, F (1.80, 175.99) = 3.95, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04, however, qualified the main effect for activity. Follow-up analyses revealed that this pattern was significant for only 3 rd grade boys (Football: M = 120 .50, SD = .51; Ballet: M = .65, SD = .49; Sleepover: M = .92, SD = .27), ps< .001 (see Figure 10). In comparison, 3 rd grade girls judged excluding boys from taking ballet (M = .81, SD = .40) as slightly more okay than refraining girls from going on sleepovers (M = .96, SD = .19), p < .05. For 6 th graders, girls significantly judged it more legitimate to exclude a girl from playing football (M = .76, SD = .44), than from going on a sleepover (M = .90, SD = .31), p < .001, whereas 6 th grade boys were more likely to judge excluding a boy from taking ballet (M = .65, SD = .49) as more okay than excluding girls from going on sleepovers (M = .95, SD = .22), p < .05 (see Figure 10). In sum, a majority of children judged exclusion from peer activities based on gender expectations as wrong in Korea. However, for stereotypic activities, such as Football and Ballet, children were more likely to support adherence to gender expectations in Korea, that is, to not allow boys from taking ballet and similarly, to not allow girls to play football. This pattern held significant in follow-up analyses for 3 rd grade boys however, judgments differing on the basis of stereotypic expectations were not limited to this particular group of children. Interestingly, 3 rd grade girls and 6 th grade boys were found to judge it more legitimate to exclude boys taking ballet than girls from sleepovers, whereas 6 th grade girls were more likely to judge refraining girls from playing football as more okay than girl from going on sleepovers. Reasons for Gender Exclusion: Why is it okay or not okay for X to be allowed to do this activity but not Y, in Korea? In order to examine the reasons children used to evaluate exclusion excluding a child from participating in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities in Korea, 121 analyses were conducted on four justification categories as indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Gender Equity, Gender Stereotypes, and Personal Choice. Type of justification. Analyses on children?s reasoning about exclusion based on gender expectations in Korea revealed a main effect for justification, F (2.25, 220.20) = 37.15, p < .001, ? p 2 = .28, and an Activity x Justification interaction, F (4.98, 487.94) = 3.59, p < .01, ? p 2 = .04. Overall, a majority of children rejected gender bias and used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) more than social-conventional or personal reasoning to support their evaluations. Closer examination revealed that children appealed to gender equality reasons more often than any other justification, including Fairness. Gender Equity (M = .46, SD = .34) was used more frequently than either Fairness (M = .27, SD = .26), Gender Stereotypes (M = .14, SD = .20) or Personal Choice (M = .07, SD = .16) justifications, ps < .001. Closer examination of activity differences indicated that children did not differ across activities in their use of Gender Equity or Personal Choice justifications (see Table 14 for means). However, as indicated in Table 14, children?s use of Fairness and Gender Stereotypes differed according to the type of activity involved. Fairness was used more frequently for evaluating the gender neutral activity, than for the female stereotypic activity, Football, p < .01. Whereas, as expected, children were more likely to make references to gender stereotypes when evaluating gender stereotypic activities. Gender Stereotype justifications were used more often to support judgments about a boy, but not a girl being allowed to play Football and a girl, but not a boy being allowed to take Ballet 122 than for a girl, but not a boy to be allowed to go on a sleepover, ps < .001 (see Table 14 for means). Grade and gender comparisons. Children were also found to differ in their reasoning about gender exclusion in Korea depending on their grade and gender. Analyses revealed a Justification x Gender interaction, F (2.25, 220.20) = 6.77, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07, an Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (4.97, 497.94) = 3.93, p < .01, ? p 2 = .04, and an Activity x Justification x Gender interaction, F (4.97, 497.94) = 4.59, p < .001, ? p 2 = .05. Follow-up tests examining gender differences in overall use of justifications revealed that girls and boys only differed in their use of Gender Equity and Gender Stereotype justifications. Although, a majority of both girls and boys used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) to reject gender exclusion in Korea, girls were more likely to appeal to gender equality (M = .56, SD = .34) more than fairness (M = .23, SD = .27), p < .001. Whereas, overall, boys did not differ in their use of Gender Equity (M = .33, SD = .23) and Fairness (M = .35, SD = .32) justifications. Closer examination of activity differences revealed different patterns of reasoning between 3 rd and 6 th graders depending on the stereotypic nature of the activity. Although a majority of 3 rd graders used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) to evaluate gender exclusion in Korea, references to Gender Equity was least used for evaluating the male-stereotypic activity, Football than for the female-stereotypic activity, Ballet or for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .01 (for means see Table 14). Closer examination of gender differences further revealed that this pattern was significant for only 3rd grade girls as they were more likely to use Gender Equity for Football (M = .22, 123 SD = .42) than for Ballet (M = .63, SD = .49) or Sleepover (M = .69, SD = .46), ps < .001. Third grade boys did not differ significantly in their use of gender equality across activities (Ms= .27, .51, .35, SDs= .45, .50, .49 for Football, Ballet, and Sleepover, respectively). In contrast, as shown in Table 14, 6 th graders used Gender Equity justifications more frequently for evaluating girls being excluded from playing Football than for boys being excluded from taking Ballet in Korea, p < .05. Gender Equity was similarly used for Sleepover as for Ballet. Closer examination of gender differences revealed that 6 th grade girls used Gender Equity more often for Football (M = .76, SD = .44) than for Ballet (M = .53, SD = .50) or Sleepover (M = .52, SD = .51), ps< .05, whereas 6 th grade boys did not differ significantly in their use of gender equality across activities (Ms= .40, .40, .30, SDs= .50, .50, .47 for Football, Ballet, and Sleepover, respectively). For example, a sixth grade girl appealed to equality for both girls and boys to play football: ?It?s not okay because girls are the same as boys. I always hear in Korea that boys are more favored because they think sons are better, but I don?t think it?s true because we?re all the same.? In addition, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their use of social-conventional reasoning, depending on type of activity. As shown in Table 14, younger children were more likely to use Gender Stereotypes for Football and Ballet than for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .01. Closer examination of gender differences revealed that this pattern was significant for 3 rd grade boys (Football: M = .46, SD = .51, Ballet: M = .23, SD = .43, p < .05; Football and Sleepover: M = .04, SD = .20, p < .001) but not for girls. Third grade girls? use of gender stereotypes was used more often for only Ballet (M = .20, 124 SD = .44) than for Sleepover (M = .04, SD = .13), p < .05. Although only a minority of older children (<15%) made references to gender stereotypes to support their judgments, they were more willing to use Gender Stereotype justifications for the female-stereotypic activity, Ballet (M = .14, SD = .35), more than for the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover (M = .01, SD = .07), p < .01, but not significantly more than for the male-stereotypic activity, Football (M = .08, SD = .28). However, examination of gender differences revealed that this was only significant for 6 th grade boys (Ballet: M = .30, SD = .47, Sleepover: M = .00, SD = .00, p < .01). Summary. Overall, a majority of children used moral reasoning to evaluate gender exclusion in Korea. Gender Equity was used most frequently by children, in particular, more by girls than by boys, to reject unequal treatment of genders in participation of football, ballet or sleepover activities. Boys, on the other hand, were more likely to use gender stereotypes than girls, to support their judgments about gender exclusion in Korea. Children?s justifications were also differentiated by the type of activity. Fairness was used more frequently for evaluating the gender-neutral activity, Sleepover, whereas reasons based on gender stereotypes were used more often for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet. Third grade boys, in particular were more likely to refer to gender stereotypes when evaluating both gender stereotypic activities. Older children and 3 rd grade girls, however, used gender stereotypes mainly for the female stereotypic activity, Ballet. Finally, 3 rd and 6 th grade girls used Gender Equity differently for the male-stereotypic activity, Football. Whereas 3 rd grade girls appealed to gender equality 125 least often for evaluating Football, 6 th grade girls appealed to equal treatment of both genders most often when evaluating exclusion of girls from playing football in Korea. Fairness Judgment: What if X felt it was unfair that they could not do this activity, do you agree? Children were asked to evaluate the fairness of exclusion based on gender expectations in Korea, particularly, if the excluded group (boys or girls) expressed a lack of fairness for being denied participation in activities. Analyses of fairness (coded as 0 = yes, it is unfair, or 1 = no, it is fair) revealed a main effect for activity, F (1.76, 172.51) = 3.09, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03. Although, overall, a majority of children agreed that it was unfair to allow only one gender, and not the other, from participation in stereotypic and non stereotypic activities, follow-up analyses revealed that only a minority of Korean- American children were willing to judge it as fair to exclude boys from taking ballet compared to excluding girls from sleepovers, p < .05, which was perceived as the activity most unfair to exclude from (see Table 15 for means). In addition, analyses of between- subjects effects revealed main effects for both grade, F (1, 98) = 7.88, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07 and gender, F (1, 98) = 8.01, p < .01, ? p 2 = .08. Follow-up analyses on grade effects were not found to be significant, however, significant differences in judgments about fairness were found between male and female children for the Ballet activity only. Boys (M = .17, SD = .38), compared to girls (M = .04, SD = .19), were more willing to agree that it is fair to exclude boys in Korea from taking ballet, F (1, 100) = 5.66, p < .05. Overall, girls did not differ in their evaluations of fairness across activities (Ms= .00, .04, .04, SDs= .00, .19, .19, for Sleepover, Football, and Ballet respectively). In sum, overall, a majority of 126 children agreed that it was unfair for children to be excluded based on gender expectations in Korea, however, there was a small minority of children, predominantly boys, who stated that it was fair to exclude boys in Korea from taking ballet. Reasons for Fairness Judgment: Why do you agree or not agree that it is unfair if X felt it was unfair that they could not do this activity? In order to examine the reasons children used to when evaluating the fairness of excluding a child from participating in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities in Korea, analyses were conducted on four justification categories as indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Gender Equity, Gender Stereotypes, and Personal Choice. Type of justification. Analyses on children?s reasoning for this assessment revealed a main effect for justification, F (2.25, 220.53) = 73.41, p < .001, ? p 2 = .43, and an Activity x Justification interaction, F (4.19, 410.82) = 3.89, p < .01, ? p 2 = .04. Overall, a majority of children agreed that gender exclusion was unfair in Korea and used moral reasoning to support their judgments. In particular, Gender Equity was used significantly more than fairness, social-conventional or personal reasoning to support their judgments (Gender Equity: M = .58, SD = .33; Fairness: M = .21, SD = .24; Gender Stereotypes: M = .06, SD = .14, Personal Choice: M = .11, SD = .21, ps< .001). However, children?s use of these justifications also differed by activity. As shown in Table 16, references to gender equality were used slightly more often for evaluating the fairness of excluding boys from the gender-neutral activity, sleepover, than for excluding boys from ballet, p < .05. In contrast, Personal Choice and Gender Stereotype justifications were used more often for gender stereotypic activities than for the gender neutral activity. Compared to 127 the Sleepover activity, children were more willing to use personal choice reasons to support their judgments about fairness for Football, p< .05, and Ballet, p < .001. Likewise, compared to the gender neutral activity, children made more references to gender stereotypes when evaluating Football, p < .05, and Ballet, p < .01, activities (for means, see Table 16). As an example, a sixth grade girl referred to cultural gender expectations regarding football: ?If I was a girl in Korea, I would think it was unfair, but I?d understand it because it?s a Korean custom to only let boys play tough sports.? Grade and gender comparisons. Children also differed in their reasoning about the fairness of gender exclusion in Korea, depending on their grade and gender. Analyses revealed a Justification x Gender interaction, F (2.25, 220.53) = 4.82, p < .01, ? p 2 = .05, and an Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (4.19, 410.82) = 3.92, p < .01, ? p 2 = .04. Follow-up tests revealed that overall, girls (M = .66, SD = .31) were more likely to use Gender Equity to support their judgments about the fairness of exclusion in Korea than were boys (M = .48, SD = .33), p < .01, whereas boys (M = .17, SD = .25) were more likely to use personal reasoning than were girls (M = .07, SD = .16), p < .05. Examination of activity differences revealed that 3 rd and 6 th graders also differed in their patterns of reasoning. In particular, 3 rd graders were more likely to use gender stereotypes to evaluate fairness of gender exclusion in Korea for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet, than for the gender neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .05, .001 for Football-Sleepover comparison and Ballet-Sleepover comparison respectively. Whereas 6 th graders were more likely to use personal choice reasoning in the same significant pattern (see Table 16 for means). In addition, grade differences were further 128 revealed by a between-subjects main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 7.86, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07. For the Football activity only, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their use of moral and social- conventional reasoning. As shown in Table 16, older children appealed to gender equality more often than younger children when evaluating the fairness of denying girls in Korea, the opportunity to play football, F (1, 100) = 9.37, p < .01, ? p 2 = .09. Whereas, 3 rd graders used primarily Fairness reasons for evaluating Football more than did 6 th graders, F (1, 100) = 5.32, p < .05, ? p 2 = .05. Further, 3 rd graders were more willing to use gender stereotypes than 6 th graders for supporting judgments condoning the fairness of excluding girls in Korea from playing football, F (1, 100) = 4.85, p < .05, ? p 2 = .05 (see Table 6 for all means). As an example, a third grader, in support of gender stereotypic expectations stated: ?It?s okay to not let girls play football because girls wash the dishes and do chores at home while boys get strength from playing sports. If I was in Korea, I?d be doomed.? Summary. In sum, findings revealed that a majority of children agreed that exclusion for one gender over another gender from gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities in Korea was unfair and they used moral reasoning, in particular, Gender Equity more than other justifications, to support their judgments. Gender differences revealed that overall, girls appealed to gender equality more often than did boys, whereas boys were more likely to refer to personal choice reasons when evaluating fairness of gender exclusion in Korea. Examining activity differences, children were more likely to use Gender Stereotype and Personal Choice justifications for gender stereotypic activities than for the gender neutral activity. In particular, younger children were more likely to use gender stereotypes, whereas older children were more likely to 129 use personal choice reasons when evaluating the fairness of gender exclusion from gender stereotypic activities in Korea. Grade differences were further revealed for the male stereotypic activity, Football. Whereas a majority of 6 th graders used Gender Equity to support their judgments about fairness, 3 rd graders used a combination of Fairness and Gender Equity. In addition, a small number of 3 rd graders were more likely to use Gender Stereotypes than 6 th graders, to support judgments about the fairness of not allowing girls to play football in Korea. Evaluation of Change: Do you think things should change in Korea? In order to assess children?s beliefs as to whether exclusion based on gender should change in Korea, analyses were conducted on children?s responses which were coded dichotomously (0 = yes, things should change, 1 = no, things should not change). Results indicated a main effect for activity, F (2, 196) = 4.05, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04. Closer examination of activity differences revealed that once again, although a majority of children supported changing exclusion based on gender expectations in Korea across all activities, a minority of children were willing to state that things should remain unchanged for denying boys from taking ballet and denying girls from playing football, compared to denying girls from attending sleepovers, ps < .05, .01, for Ballet and Football respectively (see Table 17 for means). An Activity x Gender interaction effect, however, qualified the main effect for activity, F (2, 196) = 3.48, p < .05, ? p 2 = .03. Follow-up analyses revealed that only boys significantly differed in their judgments regarding change in Korea across activities. For the Sleepover activity, all of the boys stated that change should occur, that is, girls should be allowed to attend sleepovers (M = 130 .00, SD = .00), however, for Ballet (M = .15, SD = .36) and Football (M = .20, SD = .40) activities, they were more willing to state that exclusion based on gender should remain unchanged in Korea, ps < .01. Girls, on the other hand, supported change to occur in Korea, equally across activities (Sleepover: M = .04, SD = .19, Football: M = .04, SD = .19, Ballet: M = .05, SD = .23). In addition, analyses of between-subjects effects revealed a main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 4.51, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04, and a main effect for gender, F (1, 98) = 4.60, p < .05, ? p 2 = .05. Overall, males (M = .20, SD = .40) were more likely to state that girls being excluded from playing football should remain unchanged in Korea than did females (M = .04, SD = .19), F (1, 100) = 7.05, p < .01. As shown in Table 17, third graders, likewise, evaluated that exclusion of girl from football should not change in Korea more often than did 6 th graders, F (1, 100) = 4.51, p < .05. Interestingly, children did not significantly differ by grade or gender for the female stereotypic activity, Ballet. However, as indicated by the means in Table 17, a similar pattern was evident for evaluating boys not being allowed to take ballet. In sum, overall, children supported change to occur in Korea, that is, to allow both genders to participate in stereotypic and non stereotypic activities. However, a minority of children, specifically, boys, were more likely to state that change did not need to occur in Korea for stereotypic activities than were girls. In addition, boys and girls, and 3 rd and 6 th graders differed similarly in their evaluation of change for the male stereotypic activity, Football. Boys and younger children were more likely to judge that exclusion of 131 girls from playing football should remain the same in Korea, whereas girls and older children were clearly supportive of change for this and other activities. Reasons for Evaluation of Change: Why do you think things should change in Korea? In order to examine the reasons children used to evaluate whether gender exclusion from gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities should change in Korea, analyses were conducted on four justification categories as indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Gender Equity, Gender Stereotypes, and Personal Choice. Analyses on children?s reasoning revealed only a main effect for justification, F (1.69, 165.57) = 60.78, p < .001, ? p 2 = .38. As expected, a majority of children supported change for both genders to participate in gender stereotypic and non stereotypic activities in Korea and used moral reasoning, in particular, gender equality (Fairness: M = .33, SD = .30; Gender Equity: M = .51, SD = .34) more frequently than social conventional (M = .05, SD = .14) or personal reasoning (M = .06, SD = .14), ps < .001. For example, one sixth grader stated: ?Each of us are equal to one another so things should change even in Korea so there are equal rights for boys and girls.? Evaluation of Equality: Do you think that it would be okay for X in Korea to do this activity? In this final assessment of cultural generalizability, children were asked to evaluate whether children in Korea could participate in activities regardless of gender expectations, that is, for girls to be allowed to play football and attend sleepovers, and for boys to be allowed to take ballet. Analyses on participants? responses (coded as 0 = yes, it would be okay for X to participate; 1 = no, it would not be okay for X to participate) did 132 not reveal any main effects, however, an Activity x Gender interaction effect, F (2, 196) = 3.62, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04, was found. Although, a majority of children supported equal participation across activities by both genders in Korea (see Table 15 for means), a minority of boys were more likely to reject gender equity for girls playing football (M = .09, SD = .28) than for girls attending sleepovers (M = .00, SD = .00), p < .05. Girls, however, did not differ in their evaluations across activities (Ms= .05, .00, .04, SDs = .23, .00, .19, for Sleepover, Football, and Ballet respectively). In addition, analyses of between-subjects effects revealed a main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 6.82, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07. Once again, similar to other assessments of cultural generalizability, 3 rd and 6 th graders differed in their evaluations for only the Football activity, F (1, 100) = 3.92, p < .05. A minority of younger children were more likely to judge that it was not okay for girls in Korea to play football than were older children. Virtually all 6 th graders supported gender equity across all activities (see Table 15 for all means). In sum, when asked whether boys and girls in Korea could participate in stereotypic and non stereotypic activities counter to gender expectations, virtually all children were supportive of gender equity. However, a slight minority of boys and 3 rd graders responded differently for the male stereotypic activity, Football. These children were more likely to state that it was not okay for girls in Korea to play football, compared to going on sleepovers. Thus, this suggests that gender stereotypes were slightly influential in the judgments of boys and 3 rd graders when evaluating Football, more so than for Sleepover. 133 Reasons for Evaluation of Equality: Why do you think that it would be okay for X in Korea to do this activity? In order to examine the reasons children used to evaluate whether the gender incongruent child could participate in Football or Ballet (and a boy for the gender neutral activity, Sleepover), analyses were conducted on four justification categories as indicated by initial analyses: Fairness, Gender Equity, Personal Choice, and Friendship. Type of justification. Analyses on children?s reasoning for this assessment revealed a main effect for justification, F (2.09, 204.32) = 37.10, p < .001, ? p 2 = .28, and an Activity x Justification interaction, F (4.66, 456.75) = 3.53, p < .01, ? p 2 = .04. Overall, a majority of children used Gender Equity (M = .48, SD = .35) more often than Fairness (M = .21, SD = .27), Personal Choice (M = .19, SD = .24) or Friendship (M = .05, SD = .11) reasons to support their judgments, ps < .001. However, children?s use of these justifications also differed by activity. Although a majority of children used moral reasoning (Fairness and Gender Equity) when evaluating gender equality in Korea, children also appealed to personal reasons (Personal Choice and Friendship) to support boys or girls to participate in activities counter to gender expectations. Follow-up tests revealed that children appealed to friendship reasons for only the Sleepover activity, that is, they viewed boys to going to sleepovers as beneficial for establishing or maintaining friendships in Korea more so than for girls to play football or for boys to take ballet, ps < .001. In contrast, children were more likely to use Personal Choice to support equal opportunities for boys and girls in gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet than for the gender neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .05 (see Table 19 for means). 134 Grade comparisons. Children also differed in their reasoning about gender equality in Korea, depending on their grade. Analyses revealed a Justification x Grade interaction, F (2.09, 204.32) = 3.51, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04, and an Activity x Justification x Grade interaction, F (4.66, 456.75) = 2.99, p < .01, ? p 2 = .03. Follow-up tests revealed that 3 rd and 6 th graders only differed in their use of Fairness reasoning to support their judgments. As shown in Table 19, whereas overall, 6 th graders did not significantly differ in their use of Fairness and Personal Choice justifications when evaluating gender equality, 3 rd graders were more likely to use Fairness than Personal Choice justifications to support their judgments, p < .05. In addition, examination of activity differences further revealed that both 3 rd and 6 th graders used friendship reasoning for Sleepover more often than for Football or Ballet activities, ps < .05, .001, for 3 rd and 6 th graders, respectively. In contrast, only 6 th graders used personal choice reasons more often for gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet than for the gender neutral activity, Sleepover, ps < .01, .001 for Football- Sleepover comparison and Ballet-Sleepover comparison, respectively. Third graders did not differ in their use of personal choice reasons across activities (see Table 19, for means). A between-subjects main effect for grade, F (1, 98) = 15.44, p < .001, ? p 2 = .14, further revealed that 6 th graders used Personal Choice more often than did 3 rd graders for both gender stereotypic activities, Football , F (1, 100) = 7.15, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07, and Ballet, F (1, 100) = 16.10, p < .001, ? p 2 = .14 (see Table 19, for means) Summary. Overall, analyses revealed that a majority of children used moral reasoning, that is, fairness and gender equality, to support boys and girls in Korea, to 135 participate in activities that were counter to gender expectations. Whereas, children did not differ in their use of moral reasoning, their use of personal reasoning (personal choice and friendship reasons) did differ, according to their grade and the type of activity evaluated. Overall, children were more likely to use friendship reasons for why boys should be allowed to go on sleepovers. In contrast, 3 rd graders were less likely to use Personal Choice justifications to support their evaluations, whereas 6 th graders referred to personal choice reasons more often when evaluating gender stereotypic activities, Football and Ballet than for the non stereotypic activity, Sleepover. Thus, when providing reasons for why boys should be able to learn ballet, or go on sleepovers and why girls should be able to play football, while a majority of children relied on fairness and gender equity, some children considered autonomy and friendship issues to support their judgments. Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM) In order to assess children?s awareness of parental gender expectations in the family context, participants were asked to evaluate whether parents would expect either a daughter or son to engage in two stereotypic family chores (setting the table for dinner, setting up the VCR), two stereotypic play activities (like playing with dolls, like playing with trucks), and two non stereotypic academic/career activities (academic success, career success). Children were asked to evaluate the six items using a Likert rating ranging from 1(always daughter) to 5 (always son). For the female stereotypic activities, scores were reversed so that higher scores reflected stronger gender expectations. In order to test hypotheses that children would respond differently to parental gender expectations 136 depending on their grade, gender, and the type of activity, that is, whether the activity was male-stereotypic or female-stereotypic, univariate ANOVAs and paired t-tests were conducted. Analyses of each gender expectation item indicated that as expected, children differed in their ratings of parental gender expectations depending on their grade and gender. However, this finding was limited to the female stereotypic activities. Results indicated between-subjects effects for gender, F (1, 98) = 6.82, p < .01, ? p 2 = .07, and grade, F (1, 98) = 4.55, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04, for the female stereotypic family chore (setting the table for dinner). As shown in Table 20, Girls were more likely than boys to respond that parents expected daughters to set the table for dinner. Likewise, older children (M = 3.43, SD = .71) were more likely than younger children (M = 3.13, SD = .56) to view parents? expectations for a daughter to set the table for dinner. A grade effect was also found for the female stereotypic play activity (playing with dolls), F (1, 98) = 3.78, p < .05, ? p 2 = .04. Although both 3 rd and 6 th graders viewed parents to have expectations for a daughter to play with dolls, younger children (M = 4.66, SD = .59) rated parental expectations as slightly more stereotypic, than did older children (M = 4.41, SD = .70). It was also expected that children?s gender knowledge regarding parental stereotypic expectations would differ according to the type of activity (family chores, play activities, academic/career success) and the stereotypic nature of the activity (male stereotypic, female stereotypic, gender neutral). Analyses examining comparisons between types of activities indicated that as expected, gender neutral items, academic success (M = 2.98, SD = .40) and career success (M = 3.11, SD = .58), did not differ from 137 each other and were found to be significantly different from all gender stereotypic activities, ps < .01. However, contrary to expectations that children would use higher stereotypic ratings for family chores than for play activities, children rated the female stereotypic play activity, playing with dolls (M = 4.54, SD = .66) as having higher parental stereotypic expectations than the female stereotypic family chore, setting the table for dinner (M = 3.27, SD = .65), or for p < .001. Likewise for male stereotypic activities, playing with trucks (M = 4.36, SD = .67) was rated higher in stereotypic expectations than setting up the VCR (M = 3.89, SD = .74), p < .001. Thus, children made distinctions in their ratings of parental gender expectations depending on the activity. In particular, children viewed parents to have higher stereotypic expectations for play activities than for household chores. In addition, it was hypothesized that children?s gender expectation ratings of female stereotypic activities would be higher than male stereotypic activities based on cross-gender research. That is, it would be more acceptable for girls to participate in male stereotypic activities than vice versa. Results confirmed hypotheses as playing with dolls (M = 4.54, SD = .66) was scored significantly higher as being stereotypic than playing with trucks (M = 4.36, SD = .67), p < .05, or setting up the VCR (M = 3.89, SD = .74), ps < .001. This suggests that children viewed parental gender expectations to be less strict for male stereotypic activities. However, contrary to expectations, children did not view the female stereotypic chore, setting the table (M = 3.27, SD = .65) as having higher stereotypic expectations than setting up the VCR (M = 3.89, SD = .74) or playing with trucks (M = 4.36, SD = .67). In fact, setting the table had the lowest stereotypic 138 expectations rating suggesting that most children viewed that parents would more likely expect both sons and daughters to help set the table compared to other activities. Once again, children made a distinction in their ratings between play activities and family chores. 139 CHAPTER V Discussion The findings in this study demonstrated that Korean American children?s evaluations of parental expectations for children?s participation in gender stereotypic peer activities were multifaceted. Children?s decisions regarding participation in gender related activities involved different forms of reasoning that varied according to the features of the context such as exclusion, gender stereotypes, authority, autonomy, and culture. Overall, Korean American children supported participation in gender related activities using personal choice reasons to support their decisions. However, when issues such as authority, autonomy, and exclusion were made salient, Korean American children?s evaluations differed, particularly between third and sixth grade children and in some cases, between boys and girls. Korean American children were sampled in the present study in order to explore the impact cultural ideology may have on children?s conceptions about parental gender expectations regarding stereotypic peer activities. As posited by cultural theorists, traditional gender roles and parental authority expectations remain strong in Korean American families through the efforts of Korean immigrant parents (Hurh, 1998 Min, 1998). Assessment of participants? cultural background confirmed that Korean American children in this study identified strongly with Korean culture in their family environment. Thus, it was expected that Korean American children?s evaluations regarding parental authority and gender expectations would reflect a cultural orientation. Yet, in general, contrary to cultural theorizing about Korean culture in which conformity and adherence 140 to parental authority and delineation of gender roles is expected (Cho & Shin, 1996; Kim & Choi, 1994; Min, 1998; Park & Cho, 1995), Korean American children?s evaluations did not reflect unconditional support for parental authority or gender stereotypes over other factors such as autonomy or gender discrimination. On the contrary, examination of Korean American children?s reasoning about complex decisions involving parental authority and gender expectations revealed coordination of multiple considerations. Children?s Autonomy and Gender-related Activities Overall, participants supported Korean American boys? and girls? participation in both gender stereotypic and non stereotypic peer activities when competing considerations were minimized. In a straightforward evaluation of whether a child could participate in a gender typed activity, promotion of children?s autonomy was given priority over adherence to gender stereotypic expectations. This finding supports earlier work on social reasoning about exclusion in which children expressed the wrongfulness of denying autonomy and rights to children when judging straightforward cases of gender based exclusion (Killen et al., 2001; Killen et al., 2002a). Korean American children?s reasoning used to support participation was multifaceted, reflecting different priorities in deciding participation in gender related peer activities. Although a majority of participants appealed to personal choice reasons to support their judgments, some children?s reasoning differed, depending on the context of participation, that is, whether the target child?s participation was gender congruent, gender incongruent, or gender neutral. 141 Some Korean American children viewed gender incongruent participation as a moral issue, citing gender equity to support giving both boys and girls an equal opportunity to engage in opposite sex-typed activities. In contrast, participants were more likely to refer to gender stereotypes to support children?s participation in gender congruent activities (e.g., ?It?s okay if Julie takes ballet because ballet is for girls?). This finding suggests that for Korean American children, who hold strong gender stereotype beliefs, when given the chance to express their views on gender expectations, are more likely to do so when gender stereotypes are not in conflict with other factors. That is, participants would more likely use gender stereotypes when competing considerations, such as fairness or authority are not involved. Younger participants, in general, were more likely to use gender stereotypes to support their evaluations, whereas older participants? reasoning reflected concerns for allowing children the freedom of personal choice in deciding whether or not to participate in a gender related activity. For third graders, gender stereotype reasoning was applied to both gender congruent and gender incongruent participation. Surprisingly however, in comparing between these two contexts of participation, younger Korean American children were less likely to support girls? participation in football than boys? participation in ballet. This finding was contrary to expectations based on cross-gender research in which children?s attitudes towards females? cross-gender behavior was more favorable than males? cross-gender behavior (Moller et al., 1992 Ruble & Martin, 1998). In the area of gender related peer activities, third graders did not view girls involved in cross-gender behavior more positively than for boys. One explanation for this finding may be that 142 third graders? were more supportive of boys? autonomy than they were concerned about the outcomes associated with boys? participation in a female typed activity, ballet. In other words, boys? autonomy was given priority over gender role transgressions. This view would be consistent with Korean cultural ideology which favors males to achieve independence and autonomy in the social arena and in fact, Korean immigrant parents promote autonomy for sons more often than they do for daughters (Ha, 1985; Killen, Park & Lee-Kim, in press). Authority and Children?s Gender-related Activities Korean American children?s views on parental authority were also multifaceted. Two patterns of findings appeared to generalize across evaluations involving parental jurisdiction in this study. First, younger participants in general, were more willing to defer to parental authority and used social conventional reasoning (e.g., ?Parents know best?) to support their judgments. For some third graders, their deference for parental authority extended to situations in which parental decisions were based on arbitrary reasons. It could be argued that based on cultural theorizing, this finding could be interpreted as having a unitary orientation towards authority figures (Park & Cho, 1995). A more compelling explanation, however, comes from prior research examining children?s social reasoning about parent directed exclusion from home activities, in which children from a similar age group resorted to concrete social conventional reasoning when faced with evaluating abstract issues (Schuette & Killen, 2002). For the Korean American third graders in this study, evaluating the legitimate use of arbitrary reasons by parents to restrict a child?s participation in gender related 143 activities may have been viewed as abstract and thereby their reasoning reflected an authority orientation. In contrast, older participants considered more capable of coordinating complex issues (Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 1983, 1998), focused on personal choice reasoning to support children to make their own decisions regarding participation in gender related activities and rejected parents? use of arbitrary reasons to restrict a child from these activities. The reasoning used to challenge parental decisions use of arbitrary reasons did not reflect moral concerns (e.g., fairness) as was expected. Instead, in addition to appealing to children?s personal choice to decide their activities, older children also focused on the personal benefits of participating in peer activities (e.g., ?It?s better for your health if you exercise by playing football?) as opposed to engaging in a sedentary act such as watching television (arbitrary reason used by parents). This finding differs from similar studies on gender based exclusion from peer activities (Killen et al., 2000a) in that the reasoning used to reject exclusion of a child from gender related activities included weighing the benefits of the activity for the target of exclusion. Second, although older participants were generally more supportive of children, and not parents, to make decisions regarding participation, they were willing to consider parental jurisdiction over the gender neutral activity, sleepover, as more legitimate than for the gender stereotypic activities, football or ballet. In comparison, younger participants did not vary their views on parental authority across these three activities. This finding was contrary to predictions that Korean American children would be more willing to support parental decisions that were in line with gender stereotypic expectations. That is, Korean American children were expected to defer to parental 144 authority in order to maintain gender role delineations imperative to this ethnic cultural group (Kim & Choi, 1994). One of the goals of the present study was to test whether participants would be more willing to support parental decisions in order to preserve gender expectations, particularly in the context of gender incongruent participation (e.g., ?Parents should decide because boys are not supposed to take ballet?). However, Korean American children?s evaluations did not reflect increased support of parental authority for gender stereotypic activities. Instead, older participants viewed that the sleepover activity as more legitimate for parental control than ballet or football. These findings are consistent with prior research on U.S. and native Korean samples which demonstrated that children take into consideration, contextual factors when evaluating parental authority (Kim, 1998; Laupa, 1991; Tisak, 1986). Closer examination of the reasoning used to support parental jurisdiction over the sleepover activity revealed concerns for the personal safety of the target child and in some cases, references by older Korean American girls to cultural expectations that prohibit girls from spending the night in another home. For ballet and football activities, however, participants? reasoning did not reflect similar concerns. This contextual distinction may account for why older participants were more willing to view parents as having legitimate jurisdiction over attending a sleepover activity for both girls and boys than over other activities. Surprisingly, whether the context involved gender congruent or gender incongruent participation did not play as an important factor when Korean American children evaluated whether parents or children should decide participation in an activity 145 or when parents used arbitrary reasons to deny participation. Cultural viewpoints on the salience of gender role delineations in the Korean American family led to expectations that Korean American children would be more willing to support parental authority in contexts of gender role transgressions (Hurh, 1998; Min, 1998). Korean American children, however, did not view parental decisions to be more legitimate when a target child participated in a gender incongruent activity compared to a gender congruent activity. Participants did not grant parents more authority to decide a boy?s participation in ballet over a girl?s participation in ballet or vice versa for participation in the male- typed activity, football. The stereotypic nature of the activity did not appear to influence Korean American children?s views on parental decisions regarding a child?s participation in peer activities. Younger Korean American children, however, did take into consideration the gender of the target child in their evaluations regarding parental authority. Korean American third graders, both boys and girls, were more willing support parental decisions when female targets were being denied participation for arbitrary reasons across all activities than were male targets. Based on cultural expectations that sons be encouraged to participate in activities outside the home more so than daughters, it could be expected that Korean American third grade boys would favor less restriction for sons. It is not clear, however, why Korean American third grade girls would support parental decisions favoring sons over daughters. In this case, they supported parental decisions based on arbitrary reasons for denying daughters opportunities to participate in ballet, football, and sleepover activities. One possible explanation may be that both younger Korean 146 American boys and girls recognize that parents promote boys? and girls? participation in activities outside the home differently and support differential treatment by parents for sons and daughters because they have strong orientation towards authority. Differences between third and sixth grade Korean American children?s reasoning were further evident in evaluations of parental gender bias. When evaluating parental decisions to favor one gender?s participation in an activity while denying the same opportunity to another, younger Korean American children?s judgments were more context dependent than were older Korean American children?s reasoning. In general, sixth graders judged that parental gender bias was wrong across all contexts, confirming one of the main expectations of this study. Korean American children viewed fairness as a priority over other considerations when an issue involving fairness of parental gender expectations was made salient. For gender stereotypic activities, ballet and football, sixth grade children appealed to gender equality for both boys and girls to have the same opportunities to engage in opposite sex-typed activities, whereas for the sleepover activity, fairness reasoning was predominately used. In contrast, although a majority of third graders viewed parental gender bias for the sleepover activity as unfair, their judgments regarding stereotypic activities varied. For football and ballet activities, third graders were more willing to support gender discrimination using social conventional reasoning. This finding is consistent with expectations that younger Korean American children would be more sensitive to cross- gender behavior than gender equity, and therefore condone gender bias that favors girls taking ballet and boys playing football (Carter & Patterson, 1982). What is surprising, 147 however, is that younger children viewed a daughter being discriminated from playing football as more legitimate than a son, being discriminated from taking ballet. This finding supports in part, a cultural emphasis on favoring boys over girls to take part in activities outside the home and also cultural expectations that disapprove of girls from engaging in masculine activities (Min, 1998). Yet, it contradicts prior findings in U.S. samples which indicated children favor girls more than boys to engage in cross-gender behavior (Liben & Bigler, 2002). One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be that gender role expectations are not as clearly articulated by Korean immigrant parents for younger children than they are for older children. This would be consistent with some cultural theorists that posit Korean parents do not expect children to strictly adhere to gender role expectations until they reach adolescence (Cho & Shin, 1996). However, it is unclear whether Korean immigrant parents in the U.S. have similar expectations for their bicultural children. Further study is warranted to clarify this novel finding. A surprising result was found with the sleepover context. Whereas before, a majority of participants judged that the sleepover activity was most legitimate for parents to decide whether a child could participate or not, when a moral dimension was introduced, Korean American children judged gender discrimination by parents from the sleepover activity as most wrong. Taken together, these findings suggest that while Korean American children recognize that parents may have more legitimate reasons for deciding whether a child could go on a sleepover activity, if parents? decisions are based on unfairness, such as gender biases, then their authority over this context is no longer considered legitimate. This supports one of the main expectations of the present study 148 which proposed that when moral issues are made salient, fairness would take priority over other considerations such as authority or gender expectations. Cultural Generalizability and Cultural Awareness of Gender Exclusion One of the main goals of this study was to examine how Korean American children would generalize their evaluations of gender based exclusion to Korea. In prior studies, cultural generalizability was assessed in order to examine the extent to which children viewed exclusion as a moral issue (Killen et al., 2002b). Supporting expectations, Korean American children?s evaluations of parental gender bias generalized to Korea. For the most part, participants? judgments regarding the denial of one child but not the other from participating in a gender related activity did not differ simply because it took place in another country, Korea. Moreover, when asked additional questions about the fairness of gender based exclusion and their views on gender equality, most Korean American children were supportive of fair treatment and equal opportunity for both girls and boys to participate in both genders stereotypic and non stereotypic activities. Yet for some sixth grade children, they were more willing to condone gender based exclusion in Korea for the gender stereotypic activities. In contrast, younger Korean American children did not view gender based exclusion differently based on whether it took place in the U.S. or in Korea. This finding supports prior research that indicated with age, children were more likely factor in cultural relativity in their evaluations of the peer context (Killen et al., 2002a). In the present study, it is possible, given that sixth graders in the present study identify with Korean culture at home, were more willing to view practices based on gender expectations to be more acceptable in 149 Korea. Along similar lines, it is notable that a small number of Korean American boys, across both grades, were willing to view boys? exclusion from ballet in Korea as fair and were more willing to reject equal opportunity for girls to participate in Football. Further, some boys were willing to view that gender biased participation in stereotypic activities did not need to change in Korea but should remain the same. These findings which were asked in the context of occurring in Korea, suggests that there were some boys who took into consideration, cultural implications for supporting gender related practices in Korea. Girls, on the other hand, supported fairness and equality of gender practices in Korea and viewed that change should occur to promote equal opportunity for both girls and boys to participate in opposite-sex typed activities. Taken together, these findings suggest that contrary to cultural theorizing, asking Korean American children to consider gender based exclusion in a culture they identify with did not make an overall impact on changing Korean American children?s evaluations about the fairness of exclusion based on gender biases. A majority of Korean American children were not more inclined to support gender expectations that took place in Korea than in the U.S. Instead, findings were more in line with social cognitive theory about culture and social reasoning. Korean American children placed more importance on the moral dimension of gender practices in Korea than on cultural expectations such as preserving gender role delineations. Korean American children?s knowledge of whether they believed gender discrimination occurred in Korea further supported this conclusion, as most children believed that boys and girls in Korea were likely to be excluded opposite sex-typed activities. Korean American children?s views about whether they believed 150 gender based exclusion occurred in Korea did not reflect their evaluations about these events in Korea. On the contrary, Korean American children rejected the occurrence of gender discrimination based on fairness and gender equity reasons. As expected, issues of fairness were prioritized over cultural expectations, even when evaluated in a cultural context that was considered consequential for the participants in this study. Children?s Conceptions about Parental Gender Stereotypic Expectations These findings are significant when considering that Korean American children?s knowledge about parental gender expectations and cultural identification with Korean culture were relatively high. A vast majority of participants associated gender of the child with specific family chores and peer activities and expected parents to have gender preferences in multiple arenas of family life that were consistent with cultural theory about gender role delineations (Hurh, 1998). In particular, Korean American girls, compared to boys, had higher ratings for parental expectations for female-typed activities. This suggests that Korean American girls in this study may have experienced firsthand, fulfilling gender expectations in the home which in turn, may have contributed to parents having higher expectations for female typed activities. Further, both Korean American girls and boys in this study viewed that parents have higher gender expectations for the female-typed play activity, doll playing, compared to other male-typed activities. Whereas participants viewed that parents would expect primarily girls to engage in doll-playing, they expected parents to be more willing to accept girls to participate in male-typed activities, such as truck-playing or setting up the VCR. This finding suggests that participants recognize that parents have stricter 151 gender role expectations for boys than for girls. Yet, when evaluating parental gender expectations in the context of stereotypic peer activities, Korean American children?s judgments did not prioritize parental gender expectations regarding activities over authority or fairness issues and at times, were counterintuitive to these findings when evaluations were supportive of males engaging in opposite sex-typed activities. Whether parental gender expectations knowledge related directly to evaluations about authority, autonomy, and gender bias was directly tested and not found. This suggests that being cognizant of parental gender expectations does not necessarily translate into viewing these gender expectations as legitimate or fair. Cultural Influences Whether or not Korean American children?s identification with Korean culture impacted their evaluations of gender based exclusion and parental gender expectations in peer activities was not also directly found. Korean American children?s reasoning did not reflect support for cultural expectations regarding authority and gender stereotypic orientations. Assessment of Korean American children?s identification with Korean culture indicated that children in this study identified themselves as being bicultural but more strongly identified with Korean culture in the family context than outside the home. Based on cultural theorizing, it would have been expected that Korean American children?s cultural membership would account for a significant part of how they would judge or reason about children?s participation in gender stereotypic activities that involved issues of authority, autonomy and gender role expectations. Yet, findings from this study did not support this view. Korean American children?s reasoning was not 152 uniform, but multifaceted, supporting autonomy, gender equality, gender expectations, and parental authority at different times taking into consideration contextual factors. Thus, findings from this study supported social cognitive domain theory about culture and social reasoning. However, the role of culture cannot be easily dismissed as it is likely that cultural membership did impact Korean American children?s reasoning, but in more subtle or indirect ways. For example, as described earlier, sixth grade children and boys were more willing to consider gender based exclusion in Korea as more acceptable than if occurring in the U.S. In this context, it is possible that these two groups of children took into account, their knowledge and beliefs about Korean culture when evaluating these issues in Korea. Further research is needed to examine under what conditions, Korean American children?s reasoning may be more affected by their cultural membership. Conclusions In summary, the results of this study revealed how Korean American children evaluated participation in gender related peer activities that involved issues of autonomy, parental authority, gender expectations, and fairness. Children in this study supported boys? and girls? participation in gender stereotypic peer activities, yet differentiation in judgments and social reasoning were documented when competing considerations were introduced, especially between third and sixth grade children. In particular, older children were more likely to prioritize issues of autonomy in their evaluations, whereas younger children were more willing to defer to parental authority expectations. 153 One limitation of the present study was that only one type of gender stereotypic activity, children?s participation with peer activities, specifically ballet and football was investigated. Children make different judgments regarding decisions to engage in various types of activities. Examining other gender related activities in the peer context such as parental expectations for Korean American children?s opposite sex friendships, dating, or future marriage partners, may elicit stronger gender and cultural expectations knowledge and therefore different judgments from Korean American children. Cultural expectations may be more highly related to these types of judgments than to peer-related extracurricular activities in middle childhood such as football and ballet. Another limitation relates to the generalizability of these findings to other Korean American and Korean children. The children in this study were second generation Koreans with highly educated parents living in suburban areas that had strong Korean social networks and community resources for sustaining Korean cultural practices. In addition, the children targeted in this study were recruited from Korean cultural and academic programs offered through Korean churches. Therefore, these children and their families were considered to be strongly connected to the Korean community. For Korean American children who are beyond second generation Koreans or live in areas in the U.S. which do not have strong Korean social networks, the findings from this study may not apply to them. There is variability within Korean American groups in the U.S. The cultural experiences of Korean Americans from major cities, such as New York or Los Angeles where strong cultural support systems are in place differ greatly from Korean American experiences from less urban areas. Further, it is not expected that the findings 154 from this study would necessarily apply to native Korean children. A cross-cultural study would be beneficial however, in examining further, the role of culture in Korean- American children?s evaluations about parental gender expectations regarding peer activities. Presently, a cross-cultural study between Korean American children from this study and native Korean children is in the process of being examined as part of a larger study on the role of Korean culture (see Lee-Kim, Park, Killen, & Park, in prep). One extension of this work that might prove beneficial would be to investigate other age groups and other ethnic cultural groups. Given that Korean American children in late adolescence and young adulthood may have very different views on parental gender expectations, autonomy, and gender stereotypes, it would be interesting to examine how children from these age groups would differ in their evaluations from younger children. Further, it would be beneficial to examine how these conceptions in other ethnic cultural groups, such as other ethnic groups in the U.S. and also children from other Asian and non Asian cultures may be different. Examining children from diverse ethnic groups would allow investigation of whether children?s judgments may be influenced by cultural factors. Another extension of this research would be to ask Korean American children to evaluate target children from other ethnic cultures, especially native Korean children, children from other native Asian cultural groups, and ethnic cultures in the U.S. In this study, Korean American children were asked to evaluate target children who were Korean American. It would be interesting to evaluate how Korean American children perceive issues of autonomy, parental authority, and gender expectations of children belonging to other ethnic cultural groups. Given the rising diversity of ethnic 155 cultural groups in the U.S. and the prevalence of cultural stereotyping, future research on children?s conceptions about these issues in other cultural groups may help to elucidate the cultural stereotypes children may have about other ethnic groups. In sum, the findings from this study revealed new knowledge about the way in which children weighed contextual variations and issues of authority and gender stereotypic expectations when evaluating complex decisions about children?s engagement in stereotypic peer activities. This knowledge helps to understand the complexity by which children evaluate complex decisions regarding parental gender expectations and gender stereotypic peer activities. 156 Table 1 Summary of Hypotheses Context Hypotheses Judgments 1. Overall, participation in gender-congruent and gender neutral activities will be judged as more acceptable than engaging in gender-incongruent activities. 2. Male gender-incongruent participation will be less supported than female gender-incongruent participation. Justifications 3. Children will use personal choice reasoning more frequently to support participation across all activities. 4. Children will use social conventional reasons (authority expectations, gender stereotypes) when judging gender stereotypic activities versus non stereotypic activities. Parental Authority/ Autonomy Hypotheses Locus of Decision Judgment 5. Overall, children will more likely choose the child than the parent to decide participation in activities. 6. Children will more likely choose parents to decide for gender-congruent contexts and more so for the male gender-incongruent participation (boys taking ballet) than for the female gender-incongruent participation (girls playing football). Locus of Decision Justification 7. Overall, personal choice reasoning will be used more across all activities. 8. Children will more likely use gender stereotype reasoning in the stereotypic contexts. (Table 1 continued) 157 (Table 1 continued) Summary of Hypotheses Parental Denial of Autonomy Judgment 9. Overall, children will reject parental decisions based on arbitrary reasons to deny a child from engaging in activities. 10. Children will be more likely to support parental decisions based on arbitrary reasons for gender-incongruent contexts than gender-incongruent or gender- neutral contexts. Parental Denial of Autonomy Justifications 11. Children will use personal choice reasoning more frequently to reject parental decisions based on arbitrary reasons. Parental Gender Bias Hypotheses Judgments 12. Overall, children will reject parental gender bias across all activities 13. Children will be more willing to support exclusion of gender-incongruent children from stereotypic activities. Justifications 14. Overall, children will use predominately moral reasoning to support their judgments. Cultural Generalizability Hypotheses Gender Exclusion Judgment 15. Overall, children will reject gender exclusion in Korea 16. Children will more likely support gender exclusion in gender stereotypic activities. Gender Exclusion Justification 17. Children will use moral reasoning more frequently in the gender neutral versus gender stereotypic contexts. (Table 1 continued) 158 (Table 1 continued) Summary of Hypotheses Occurrence, Change, Fairness and Equality Judgments and Justifications 18. Whether children will state that gender exclusion occurs in Korea is an open question. 19. Children will support change, fairness, and equality in Korea for the gender neutral context using moral reasoning support judgments. 20. Children will more likely view that gender exclusion should remain the same, and view gender discrimination from peer activities more acceptable in the gender stereotypic contexts using social conventional reasoning. Age and Gender Hypotheses 21. Overall, third graders, compared to sixth graders, will more likely defer to parental authority and use more authority reasoning. 22. Sixth graders will support autonomy decisions and use more personal choice reasoning more often than third graders. 23. Boys, compared to Girls, will more likely evaluate exclusion in gender stereotypic contexts as more acceptable and use more gender stereotype reasoning overall. PGEM Hypotheses 24. Overall, children will be aware of parental expectations of family chores and play activities. Sixth graders will have more awareness than third graders. 25. Children will use higher stereotypic ratings for family chores than for play activities or gender neutral activities. Boys more than girls will have higher stereotypic ratings. 159 Table 2 Demographic Information of Participant?s Parents Description Parents? Birthplace Years of Residence in U.S. Income Level Parents? Education Level Parents? Spoken Language to Child Grade Korea Other Less than 10 years More than 10 years Less than $50k More than $50k High School Some College and Higher Korean Only English Only Both Korean and English 3 rd % 97.2 2.8 18.9 81.1 18.8 81.2 12.2 87.8 34.0 0.0 66.0 6 th % 97.0 3.0 22.5 77.5 18.7 81.3 15.3 84.7 32.7 4.1 63.3 Total % 97.1 2.9 20.6 79.4 18.8 81.2 13.3 86.7 33.3 2.0 64.7 Note. N = 102. Percentages shown for Parents? Birthplace and Parents? Education Level reflect collapsed values across both parents. 160 Table 3 Korean American Children?s Birthplace and Self Ethnic-Identification Description Birthplace Self Ethnic-Identification Grade Korea U.S. Korean American Korean American 3 rd % 20.8 79.2 73.6 22.6 3.8 6 th % 22.4 77.6 81.6 16.3 2.0 Total % 21.6 78.4 77.5 19.6 2.9 Note. N = 102. 161 Table 4 Korean American Children?s Responses to Acculturation Assessment Description Adherence to Customs Spoken Language at Home Food Preference Family Traditions Music Preference Friendships Grade Some Always K B E K B A K B A K B A K B A 3 rd % 45 55 15 49 36 40 56 4 17 57 26 7 53 40 13 60 27 6 th % 37 63 26 49 24 41 55 4 14 72 14 10 51 39 10 74 16 Total % 41 59 21 49 30 40 56 4 16 64 20 9 52 39 12 67 21 Note. N = 102. ?Some? = Sometimes; ?K? = Korean, ?B? = Both, ?E? = English, ?A? = American. 162 Table 5 Proportion of Judgments for Evaluation of Participation Activity by Target Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy 3rd M .02 .09 .25 .06 .00 .09 SD (.14) (.30) (.43) (.23) (.00) (.30) 6 th M .00 .02 .02 .00 .00 .08 SD (.00) (.14) (.14) (.00) (.00) (.28) Total M .01 .06 .14 .03 .00 .09 SD (.10) (.24) (.35) (.17) (.00) (.29) Note: N = 102. Evaluation of Participation Rating: Okay = 0; Not okay = 1. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 163 Table 6 Proportion of Justifications for Evaluation of Participation Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Target by Grade G-E G-S P-C F G-E G-S P-C F G-E G-S P-C F Girl Target 3 rd M .00 .00 .51 .41 .29 .25 .33 .00 .09 .59 .23 .00 SD (.00) (.00) (.47) (.46) (.45) (.43) (.45) (.00) (.30) (.49) (.40) (.00) 6 th M .00 .00 .43 .53 .37 .03 .51 .01 .08 .28 .55 .00 SD (.00) (.00) (.46) (.47) (.48) (.16) (.47) (.07) (.28) (.42) (.47) (.00) Total M .00 .00 .47 .47 .33 .15 .42 .00 .09 .44 .38 .00 SD (.00) (.00) (.46) (.47) (.46) (.35) (.47) (.05) (.29) (.48) (.46) (.00) Boy Target 3 rd M .00 .02 .42 .41 .09 .47 .36 .00 .37 .10 .45 .00 SD (.00) (.14) (.49) (.48) (.30) (.50) (.48) (.00) (.48) (.30) (.49) (.00) 6 th M .00 .04 .56 .35 .06 .22 .59 .00 .21 .09 .66 .00 SD (.00) (.20) (.49) (.47) (.24) (.41) (.48) (.00) (.40) (.28) (.46) (.00) Total M .00 .03 .49 .38 .08 .35 .47 .00 .29 .10 .55 .00 SD (.00) (.17) (.49) (.47) (.27) (.48) (.49) (.00) (.45) (.29) (.49) (.00) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?G-E? = Gender equity; ?G-S? = Gender stereotype; ?P-C? = Personal Choice; ?F? = Friendship. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 164 Table 7 Means for Locus of Decision Judgment Activity by Target Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy 3rd M 1.83 1.81 1.83 1.75 1.72 1.72 SD (.38) (.40) (.38) (.43) (.45) (.45) 6 th M 1.84 1.82 1.36 1.39 1.39 1.35 SD (.37) (.39) (.49) (.49) (.49) (.48) Total M 1.83 1.81 1.61 1.57 1.56 1.54 SD (.37) (.39) (.49) (.50) (.50) (.50) Note: N = 102. Locus of Decision Rating: Child = 1; Parent = 2. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 165 Table 8 Proportion of Justifications for Locus of Decision Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Target by Grade Auth P-C Auth P-C Auth P-C Girl Target 3 rd M .83 .14 .81 .16 .67 .26 SD (.38) (.34) (.40) (.36) (.47) (.45) 6 th M .78 .16 .36 .60 .37 .60 SD (.41) (.37) (.48) (.49) (.49) (.49) Total M .80 .15 .59 .37 .52 .43 SD (.39) (.36) (.49) (.48) (.50) (.49) Boy Target 3 rd M .77 .18 .75 .18 .69 .29 SD (.42) (.38) (.43) (.38) (.46) (.45) 6 th M .79 .20 .37 .57 .34 .61 SD (.41) (.41) (.49) (.49) (.47) (.48) Total M .78 .19 .57 .37 .52 .45 SD (.41) (.39) (.50) (.48) (.50) (.49) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Auth? = Authority, ?P-C? = Personal Choice. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 166 Table 9 Proportion of Judgments for Denial of Autonomy Activity by Target Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy 3rd M .58 .53 .74 .81 .79 .74 SD (.50) (.50) (.45) (.40) (.41) (.45) 6 th M .86 .84 .98 1.00 1.00 .96 SD (.35) (.37) (.14) (.00) (.00) (.20) Total M .72 .68 .85 .90 .89 .84 SD (.45) (.47) (.36) (.30) (.31) (.37) Note: N = 102. Denial of Autonomy Rating: Okay = 0; Not okay = 1. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 167 Table 10 Proportion of Justifications for Denial of Autonomy Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Target by Grade Fair Auth P-C Self Fair Auth P-C Self Fair Auth P-C Self Girl Target 3 rd M .11 .42 .37 .07 .02 .14 .18 .58 .06 .13 .15 .62 SD (.32) (.49) (.48) (.24) (.10) (.35) (.38) (.49) (.21) (.34) (.33) (.46) 6 th M .03 .13 .65 .09 .06 .02 .27 .64 .05 .00 .36 .59 SD (.16) (.34) (.47) (.26) (.22) (.14) (.41) (.46) (.21) (.00) (.47) (.48) Total M .07 .28 .50 .08 .04 .08 .22 .61 .05 .07 .25 .61 SD (.26) (.45) (.50) (.25) (.17) (.27) (.40) (.48) (.21) (.25) (.41) (.46) Boy Target 3 rd M .11 .42 .37 .07 .03 .15 .20 .58 .01 .16 .10 .65 SD (.32) (.49) (.48) (.24) (.12) (.36) (.40) (.49) (.07) (.36) (.30) (.47) 6 th M .03 .13 .65 .09 .09 .00 .28 .60 .06 .01 .31 .57 SD (.16) (.34) (.47) (.26) (.26) (.00) (.42) (.47) (.22) (.07) (.44) (.48) Total M .07 .28 .50 .08 .06 .08 .24 .59 .03 .09 .20 .61 SD (.26) (.45) (.50) (.25) (.20) (.27) (.41) (.48) (.16) (.28) (.39) (.47) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?Auth? = Authority; ?P-C? = Personal Choice; ?Self? = Self-Development. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 168 Table 11 Proportion of Judgments for Gender Bias and Generalizability of Gender Exclusion Activity Assessment by Grade Sleepover Football Ballet Gender Bias M .68 .64 3rd .96 (.19) (.48) (.47) SD 6 th .90 .92 .80 M (.31) (.28) (.41) SD .93 .77 .74 M Total (.25) (.42) (.44) SD Generalizability Gender Exclusion M 3rd .94 .68 .74 SD (.23) (.47) (.45) 6 th .92 .80 .78 SD (.28) (.41) (.42) Total M .93 .74 .75 SD (.25) (.44) (.43) Note: N = 102. Gender Bias and Generalizability of Gender Exclusion: Okay = 0; Not okay = 1. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. M 169 Table 12 Proportion of Justifications for Gender Bias Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Fair G-E G-S Fair G-E G-S Fair G-E G-S 3 rd M .91 .04 .00 .40 .21 .32 .49 .15 .24 SD (.28) (.19) (.00) (.48) (.41) (.46) (.49) (.36) (.42) 6 th M .68 .18 .02 .46 .41 .05 .40 .53 .11 SD (.45) (.39) (.14) (.50) (.50) (.21) (.49) (1.46) (.31) Total M .80 .11 .01 .43 .30 .19 .45 .33 .18 SD (.39) (.31) (.10) (.49) (.46) (.39) (.49) (1.06) (.38) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?G-E? = Gender equity; ?G-S? = Gender stereotype. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 170 Table 13 Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability Gender Exclusion Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C 3 rd M .36 .52 .04 .04 .34 .25 .31 .05 .22 .51 .22 .05 SD (.47) (.50) (.17) (.19) (.47) (.43) (.46) (.20) (.41) (.50) (.41) (.20) 6 th M .35 .47 .01 .09 .16 .61 .08 .06 .20 .44 .14 .15 SD (.47) (.50) (.07) (.28) (.37) (.49) (.28) (.24) (.41) (.50) (.35) (.36) Total M .35 .50 .02 .06 .25 .42 .20 .05 .21 .48 .18 .10 SD (.47) (.50) (.13) (.24) (.43) (.50) (.40) (.22) (.41) (.50) (.38) (.29) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?G-E? = Gender Equity; ?G-S? = Gender Stereotype; ?P-C? = Personal Choice. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 171 Table 14 Proportion of Judgments for Generalizability of Fairness and Equality Activity Assessment by Grade Sleepover Football Ballet Generalizability Fairness 3rd M .04 .11 .15 SD (.19) (.32) (.36) 6 th M .00 .02 .04 SD (.00) (.14) (.20) Total M .02 .07 .10 SD (.14) (.25) (.30) Generalizability Equality 3rd M .04 .08 .06 SD (.19) (.27) (.23) 6 th M .02 .00 .00 SD (.14) (.00) (.00) Total M .03 .04 .03 SD (.17) (.20) (.17) Note: N = 102. Generalizability Rights (Is it unfair?) and Equality (Is it okay for the gender incongruent child to engage in this activity?) Ratings:Yes = 0; No = 1. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 172 Table 15 Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability Fairness Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C 3 rd M .17 .65 .01 .07 .32 .43 .11 .09 .12 .51 .14 .13 SD (.37) (.48) (.07) (.24) (.47) (.50) (.32) (.30) (.32) (.50) (.34) (.34) 6 th M .33 .65 .00 .02 .13 .73 .01 .12 .17 .50 .06 .26 SD (.47) (.48) (.00) (.14) (.34) (.49) (.07) (.33) (.38) (.50) (.24) (.43) Total M .25 .65 .00 .04 .23 .58 .07 .11 .15 .50 .10 .19 SD (.43) (.48) (.05) (.20) (.42) (.52) (.24) (.31) (.35) (.50) (.30) (.39) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?G-E? = Gender Equity; ?G-S? = Gender Stereotype; ?P-C? = Personal Choice. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 173 Table 16 Proportion of Judgments for Generalizability Occurrence and Change Activity Assessment by Grade Sleepover Football Ballet Generalizability Occurrence 3rd M .85 .38 .53 SD (.36) (.49) (.50) 6 th M .83 .35 .35 SD (.38) (.48) (.48) Total M .84 .37 .45 SD (.37) (.48) (.50) Generalizability Change 3rd M .02 .17 .13 SD (.14) (.38) (.34) 6 th M .02 .04 .06 SD (.14) (.20) (.24) Total M .02 .11 .10 SD (.14) (.31) (.30) Note: N = 102. Generalizability Occurrence (Does gender bias occur in Korea?) Generalizability Change (Should things change?) Rating: Yes = 0; No = 1. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 174 Table 17 Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability Equality Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Fair G-E P-C F Fair G-E P-C F Fair G-E P-C F 3 rd M .40 .50 .00 .04 .26 .49 .11 .06 .32 .45 .11 .06 SD (.49) (.50) (.00) (.19) (.45) (.50) (.32) (.23) (.47) (.50) (.32) (.23) 6 th M .37 .58 .00 .00 .39 .53 .04 .04 .22 .54 .05 .16 SD (.49) (.49) (.00) (.00) (.49) (.50) (.20) (.20) (.42) (.50) (.21) (.37) Total M .38 .54 .00 .02 .32 .51 .08 .05 .27 .50 .08 .11 SD (.49) (.50) (.00) (.14) (.47) (.50) (.27) (.22) (.45) (.50) (.27) (.31) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?G-E? = Gender Equity; ?P-C? = Personal Choice; ?F? = Friendship. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 175 Table 18 Proportion of Justifications for Generalizability Change Judgment Activity by Justification Category Sleepover Football Ballet Grade Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C Fair G-E G-S P-C 3 rd M .18 .54 .10 .08 .26 .47 .10 .00 .20 .52 .10 .00 SD (.38) (.50) (.30) (.25) (.45) (.49) (.30) (.07) (.40) (.49) (.30) (.00) 6 th M .21 .45 .09 .18 .18 .51 .31 .00 .19 .36 .43 .00 SD (.41) (.50) (.28) (.36) (.39) (.49) (.45) (.00) (.39) (.48) (.50) (.00) Total M .20 .50 .10 .13 .23 .49 .20 .00 .20 .44 .26 .00 SD (.39) (.50) (.29) (.31) (.42) (.49) (.39) (.05) (.39) (.49) (.44) (.00) Note. N = 102. Proportions cannot exceed 1.0. ?Fair? = Fairness; ?G-E? = Gender Equity; ?G-S? = Gender Stereotype; ?P-C? = Personal Choice. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. 176 Table 19 Mean Scores for Parental Gender Expectations Measure Item Grade by Gender Female Chore Male Chore Academic Career Female Play Male Play 3 rd male M 3.00 4.04 2.92 3.23 4.65 4.31 SD (.57) (.82) (.39) (.43) (.63) (.74) female M 3.26 3.89 3.00 3.07 4.67 4.63 SD (.53) (.75) (.00) (.38) (.55) (.56) 6 th male M 3.20 4.00 2.90 3.10 4.40 4.20 SD (.41) (.56) (.31) (.72) (.68) (.62) female M 3.59 3.69 3.07 3.03 4.41 4.28 SD (.82) (.76) (.59) (.73) (.73) (.70) Total male M 3.09 4.02 2.91 3.17 4.54 4.26 SD (.51) (.71) (.35) (.57) (.66) (.68) female M 3.43 3.78 3.04 3.05 4.54 4.44 SD (.71) (.76) (.42) (.58) (.66) (.66) Note. N = 102. Female Chore = set the table; Male Chore = set up the VCR; Academic = Do well in school; Career = Get a good job; Female Play = doll activity; Male Play = truck activity. In response to ?Who do you think parents expect to X?? Rating scale: 1 = Always gender inconsistent child; 2 = Sometimes gender inconsistent child; 3 = Both children; 4 = Sometimes gender consistent child; 5 = Always gender consistent child. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. 177 Figure Captions Figure 1. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Evaluation of Participation assessment. Figure 2. Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Ballet Activity. Figure 3. Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Football Activity. Figure 4. Responses to Locus of Decision judgment. Figure 5. Percentage of reasoning responses for Locus of Decision judgment. Figure 6. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Denial of Autonomy assessment. Figure 7. Percentage of Reasoning Responses for Denial of Autonomy judgment. Figure 8. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Gender Bias assessment. Figure 9. Percentage of reasoning responses for Gender Bias Judgment. Figure 10. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Generalizability of Gender Exclusion in Korea. Figure 11. Mean ratings for Parental Gender Expectations Measure. 178 p < .01 Figure 1. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Evaluation of Participation (?Is it okay if X participates in this activity??). 0% 5% Football Girl Football Boy Ballet 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Sleepover 3rd 6th 179 p < .01 (3 rd grade only) Gender Congruent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Gender Equity Gender Stereotypes Personal Choice 3rd 6th Gender Incongruent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Gender Equity Gender Stereotypes Personal Choice 3rd 6th p < .001 (3 rd grade only) Figure 2. Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Ballet Activity. 180 p < .001 Gender Congruent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Gender Equity Gender Stereotypes Personal Choice 3rd 6th Gender Incongruent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Gender Equity Gender Stereotypes Personal Choice 3rd 6th p < .001 Figure 3. Percentage of reasoning responses for Evaluation of Participation for the Football Activity. 181 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 Football Ballet Sleepover 3rd 6th ps < .001 (6 th graders only) Figure 4. Responses to Locus of Decision judgment (?Who should decide? 1 = Child, 2 = Parents). 182 Authority Reasoning 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover 3rd 6th ps < .001 Personal Reasoning 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover 3rd 6th ps < .001 Figure 5. Percentage of reasoning responses for Locus of Decision judgment. 183 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover 3rd 6th ps < .001 Figure 6. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Denial of Autonomy (?Is it okay for parents to deny based on an arbitrary reason??). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Authority Personal Self-dev 3rd 6th ps < .001 Figure 7. Percentage reasoning responses for Denial of Autonomy judgment. 184 0.64 0.68 0.96 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover 3rd 6th ps < .001 Figure 8. Percentage of ?not okay? judgments for Gender Bias (?Is it okay for parents to deny gender-incongruent participation??). 185 Sleepover 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fairness Gender Equity Gender Stereotype 3rd 6th Football and Ballet 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Fairness Gender Equity Gender Stereotype 3rd 6th Figure 9. Percentage of reasoning responses for Gender Bias Judgment. 186 3rd Graders 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover boys girls 6th Graders 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Football Ballet Sleepover boys girls p < .05 (boys only) ps < .001 (boys only) Figure 10. Percentage of Not Okay Judgments for Generalizability of Gender Exclusion in Korea (?Is it okay to deny gender-incongruent participation in Korea??). 187 12345 female play male play female chore male chore academic career girls boys Figure 11. Mean ratings for Parental Gender Expectations Measure (Scale: 1 = always gender-inconsistent child, 3 = both genders, 5 = always gender-consistent child). 188 APPENDIX A Summary of Design I. List of Variables A. Independent variables: Between-subjects: Gender of participant (2 levels): male, female Age level (2 levels): 3 rd grade, 6 th grade Within-subjects: Target Child (2 levels): Male, Female BY Type of Activity (3 levels): Football, Ballet, Sleepover A. Football: Male-Stereotyped Activity A child wants to play football B. Ballet: Female-Stereotyped Activity A child wants to learn ballet C. Sleepover: Gender-Neutral Activity A child wants to go to a sleepover B. Dependent variables: Judgments, Justifications, Choice, Cultural Generalizability, Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM) III. Gender Related Activities Interview Design A. Stories (6): Scenario (3) x Target (2) 1. Gender Neutral Activity Evaluating a girl going to a sleepover Evaluating a boy going to a sleepover 2. Male-typed Activity Evaluating a girl playing football Evaluating a boy playing football 189 3. Female-typed Activity Evaluating a girl doing ballet Evaluating a boy doing ballet B. Sections within each scenario (4): 1. Female Target: A girl wants to participate in an activity that is: Gender-neutral for Sleepover Gender-inconsistent for Football Gender-consistent for Ballet 2. Male Target A boy wants to participate in an activity that is: Gender-neutral for Sleepover Gender-inconsistent for Ballet Gender-consistent for Football 3. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Child not fitting the stereotype is excluded from participating in the activity 4. Generalizability &Cultural Evaluation Assessment of activity and exclusion in another country, Korea C. Assessments: 1. Evaluation of Participation Judgment: Okay or not okay to do X? 2. Evaluation of Participation Justification: Why? 3. Locus of Decision Choice: Who should decide, child or parents? 4. Locus of Decision Justification: Why? 5. Denial of Autonomy Judgment: Okay or not okay to deny X? 6. Denial of Autonomy Justification: Why? 7. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Judgment: Is it okay or not okay for gender- inconsistent child but not gender-consistent child to do X? 190 8. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Justification: Why? 9. Occurrence: Does this happen in Korea? 10. Generalizability Gender Exclusion Judgment: Okay or not okay for X but not Y in Korea? 11. Generalizability Gender Exclusion Justification: Why? 12. Fairness Judgment: Do you think it?s unfair in Korea? 13. Fairness Justification: Why? 14. Change: Should things change in Korea? 15. Change Justification: Why? 16. Equality Judgment: What if X isn?t allowed to do the activity in Korea? 17. Equality Justification: Why? III. Parental Gender Expectations Measure Design A. Question: Who do you think parents expect to do X? 1. Expectation Activities (6): Type (3) x Target (2) i. Family chores Setting the table (female stereotyped) Setting up the VCR (male stereotyped) ii. Academic/career Doing well in school (gender neutral) Getting a good job (gender neutral) iii. Play activities Playing with dolls (female stereotyped) Playing with trucks (male stereotyped) 2. Scale: 5-point Likert: 1 = always daughter, 2 = sometimes daughter, 3 = both, 4 = sometimes son, 5 = always son 191 APPENDIX B Child Consent Form Identification PROJECT TITLE: Korean Children?s Judgments About Autonomy of project and Social Activities Parental Consent I agree to allow my child to participate in a program of research for a minor being conducted by Jennie Lee-Kim under the supervision of Professor Melanie Killen at the Graduate School, University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Human Development. Purpose The purpose of the research is to understand the effects of culture and parental expectations on children?s judgments about social group activities such as football and ballet. Procedures The procedure involves one interview session lasting approximately 20-25 minutes. Your child will be asked simple and straightforward questions about four short stories presented to them. Confidentiality All information collected in the study is confidential, and your child?s name will not be identified at any time. Risks There are absolutely no risks involved in the participation of this study. Benefits: Your child?s participation in this study is completely voluntary. Freedom to Your child may withdraw from participation at any time and not Withdraw and answer any questions. You are free to ask any questions or Ask Questions withdraw your child from participation at any time without any penalty. Name, Address Professor Melanie Killen and Phone Number Dept. Of Human Development of Faculty Advisor 3304 Benjamin Building College Park, MD 20742-1131 Off. 301.405.3176 _______________________________________ ________________________ Name of Child Date of Birth _______________________________________ ________________________ Signature of Parent/Guardian Date 192 ?? ?? ??? (Korean Version) ? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ?? University of Maryland, Human Development ?? ? ?? ? ?? Melanie Killen ??? ?? ?? ?? Jennie Lee-Kim ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ? ???? . ? ?? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ???? , ?? ?? ?? ? ???? , ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ?? . ?? ?? ? ?? ? ? 20 ?? 25 ? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ? , ??? ?? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? . ?? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ? ??? . ? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ? ???? ?? ??? ? . ?? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? . ??? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? . ?? ? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ?? Professor Melanie Killen ?? ? Dept. Of Human Development 3304 Benjamin Building College Park, MD 20742-1131 Off. 301.405.3176 ___________________________________ _________________________ ?? ?? ???? ___________________________________ _________________________ ??? ?? ?? 193 APPENDIX C Parental Demographic Information Please complete this short questionnaire. This survey will help us to understand the Korean family background of all children being interviewed. Your answers will be completely confidential and anonymous. Thank you for your time. Instructions: Please CIRCLE one of the answers for each question. 1. Where were you born? 1. Korea 2. Other ______________________________please specify 2. What is your spouse?s country of birth? 1. Korea 2. Other _____________________________please specify 3. How long have you lived in America or non-Korean country? 1. 1-5 years 2. 6-10 years 3. 11-20 years 4. 20+ years 4. What is your household income? 1. Less than $35,000 2. Over $35,000 - $50,000 3. Over $50,000 - $75,000 4. Over $75,000 - $100,000 5. Over $100,000 5. What is the highest educational degree for you? 1. None 2. High School 3. Some College 4. College 5. Master?s degree 6. Ph.D, J.D., M.D. 6. What is the highest educational degree for your spouse? 1. None 2. High School 3. Some College 4. College 5. Master?s degree 6. Ph.D, J.D., M.D. 7. What language do you and your spouse speak to your children? 1. Korean 2. English 3. Both 194 ???? ? ? ? ?? (Korea n Version) ???? ? ???? ? ???? ?? . ? ? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ? . ?? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ? . ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? . ??? ? ?? ?? ???? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ??? ? . 1. ???? ????? ? a. ?? b. ?? ________________________ ?? ? ????? ????? . 2. ???? ???? ????? ? a. ?? b. ?? _________________________ ?? ? ????? ????? . 3. ?? ?? ? ??? ??? ??????? ? a. 1-5 ? b. 6-10 ? c. 11-20 ? d. 20 ? ?? 4. ? ????? ????? ? a. $35,000 ?? b. $35,000 ?? $50,000 ?? c. $50,000 ?? $75,000 ?? d. $75,000 ?? $100,000 ?? e. $100,000 ?? 5. ????? ??? ???? ? a. ?? b. ?? c. ???? d. ?? e. ???? f. ???? 6. ???? ????? ??? ???? ? a. ?? b. ?? c. ???? d. ?? e. ???? f. ???? 7. ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ???? ???? ? a. ??? b. ?? c. ???? ?? ? ? 195 APPENDIX D Gender Related Activities Interview Cover Page Order: 1 2 3 Date of Interview:__________________ Interviewer?s Initials:______________ Participant Initials:_______________________________ Date of Birth:__________________ Gender: M F School/Church:_______________________ Participant Number:________________ Interview version: Korean English INTRODUCTION I am going to read some stories to you about kids and some activities they?re interested in. Then I want to ask you some questions about these stories. I am interested in finding out what children your age think about these stories. Different people have different ideas about them. There are no right or wrong answers. This is not a test. No one will see your answers. So just tell me what you think. Do you have any questions? We are going to tape-record this interview to help us remember what we talked about. So, before we start, let?s make sure this tape-recorder works. [Tape-Recorder Check]: ?This is (Name of Interviewer) and I?m talking with (Name of Interviewee). (Interviewee?s name?s) birthdate is __________. Today?s date is ___________. [Rewind and check tape-recording] Notes: 196 Gender Related Activities Interview Scenarios Sleepover Activity I. Female Target (Gender Neutral) Story Esther, who is a 12-year old Korean-American girl, gets invited to a sleepover at her friend?s house during the weekend. Q1. Do you think that it?s okay for Esther to go to the sleepover? Okay Not okay Q2. Why? Q3. Who do you think should decide, Esther or her parents? Esther Parents Q4. Why? Q5. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want her to take a nap? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Esther cannot go for this reason? Okay Not okay Q6. Why? II. Male Target (Gender Neutral) Story Her brother, John, who is about the same age gets invited to his friend?s house to spend the night. Q7. Do you think that it?s okay for John to go to the sleepover? Okay Not okay Q8. Why? Q9. Who do you think should decide, John or his parents? John Parents Q10. Why? Q11. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want him to take a nap? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Esther cannot go for this reason? Okay Not okay Q12. Why? III. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Q13. Is it okay if the brother gets to go to the sleepover and not the sister? Okay Not okay Q14. Why? 197 Sleepover Activity (continued) IV. Generalizability and Cultural Evaluation Q15. Do you think this would happen in Korea, that boys are allowed to sleepover and girls are not? Yes No Q16. What if in Korea generally, boys are allowed to sleepover and girls are not? Would that be okay or not okay? Okay Not okay Q17. Why? Q18. What if girls in Korea felt that it was unfair that they could not go on sleepovers but boys can? Do you think it?s unfair? Yes No Q19. Why? Q20. Do you think things should change in Korea? Yes No Q21. Why? Q22. Do you think that it would be all right for girls in Korea to go to sleepovers? Yes No Q23. Why? 198 Football Activity I. Female Target (Gender-Incongruent) Story Sandy, who is a 12-year old Korean-American girl, wants to join a football team Q1. Do you think that it?s okay for Sandy to play football? Okay Not okay Q2. Why? Q3. Who do you think should decide, Sandy or her parents? Sandy Parents Q4. Why? Q5. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want her to watch TV? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Sandy cannot play football for this reason? Okay Not okay Q6. Why? II. Male Target (Gender-Congruent) Story Sandy?s brother, Henry, who is about the same age, also wants to join a football team. Q7. Do you think that it?s okay for Henry to play football? Okay Not okay Q8. Why? Q9. Who do you think should decide, Henry or his parents? Henry Parents Q10. Why? Q11. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want him to watch TV? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Henry cannot play football for this reason? Okay Not okay Q12. Why? III. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Q13. Is it okay if the brother gets to play football and not the sister? Okay Not okay Q14. Why? 199 Football Activity (continued) IV. Generalizability and Cultural Evaluation Q15. Do you think this would happen in Korea, that boys are allowed to play football and girls are not? Yes No Q16. What if in Korea generally, boys are allowed to play football and girls are not? Would that be okay or not okay? Okay Not okay Q17. Why? Q18. What if girls in Korea felt that it was unfair that they could not play football but boys can? Do you think it?s unfair? Yes No Q19. Why? Q20. Do you think things should change in Korea? Yes No Q21. Why? Q22. Do you think that it would be all right for girls in Korea to play football? Yes No Q23. Why? 200 Ballet Activity I. Male Target (Gender-Incongruent) Story Mike, who is a 12-year old Korean-American boy, wants to learn ballet. Q1. Do you think that it?s okay for Mike to take ballet? Okay Not okay Q2. Why? Q3. Who do you think should decide, Mike or his parents? Mike Parents Q4. Why? Q5. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want him to watch TV? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Mike cannot take ballet for this reason? Okay Not okay Q6. Why? II. Female Target (Gender-congruent) Story His sister, Julie, who is about the same age, wants to learn ballet. Q7. Do you think that it?s okay for Julie to take ballet? Okay Not okay Q8. Why? Q9. Who do you think should decide, Julie or her parents? Julie Parents Q10. Why? Q11. What if the only reason the parents say ?no? is because they want her to watch TV? Would it be okay then for the parents to say that Julie cannot take ballet for this reason? Okay Not okay Q12. Why? III. Exclusion (Gender Bias) Q13. Is it okay if the sister gets to take ballet and not the brother? Okay Not okay Q14. Why? 201 Ballet Activity (continued) IV. Generalizability and Cultural Evaluation Q15. Do you think this would happen in Korea, that girls are allowed to take ballet and boys are not? Yes No Q16. What if in Korea generally, girls are allowed to take ballet and boys are not? Would that be okay or not okay? Okay Not okay Q17. Why? Q18. What if boys in Korea felt that it was unfair that they could not take ballet but girls can? Do you think it?s unfair? Yes No Q19. Why? Q20. Do you think things should change in Korea? Yes No Q21. Why? Q22. Do you think that it would be all right for boys in Korea to take ballet? Yes No Q23. Why? 202 APPENDIX E Parental Gender Expectations Measure (PGEM) Introduction: I?m going to ask you six questions about different types of activities parents may prefer either their daughter or son to do. Remember, this is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. I?m just interested in what you think about these things. Please choose one of the following answers when responding to a question: 1=Always daughter 2=Sometimes daughter 3=Both 4=Sometimes son 5=Always son 1. Who do you think parents expect to help set the table for dinner? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 2. Who do you think parents expect to help set up the VCR? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 3. Who do you think parents expect to do well in school? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 4. Who do you think parents expect to get a good job after they finish school? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 5. Who do you think parents expect to like playing with dolls? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 6. Who do you think parents expect to like playing with trucks? Always daughter Sometimes daughter Both Sometimes son Always son 1 2 3 4 5 203 APPENDIX F Korean American Children?s Acculturation Scale (KACAS) 1. What language do you speak at home? Only Korean Mostly Korean Both Mostly English Only English 1 2 3 4 5 2. What type of friends do you hang out with? Only Korean Mostly Korean Both Mostly American Only American 1 2 3 4 5 3. What type of music do you like to listen to? Only Korean Mostly Korean Both Mostly American Only American 1 2 3 4 5 4. What type of food do you normally eat (prefer)? Only Korean Mostly Korean Both Mostly American Only American 1 2 3 4 5 5. What holidays and traditions do you celebrate? Only Korean Mostly Korean Both Mostly American Only American 1 2 3 4 5 6. Do you practice Korean customs like bowing to grandparents or other adults? Never Sometimes Always 1 2 3 7. Where were you born? Korea America Other__________________ 1 2 3 8. How do you identify yourself? Korean Korean-American American Other________________ 1 2 3 4 204 APPENDIX G Justification Coding Categories A. MORAL Justifications 1. Fairness References to the maintenance of fairness in the treatment of persons and equal treatment of persons (e.g., ?It?s not fair if the brother gets to and not the sister?). 2. Gender Equity References to wrongfulness of discrimination based on sex of individual (e.g., ?Boys and girls are the same?; ?It?s okay for girls to play just like boys?). B. SOCIAL CONVENTIONAL Justifications 3. Authority & Authority Expectations Appeals to parental jurisdiction, -authority, and -expectations. Includes negative consequences, such as punishment (e.g., ?Parents have the final authority?). 4. Korean Cultural Expectations and Traditions Appeals to cultural or societal expectations and traditions in Korean culture (e.g., ?It?s okay because that?s how it?s always been in Korean culture?). 5. Gender Stereotypes & Expectations Appeals to labels attributed to an individual based on gender and gender expectations (e.g., ?Boys don?t do ballet, it?s a girls? activity?). 6. Protection and Preserving Family Reputation Appeals to guarding and protecting children and preserving reputation of family (e.g., ?She shouldn?t sleepover because it?s safer to sleep at home?) C. PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PERSONAL Justifications 7. Personal choice and Autonomy Appeals to individual preferences or prerogatives (e.g., ?It?s her choice?). 8. Friendship Appeals to benefits and/or maintenance of friendships (e.g., ?Friendship is important for girls and boys during this time?). 9. Self-Development Appeals to benefits to individual?s sense of self (e.g., ?It?s good for her self-esteem?). D. OTHER 10. Undifferentiated/Uncodable These include justifications that do not fall into any of the above categories. 205 REFERENCES Albert, A. A., & Porter, J. R. (1983). Age patterns in the development of children's gender-role stereotypes. Sex Roles, 9, 59-67. Alumkal, A. (2003). Asian American Evangelical Churches. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Ardila-Rey, A., & Killen, M. (2001). Colombian preschool children's judgments about autonomy and conflict resolution in the classroom setting. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 246-255. Arnold, F., & Kuo, E.C. (1984). The value of daughters and sons: a comparative study of gender preferences of parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15(2), 299-318. Baruch & Barnett (1986). Father?s participation in family work and children?s sex-role attitudes. Child Development, 57(5), 1210-1223. Blair, S. (1992). The sex-typing of children?s household labor: parental influence on daughters? and sons? housework. Youth and Society, 24(2), 178-203. Caldera, Y., & Sciaraffa, M. (1998). Parent-toddler play with feminine toys: are all dolls the same? Sex Roles, 39, 657-668. Carter, D. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1982). Sex roles as social conventions: The development of children's conceptions of sex-role stereotypes. Developmental Psychology, 18, 812-824. Cha, J. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. 206 Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and Applications (pp.157-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chang, E. (2003). What does it mean to be Korean today? One hundred years of Koreans in America and more. Amerasia Journal, 29(3), xix-xxvi. Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Ryan, R., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110. Cho, B. E., & Shin, H. (1996). State of family research and theory in Korea. Marriage & Family Review, 22, 101-135. Chung, R. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and acculturation in intergenerational conflict of Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(4), 76-386. Davidson, P., Turiel, E., & Black, A. (1983). The effect of stimulus familiarity on the use of criteria and justifications in children?s social reasoning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 49-65. Drachman, D., Kwon-Ahn, Y.H., & Paulino, A. (1996). Migration and resettlement experiences of Dominican and Korean families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 626-638. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy 207 effects, and parents' socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201. Eccles, J., Jacobs, J., Harold, R., Yoon, K., Arbreton, A., & Freedman-Doan, C. (1993). Parents and gender-role socialization during the middle childhood and adolescent years. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender Issues in Contemporary Society (pp. 59-83). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Eccles, J., Frome, P., Yoon, K., Freedman-Doan, C., & Jacobs (2000). Gender-roles socialization in the family: A longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes & H. Trautner (Eds.), The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender (pp. 330-360). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA. Edlebrock, C. & Sugawara, A. (1978). Acquisition of sex-typed preferences in preschool- aged children. Developmental Psychology, 14, 614-623. Etaugh, C., & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for Adult Gender Roles. Sex Roles, 26(314), 129-147. Fagot, B. I. (1985). Changes in thinking about early sex role development. Developmental Review, 5, 83-98. Fagot, B. I. & Leinbach, M. D. (1983). Gender-role development in young children: From discrimination to labeling. Special issues: Early gender-role development. Developmental Review, 13, 205-224. Fagot, B. I., Leinbach, M. D., & O?Boyle, C. (1992). Gender labeling, gender stereotyping, and parenting behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28(2), 225- 230. 208 Farver, J. A., Kim, Y. K., & Lee, Y. (1995). Cultural differences in Korean- and Anglo- American preschoolers? social interaction and play behaviors. Child Development, 66, 1088-1099. Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences: examining individual differences in Korean American and European American preschoolers? social pretend play. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31(5), 583-602. Franco, J. (1983). An acculturation scale for Mexican-American children. The Journal of General Psychology, 108, 175-181. Harris, A. C. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study Helgesen, G. (1998). Democracy and Authority in Korea: The Cultural Dimension in Korean Politics. Great Britain: Curzon Press. Helwig, C. C. (1997). The role of agent and social context in judgments of freedom of speech and religion. Child Development, 68, 484-495. Horn, S., Killen, M. & Stangor, C. (1999). The influence of group stereotypes on adolescents? moral reasoning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 98-113. Hurh, W. (1998). The Korean Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Katz, P. A. (1987). Variations in family constellation: Effects on gender schemata. In L. S. Liben, & M. L. Signorella (Eds.). New directions for child development, 38, (pp. 39-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Katz, P. A., & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility 209 and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272-282. Killen, M. (1991). Social and moral development in early childhood. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 2, pp. 115- 138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Killen, M., Crystal, D., & Watanabe, H. (2002). The individual and the group: Japanese and American children?s evaluations of peer exclusion, tolerance of difference, and prescriptions for conformity. Child Development, 73(6), 1788-1802. Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002a). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 67(4, Serial No. 271). Killen, M., McGlothlin, H., & Lee-Kim, J. (2002b). Between individuals and culture: Individuals? evaluations of exclusion from social groups. In H. Keller, Y. Poortinga, & A. Schoelmerich (Eds.) Between biology and culture: Perspectives on ontogenetic development (pp. 159-190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Killen, M., Pisacane, K., Lee-Kim, J., & Ardila-Rey, A. (2001). Fairness or stereotypes?: Young children?s priorities when evaluating group exclusion and inclusion. Developmental Psychology, 37, 587-596. Killen, M. & Smetana, J. (1999). Social interactions in preschool classrooms and the development of young children?s conceptions of the personal. Child Development, 70, 486-501. 210 Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children?s reasoning about social inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 72, 174- 186. Killen, M., & Sueyoshi, L. (1995). Conflict resolution in Japanese social interactions. Early Education and Development, 6, 313-330. Killen, M., & Wainryb, C. (2000). Independence and interdependence in diverse cultural contexts. In S. Harkness and C. Raeff (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism as cultural contexts for development (New Directions for Child Development, vol. 87). SF, CA. Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kim, E. (2002). The relationship between parental involvement and children?s educational achievement in the Korean Immigrant family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33(4), 531-540. Kim, Q. (1988). Korea?s Confucian heritage and social change. Journal of Developing Societies, 4, 256-269. Kim, J. M. (1998). Korean children?s concepts of adult and peer authority and moral reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 34, 947-955. Kim, U. & Choi, S. (1994). Individualism, collectivism, and child development: A Korean perspective. In Greenfield, P. M. (Ed.), Cross-cultural roots of Minority Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kim, K. & Hurh, W. (1987). Employment of Korean immigrant wives and the division of 211 household tasks. In E. Y. Phillips, & E. H. Phillips (Eds.), Korean women in transition: at home and abroad (pp. 199-217). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Korean-American and Korean Studies. Kim, W., Kim, L., & Rue, D. (1997). Korean American children. In G. Johnson-Powell & J. Yamamoto (Eds.), Transcultural Child Development (pp. 183-207). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kim, H., & Markus, H.R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800. Kim, E.J., O?Neil, J.M., Owen, S.V. (1996). Asian-American men?s acculturation and gender-role conflict. Psychological Reports, 79, 95-104. Kim, K., & Rohner, R. (2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling: predicting academic achievement among Korean American Adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 127-140. Kim, J. M., & Turiel, E. (1996). Korean children?s concepts of adult and peer authority. Social Development, 5, 310-329. Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kim, B., Yang, P., Atkinson, D., Wolfe, M., & Hong, S. (2001). Cultural value similarities and differences among Asian American ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(4), 343-361. Koh, H. C. (1984). Religion and socialization of women in Korea. In G. DeVos, & T. 212 Sofue (Eds.), Religion and the family in East Asia( pp. 237-257). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Koh, H. H., & Iwata, O. (1993). A cross-cultural study of socially appropriate behavior between Korean and Japanese undergraduates. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 36, 185-191 Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp.347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Kuhn, M., Nash, S. C., & Brucken, L. (1978). Sex role concepts of two- and three-year olds. Child Development, 49, 445-451. Kwon, H., & Kim, S. (1993). The Emerging Generation of Korean Americans. Seoul, Korea: Kyung Hee University Press. Laupa, M. (1986). Children?s reasoning about authority in home and school contexts. Social Development, 4(1), 1-16. Laupa, M. (1991). Children?s reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult status, knowledge, and social position. Developmental Psychology, 27, 321-329. Laupa, M., & Turiel, E. (1986). Children?s conceptions of adult and peer authority. Child Development, 57, 405-412. Lee, K. K. (1998). Confucian tradition in the contemporary Korean family. In W. Slote, & G. DeVos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp. 249-266). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Lee, J., Super, C., & Harkness, S. (2003). Self-perception of competence in Korean 213 children: age, sex, and home influences. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 133-147. Lee, S., Sobal, J., & Frongillo, E. (2003). Comparison of models of acculturation: the case of Korean Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 282- 296. Lee, J. W., & Sugawara, A. I. (1982). Awareness of sex-trait stereotypes among Korean children. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 161-170. Lee, J.Y., & Sugarawa, A.I. (1994). Development of sex-trait stereotype awareness among Korean children. Early Child Development and Care, 104, 95-104. Lee-Kim, J., Park, Y., Killen, M., & Park, Y. (in preparation). Korean American and Korean children?s reasoning about parental gender expectations regarding gender related peer activities. Liben, L.S., & Bigler, R.S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67. Lim, I. (1997). Korean immigrant women?s challenge to gender inequality at home: The interplay of economic resources, gender, and family. Gender and Society, 11(1), 31-51. Lobel, T., Gruber, R., Govrin, N., & Mashraki-Pedhatzur, S. (2001). Children?s gender- related inferences and judgments: a cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 839-846. Lobel, T., & Menashri, J. (1993). Relations of conceptions of gender-role transgressions and gender constancy to gender-typed toy preferences. Developmental 214 Psychology, 29(1), 150-155. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. (1991). Parents? differential socialization of boys and girls: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 267-296. Macdonald, D. (1996). The Koreans: Contemporary Politics and Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mackie, D.M., Hamilton, D.L., Susskind, J., & Rosselli, F. (1996). Social psychological foundations of stereotype formation. In C. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and Stereotyping (pp. 41-77). New York: The Guilford Press. Mantzicopoulos, P.Y., & Oh-Hwang, Y. (1998). The relationship of psychosocial maturity to parenting quality and intellectual ability for American and Korean adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 195-206. Martin, C. L. & Little, J. K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children?s sex-typed preferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61, 1427-1439. Martin, C. L. Wood, C. H. & Little, J. K. (1990). The development of gender stereotype components. Child Development, 61, 1891-1904. McCreary, D. (1994). The male role and avoiding feminity. Sex Roles, 9, 517-527. McHale, S., Crouter, A., & Tucker, L. (1999). Family context and gender role socialization in middle childhood: comparing girls to boys and sisters to brothers. Child Development, 70(4), 990-1004. Min, P. (1998). Changes and Conflicts: Korean Immigrant Families in New York. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Moller, L., Hymel, S., & Rubin, K. (1992). Sex typing in play and popularity in middle 215 childhood. Sex Roles, 26, 331-353. Munroe, R. H., Shimmin, S. S., Munroe, R. L. (1984). Gender understanding and sex role preference in four cultures. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 673-682. Nucci, L. P. (1981). Conceptions of personal issues: A domain distinct from moral or societal concepts. Child Development, 52(1), 114-121. Nucci, L. P. (1996). Morality and the personal sphere of actions. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Nucci, L. P., Camino, C., & Milnitsky-Sapiro, C. (1996). Social class effects on Northeastern Brazilian children?s conceptions of areas of personal choice and social regulation. Child Development, 67, 1223-1242. Nucci, L. P., Guerra, N., & Lee, J. (1991). Adolescent judgments of the personal, prudential, and normative aspects of drug usage. Developmental Psychology, 27, 841-848. O?Brien, M., & Huston, A. (1985). Development of sex-typed play behavior in toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 866-871. O?Brien, M., Peyton, V., Mistry, R., Hruda, L., Jacobs, A., Caldera, Y., Huston, A., & Roy, C. (2000). Gender-role cognition in three-year-old boys and girls. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 1007-1025. Park, K. (1999). ?I really do feel I?m 1.5!?: the construction of self and community by young Korean Americans. Amerasia Journal, 25(1), 139-163. 216 Park, I., & Cho, L. (1995). Confucianism and the Korean family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 117-134. Park, J. Y., & Johnson, R. C. (1984). Moral Development in rural and urban Korean children. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15, 35-46. Park, Y., Killen, M., Crystal, D. S., & Watanabe, H. (2003). Korean, Japanese, and U.S. students? judgments about peer exclusion: Evidence for diversity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(6), 555-565. Phinney, J., & Flores, J. (2002). ?Unpackaging? acculturation: aspects of acculturation as predictors of traditional sex role attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(3), 320-331. Phinney, J., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135-153. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. Pyke, K. (2000). ?The normal American family? as an interpretive structure of family life among grown children of Korean and Vietnamese immigrants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 240-255. Reis, H. T., & Wright, S. (1982). Knowledge of sex-role stereotypes in children aged 3 to 5. Sex roles, 8(10), 1982. Roe & Cochrane (1990). The child-rearing values of Asian and British parents and young people: An inter-ethnic and inter-generational comparison in the evaluation of Kohn?s 13 qualities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 149-160. 217 Rohner, R. P., & Pettengill, S. M. (1985). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and parental control among Korean adolescents. Child Development, 56, 524-528. Rubin, K.H. (1998). Social and emotional development from a cultural perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 611-615. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Socialization, 5th Ed., Vol.3 (N. Eisenberg, Ed.) (pp. 619-700). New York: Wiley. Ruble, D., & Martin, C. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3. Socialization (N. Eisenberg, Ed.) (pp. 933-1016). New York: Wiley. Sagara, J. & Kang, R.H. (1998). Parents? effects on children?s gender-role attitudes: a comparison between Japan and Korea. Psychologia, 41, 189-198. Schuette, C. & Killen, M. (2002). Children?s choices and reasons regarding gender- stereotypic household activities. Unpublished Manuscript. Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (2). Shin, Y. (2002). Korean children?s evaluations of parental gender expectations in the peer context. Unpublished Master?s Thesis. Signorella, M. L. (1987). Gender schemata: Individual differences and context effects. In L. S. Liben, & M. L. Signorella (Eds.). New directions for Child Development, No. 38 (pp. 23-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 218 Soh, C. S. (1993). Sexual equality, male superiority, and Korean women in politics: Changing gender relations in a ?patriarchal democracy?. Sex Roles, 28, 73-90. Smetana, J. G. (1986). Preschool children?s conceptions of sex-role transgressions. Child Development, 57, 862-871. Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents? and parents? conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 59(2), 321-335. Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents? and parents? reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Development, 60(5), 1052-1067. Smetana, J. G. (1995a). Morality in context: Abstractions, ambiguities, and applications. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, (Vol.10, pp. 83-130). London: Jessica Kinglsey. Smetana, J. G. (1995b). Context, conflict, and constraint in adolescent-parent authority relationships. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 225-244). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Smetana, J. G., & Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents? conceptions of teachers? authority and their relations to rule violations in school. Child Development, 67(3), 1153-1172. Song, M.J., Smetana, J.G., & Kim, S.Y. (1987). Korean children?s conceptions of moral and social-conventional transgressions. Developmental Psychology, 23, 577-582. Stangor, C., & Ruble, D. N. (1987). Development of gender role knowledge and gender constancy. In L. S. Liben, & M. L. Signorella (Eds.). New Directions for Child Development, no. 38 (pp 5-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 219 Stoddart, T., & Turiel, E. (1985). Children's concepts of cross-gender activities. Child Development, 56, 1241-1252. Suinn, R., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian identity acculturation scale: concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1041-1046. Theimer, C. E., Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Young children?s evaluations of exclusion in gender-stereotypic peer contexts. Developmental Psychology, 37, 18- 27. Tisak, M. S. (1986). Children's conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 57, 166-176. Tisak, M. (1995). Domains of social reasoning and beyond. In R. Vasta (Ed.). Annals of Child Development, Vol. 11 (pp. 95-130). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Tisak, M., Crane-Ross, D., Tisak, J., & Maynard, A. (2000). Mothers? and teachers? home and school rules: Young children?s conceptions of authority in context. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 168-187. Tisak, M. & Turiel, E. (1984). Children?s conceptions of moral and prudential rules. Child Development, 55, 1030-1039. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. (1987) Morality: Its structure, functions, and 220 vagaries. The emergence of morality in young children. (pp.155-243), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed. Socialization (pp. 863-932) (N. Eisenberg, Ed.). New York: Wiley. Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wainryb, C. (1993). The application of moral judgments to other cultures: Relativism and universality. Child Development, 64, 924-933. Wainryb, C. (1995). Reasoning about social conflicts in different cultures: Druze and Jewish children in Israel. Child Development, 66, 390-401. Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., Laupa, M., & Smith, K. R. (2001). Children?s, adolescents?, and young adults? thinking about different types of disagreements. Developmental Psychology, 37, 373-386. Wainryb, C., & Turiel, E. (1994). Dominance, subordination, and concepts of personal entitlement in cultural contexts. Child Development, 65, 1701-1722. Weinraub, M., Clemens, L. P., Sockloff, A., Ethridge, T., Gracely, E., & Myers, B. (1984). The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: Relationships to gender labeling, gender identity, sex-typed toy preference, and family characteristics. Child Development, 55, 1493-1503. Weisner, T. S., & Loucky, J. (1994). Domestic tasks, gender egalitarian values and children?s gender typing in conventional and nonconventional families. Sex Roles, 30, 23-54. 221 Yau, J. & Smetana, J. (2003). Conceptions of moral, social-conventional, and personal events among Chinese Preschoolers in Hong Kong. Child Development, 74, 647- 658. Yee, M., & Brown, R. (1994). The development of gender differentiation in young children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 183-196. Yi, S. H. (1993). Transformation of child socializing in Korean culture. Early Child Development and Care, 85, 17-24. Ying, Coombs, & Lee (1999). Family intergenerational relationship of Asian American adolescents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(4), 350-363. Yu, E. (1987). Women in traditional and modern Korea. In E. Y. Phillips, & E. H. Phillips (Eds.), Korean Women in Transition: At Home and Abroad (pp. 15-27). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Korean-American and Korean Studies. Yu, E., & Choe, P. (2003). Korean population in the United States as reflected in the year 2000 U.S. Census. Amerasia Journal, 29(3), 2-21. Zucker, K. (1995). Children?s appraisals of sex-typed behavior in their peers. Sex Roles, 33, 703-725.