Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
DOI 10.1007/s40732-014-0006-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Dolls are for Girls and Not for Boys: Evaluating
the Appropriateness of the Implicit Relational Assessment
Procedure for School-Age Children
Laura Z. Rabelo & Renato Bortoloti & Debora H. Souza
Published online: 29 March 2014
# Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014
Abstract The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure
(IRAP) has been used for assessing implicit attitudes across
different domains. The current study aimed to investigate
whether the IRAP is an adequate measure to assess children’s
implicit gender-based attitudes toward toys (dolls and toy cars).
Although the software parameters used were taken from previ-
ous adult studies, children performed successfully in the task.
The strongest IRAP effect found was for relations between
dolls and girls (i.e., participants responded faster when relating
dolls-girls-match than dolls-boys-match). Additionally, chil-
dren’s response latencies were longer for pairings of dolls and
boys than for pairings of toy cars and girls. These findings seem
to confirm that the IRAP is sensitive to gender-stereotyped
relations established in children and may be a useful tool in
providing additional information to complement explicit mea-
sures in children’s attitudes.
Keywords IRAP . Children . Gender-related toys
The first author was supported by FAPESP during the development of
this research (#2009/04736-6) and by CAPES during the preparation of
the manuscript. Renato Bortoloti was supported by FAPESP through a
Young Investigator grant (#2011/50561-3). This study is part of the
research program of Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre
Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino (Deisy G. de Souza, Chairperson),
supported by grants from the Brazilian National Research Council–CNPq
(Grant #573972/2008-7) and FAPESP (Grant #08/57705-8). We thank
Julio C. de Rose for his ongoing and invaluable support. Finally, we thank
Dr. Dermot Barnes-Holmes and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful suggestions.
L. Z. Rabelo (*) : R. Bortoloti : D. H. Souza
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, and Instituto Nacional de
Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino,
Rodovia Washington Luís, Km 235, São Carlos,
SP 13565-905, Brazil
e-mail: laurazrabelo@gmail.com
A common bias found in psychological interviews and ques-
tionnaires is the general tendency for participants to respond in
a manner that they consider to be socially desirable, especially
when the questions asked concern controversial matters
(Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010a). For instance, someone may
believe that women are bad drivers but state that women are
excellent drivers in a self-report questionnaire in order to
avoid being regarded as sexist. The Implicit Association Test
(IAT) was designed as an alternative to explicit measures
which are known to be susceptible to social desirability effects
(Greenwald et al. 1998).
The IAT consists of simultaneous presentation of two
attributive concepts and a target stimulus on a computer
screen. Participants are required to respond by pressing one
of two keys on the keyboard, each associated with one of
the two concepts. The investigator can work with multiple
target stimuli that are alternated across trials, and the main
variable of interest is the speed of responding. Greenwald
et al. (1998), for example, used different names of flowers
and insects as target stimuli and two evaluation attributes:
“pleasant” and “unpleasant.” In one block of trials, partic-
ipants were asked to relate the different flowers to the
attribute “pleasant” and the different insects to “unpleas-
ant”; in another block, participants had to associate the
different flowers with “unpleasant” and the different in-
sects with “pleasant.” The difference in mean latency of
responding between these two blocks of trials is the IAT
effect. The underlying assumption is that participants re-
spond faster in consistent trials, that is, trials that involve
more probable associations. In Greenwald et al.’s (1998)
study, the concepts of flower and pleasantness were ex-
pected to be more readily associated than flower-
unpleasant, and the concept of insect-unpleasant was ex-
pected to be more readily associated than insect-pleasant.
The data did support this hypothesis: Participants responded
72
faster in the consistent condition (i.e., flower-pleasant and
insect-unpleasant) than in the inconsistent one (i.e., flower-
unpleasant and insect-pleasant).
Despite its usefulness in a wide range of situations, the
IAT procedure has some limitations (e.g., Barnes-Holmes
et al. 2006). In particular, the IAT provides an assessment of
associative strength, which does not provide enough infor-
mation regarding participants’ implicit attitudes or beliefs.
For example, if participants respond faster to pairings of
pictures of White people and positive attributes (as well as
to associations of Black people and negative words) than
when these associations are switched, more than one inter-
pretation is possible. It cannot be known if Black and White
people are both liked but White people are preferred over
Black, or if they are both disliked and Black people are
more disliked than White. In sum, the IAT effect fails to
indicate to what degree the stimuli are liked or disliked
individually (Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010a).
The IRAP aims to overcome this and other limitations by
treating implicit cognition as a relational rather than an asso-
ciative process. In essence, it is a computer-based procedure
that measures the latency of relational responses when the
participant is under pressure to respond quickly and accurate-
ly. Another advantage of the IRAP is that it involves four trial
types (Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010a). More specifically, each
trial involves the simultaneous presentation of one label
stimulus, one target item, and two relational terms. Its
underlying rationale is that participants’ responses will
have shorter mean response latencies when asked to
confirm consistent relations than when asked to confirm
inconsistent relations, as the former present relations that
may accord with participants’ preexperimental learning histo-
ries (e.g., flower-pleasant-true may be considered consistent,
insect-pleasant-true may be considered false; Barnes-Holmes
et al. 2010a).
The IRAP has been used successfully to assess implicit
attitudes toward sensitive social matters. One of the strengths
of the IRAP is that it appears difficult to fake, even if partic-
ipants are asked to perform the task after receiving an expla-
nation of how the software works (Mckenna et al. 2007). In
recent years, the IRAP has been used to investigate several
matters, such as preference for national groups (Power et al.
2009); attitudes toward BDSM (bondage, discipline/
dominance, sadism, and masochism) and fetish in groups of
students and individuals with BDSM/fetish interest
(Stockwell et al. 2010); pro-White and anti-Black stereotyped
attitudes in public and private contexts in Irish individuals
(Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010a); attitudes toward autism in
professionals who have worked with individuals with au-
tism for less than 6 months, more than 6 months, and people
who have never worked with them (Barnes-Holmes et al.
2006); attitudes toward meat and vegetables in meat-eaters
and vegetarians (Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010b); attitudes
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
toward work in North Americans and Irish individuals
(Chan et al. 2009); self-esteem (Timko et al. 2010); and,
more recently, fear of spiders (Nicholson and Barnes-
Holmes 2012). The IRAP has also proved to be a useful
instrument for evaluating the relatedness of equivalent
stimuli (Bortoloti and de Rose 2012).
Similar to the IAT effect, the IRAP effect refers to the
difference in the mean response latency between consistent
and inconsistent trials, and is interpreted as evidence of atti-
tude bias. Thus, shorter response latencies for obese-negative
relations compared to longer response latencies for obese-
positive during IRAP is taken to indicate that participants
agree with the former relations. The IRAP effect indicating
bias has been demonstrated and replicated across different
domains, and the IRAP has shown predictive validity compa-
rable to the IAT (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al. 2009, 2010b;
Roddy et al. 2010). The IAT has been used successfully with
children (e.g., Baron and Banaji 2006; Cvencek et al. 2011;
Dunham et al. 2006). Scanlon has unpublished data on the use
of the IRAP to assess self-esteem in children aged 8 to 14 years
with and without ADHD (as cited in O’Toole et al. 2009).
However, to the extent of our knowledge, there is still no
published work reporting IRAP use with children; data on
children’s implicit attitudes and beliefs may be especially
relevant to research gender and race stereotypes. Moreover,
IRAP studies might contribute to a better understanding of the
development of intergroup biases in children and adolescents
which, in turn, represents the theoretical foundation for inter-
vention programs designed to prevent discrimination and
prejudice early in childhood (Brown and Bigler 2005;
Brown et al. 2011; Leaper 2011; Pahlke et al. 2012).
Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the adequacy
of the IRAP for studies with school-age children. In particular,
we were interested in assessing children’s implicit attitudes
toward toys that may be traditionally perceived as gender
specific in the wider social community, for example, dolls
for girls and cars for boys. The IRAP was used to measure
children’s attitudes toward toys, that is, to assess whether they
display gender stereotyped attitudes by responding faster
when asked to relate specific toys traditionally associated with
either girls or boys.
Method
Participants
Ten children, six boys and four girls, ranging in age from 7 to
10 years (M=8.7, SD=1.24) participated in the present study.
They had previously participated in other experiments
(on stimulus equivalence or do-say correspondence) conduct-
ed at the laboratory where the two first authors work. All of
them were enrolled in public elementary schools in a town
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
located in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Their parents signed
an informed consent form prior to their participation. They
were randomly assigned to one of two experimental condi-
tions: Condition A presented gender-stereotype-consistent tri-
al blocks first and Condition B presented gender-stereotype-
inconsistent blocks first.
Setting
The experiment was conducted in a quiet room in the
Department of Psychology at Universidade Federal de São
Carlos. Participants completed the IRAP individually on a
desktop computer, but the researcher stayed in the room
throughout the entire session, giving instructions at every
phase of the experiment.
Apparatus and Materials
The IRAP software (an updated version is available at www.
irapresearch.org) was used to present the stimuli and record
participants’ responses. Each trial displayed two stimuli and two
response options on a white background. Participants responded
by pressing one of two keys on the computer keyboard.
The response options were: “It matches” and “It doesn’t
match” (translated from the Brazilian Portuguese expressions
“Combina” and “Não combina”). The stimuli were two
names, Maria and João (Mary and John in English), and
colored pictures of two toy cars and two dolls (see Fig. 1 for
a pictorial representation of the task). There was a green
sticker on top of the d key on the keyboard and a red one on
top of the k key.
Fig. 1 The four IRAP trial types.
Names (John or Mary), toy
John
pictures, and response options
were presented all together on
each trial. Arrows and text boxes
were not presented on screen Consistent
It matches It doesn’t match
Mary
Consistent
It matches It doesn’t match
73
Procedure
Each child was asked to sit in front of the computer. The
experimenter sat beside the child and told him/her the follow-
ing short story and provided the following instructions:
Once upon a time, there were two siblings: John and
Mary. They used to play together a lot, but after each
time they played, they would put their toys away in a
chest. You are going to take part in a game during which
you will tell me which toys from the chest match each
one of the siblings. Pay close attention to what I’m
asking you to do. First, we are going to play the game
together, so you can learn the rules; then, you will play it
by yourself. A name (John or Mary) is going to appear
on the computer screen along with the picture of a toy
(a doll or a toy car). If the screen shows Mary’s name and
the picture of a doll, press the green key in order to say
that the doll matches Mary. You will do the same thing
when John’s name and the picture of a toy car appear
together. If you see Mary’s name and a toy car, press the
red key to indicate the car does not match her. You will do
the same if the screen shows John’s name and a doll.
Even if you think differently, please, do as I say.
The instructions were read to participants in Condition A;
the children assigned to Condition B received similar instruc-
tions, except for the last segment: “If the screen shows Mary
and the picture of a doll, you press the red key to indicate that
the doll does not match Mary. You will do the same if it shows
John’s name and a car.”
The adopted parameters were very similar to those used in
adult studies utilizing the IRAP. Children were presented with
John
Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent
It matches It doesn’t match
Mary
Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent
It matches It doesn’t match
74
eight blocks of 24 trials, with each toy picture presented four
times with each of the names (John and Mary) in the trials.
The trials were presented in a quasirandom sequence—two
identical trials could not be presented consecutively. In adult
studies, the position of the response options (at the bottom
right and bottom left corners of the screen) is frequently varied
across trials in a counterbalanced manner. In the present study,
the response options were fixed in order to facilitate children’s
learning of the task.
Two blocks were assigned as practice (one of consistent
trials and one of inconsistent trials, following the procedure
used in adult studies), and the remaining six were test blocks.
At the beginning of the session, the participants were informed
that they were going to learn how to “play the game.” The
experimenter told them to pay attention to what they were
doing, and that making mistakes at the beginning was all right.
Participants had to reach a minimum criterion of 70 % correct
answers within a mean latency of 3,000 ms. If they did not
reach the criteria on the first practice block, they were exposed
up to twice more to that block. If they still could not reach
criteria, they were told that the game was over and that their
participation had ended. The experimenter then gave the child
a sticker and thanked him/her for participating.
During test blocks, the children were told they would have
to do the same as before, but from that moment on, they had to
“go fast” and try not to make mistakes. After the first testing
block, the experimenter told the child that they were going to
play the game differently next, because they would have to
give opposite answers in each trial. If they had pressed the
green key when seeing “Mary” and the picture of a doll during
the previous trials, now they would have to press the red key
to state that they do not match. The experimenter described in
detail how the child should proceed in each of the four
different trial types (John-matches/does not match-toy car;
John-matches/does not match-doll; Mary-matches/does not
match-doll; Mary-matches/does not match-toy car, see
Fig. 1) and after giving the instructions, she asked the partic-
ipant to tell her with his/her own words what she/he was
supposed to do next.
For participants in Condition A, the gender-stereotyped-
consistent blocks were Numbers 1, 3, and 5. Condition B
participants started with an inconsistent block, and the
gender-stereotyped-consistent ones were Numbers 2, 4, and
6. When the experiment was finished, participants were
thanked and received a sticker for their participation.
Data Analysis
Response latency was measured by the time in milliseconds
that elapsed between the onset of the trial and the emission of
the response. Latency data were processed using the D-IRAP
algorithm, available in the IRAP software for each trial
type in the consistent blocks (Mary-doll-matches, John-toy
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
car-matches, Mary-toy car- does not match, John-doll-does not
match) and in the inconsistent blocks (Mary-toy car-matches,
John-doll-matches, Mary-doll-does not match, John-toy
car-does not match).
Results
Nine children were able to perform the task successfully. One
boy (P9) did not reach the practice criteria after three training
blocks and was thus excluded from the study.
Individual response latency data were transformed into D-
IRAP scores using the D-IRAP algorithm provided by the
IRAP software. Latencies for the gender-stereotyped-
inconsistent blocks were subtracted from latencies for the
consistent blocks. Thus, positive D-IRAP scores indicate that
the participants responded more rapidly in the consistent
blocks, whereas negative D-IRAP scores indicate more rapid
responding in the inconsistent blocks. The overall mean D-
IRAP score was positive (0.162) and significantly different
from zero (t=2.33, p<0.05), indicating an overall D-IRAP
effect that was consistent with a gender-stereotyped effect for
dolls and cars. Mean IRAP scores for each of the four trial-
types are presented in Fig. 2.
Participants were faster to respond that dolls matched Mary
(the mean D-IRAP score was 0.32 and different from zero, t=
2.02, p<0.05) and that dolls did not match John (the mean D-
IRAP score was 0.22 and different from zero, t=2.06, p<0.05)
than when the opposite responses were required. The trials
involving toy cars produced relatively small and nonsignifi-
cant IRAP effects (the mean D-IRAP score for cars and Mary
was 0.05, t=0.29, p>0.05, and for cars and John, it was 0.06,
t=1.02, p>0.05), suggesting that the children responded with
roughly equal speed when asked if cars matched or did not
match John/Mary.
Discussion
As predicted, participants in the current study (n=9) showed
gender-stereotyped attitudes toward toys, and the effect was
greater for the Mary-doll-matches and John-doll-does not
match trial types. In spite of the fact that a plethora of research
has been produced recently, we could not find any published
studies that utilized the IRAP to investigate implicit attitudes
in children. In the same direction as Scanlon’s unpublished
doctoral work (as cited in O’Toole et al. 2009), however, our
findings suggest that this is a ripe area for research enquiry.
To set up the experimental tasks employed in the current
study, we considered evidence suggesting gender differences
in children’s play behavior and toy preference (Blakemore and
Centers 2005; see Leaper and Bigler 2011 and Smith 2010, for
reviews). It is still not known, however, to what extent
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
Fig. 2 Participant’s mean
D-IRAP scores across four
different IRAP trial types
phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and/or cultural factors may explain
these differences. Nevertheless, the notion of gender-specific
toys is widely spread in the Western world: dolls are for girls
and not for boys. Moreover, there is evidence that parents
reinforce gender-stereotypic play and toy preferences
(Langlois and Downs 1980; Lytton and Romney 1991).
Even parents with gender-egalitarian attitudes and beliefs
frequently act in gender-stereotyped ways with their children
(Friedman et al. 2007). Similarly, the present research showed
that children respond faster to gender typical associations
(Mary matches dolls and John does not match dolls) than to
gender atypical associations (Mary does not match dolls and
John matches dolls). More specifically, as can be seen in
Fig. 2, the IRAP effect was stronger for the following rela-
tions: Mary-matches-dolls; John-does not match-dolls.
One question might be raised concerning the pictorial
stimuli used in the present experiment: Girl dolls and girl
names may be more easily matched than girl dolls and boys
names, and this difference may be unrelated to gender
stereotyping. However, the choice of stimuli (girl dolls and
toy cars) was based on previous studies investigating gender
differences on Brazilian children’s toy preferences
(Wanderlind et al. 2006). More specifically, girl dolls are still
rated as a favorite toy among girls. Boys, on the other hand,
present a preference for toys from the technical world, such as
vehicles and robots. As the current study was the first to test a
possible IRAP effect on children’s preferences for toys tradi-
tionally perceived as gender specific in Brazil, we aimed to
find stimuli that should be prototypically related with each
gender in the Brazilian culture. Moreover, before running
trials, the experimenter asked the child to repeat the
75
instructions given, making sure that they had understood the
nature of the task. Nonetheless, future studies should evaluate
the IRAP effect for other types of toys that are representative
of children’s preferences, such as a dollhouse for girls and a
tool kit for boys, avoiding, therefore, a possible confound.
It is important to note that our findings are consistent with
previous research showing that boys and girls receive differ-
ential treatment with regard to their toy and play preferences.
More specifically, boys are more severely punished than girls
when playing with cross-sex toys (Langlois and Downs
1980), and they suffer more peer pressure than girls to behave
in gender-normative ways (e.g., Carter and Mccloskey 1984).
This differential treatment might explain why we did not find
a large IRAP effect in the trials involving toy cars. That is, the
IRAP effects for John and toy car trials was similar to the one
found for Mary and toy car trials. Therefore, girls may have
more flexibility than boys with regard to their toy choices. The
social message they receive seems to be: “It is all right for girls
to play with cars, but it is not okay for boys to play with dolls.”
The present research also suggests that the IRAP may be an
adequate procedure for use with children, since the majority of
participants were able to complete the sessions successfully.
However, considering that one child did not reach the practice
criteria and thus was unable to proceed to the testing blocks,
possible intervening variables should be further investigated.
In this particular case, the child’s inability to advance to test
blocks might be related to his poor reading skills (as observed
in previous studies in which the child participated). Indeed, it
may be possible to use the IRAP with children even younger
than those employed in the current study, but one constraint
may be reading ability, particularly when written words are
76
used as stimuli in the IRAP. Additionally, it would be inter-
esting to test the IRAP procedure using only pictures as
stimuli when testing children who do not have good reading
skills. However, the software version used in the current
study did not allow for programming trials with pictorial
stimuli only.
The current study was exploratory in that there are no
recommended parameters for children and it is not known
how they affect IRAP responses in this population. We used
software parameters commonly used in adult studies.
Although participants were able to perform the task success-
fully, it is important to address optimum experimental param-
eters for children in future studies. One aspect that should be
taken into consideration is the latency constraint. Barnes-
Holmes et al. (2010a) found that when a relatively short
latency constraint was employed (i.e. 3 s instead of 2 s),
measures of pro-White and anti-Black racial stereotyping
observed with the IRAP increased among White Irish individ-
uals. The role of shorter latencies on children’s performance is
not known and should be investigated. Another aspect of the
task that needs to be addressed in the future is whether having
the response options always displayed at the same position
(“It matches” at the bottom right corner of the screen and “It
doesn’t match” at the bottom left corner) has an effect on
participants’ responses.
The current findings should be interpreted with caution,
given the limited number of participants, which precluded us
from testing possible effects of order of block presentation
(consistent vs. inconsistent), as well as possible effects of
participant’s gender. The data from adult studies, however,
do not show effects of order of block presentation.
Nonetheless, the fact that an IRAP effect was found in such
a small sample is impressive and suggests that this is a
promising line of investigation.
Future studies should also include explicit measures to
check whether they match the results obtained with the
IRAP. In the current study, we asked all participants to indicate
(using a 5-point Likert scale) whether the toy was only for
boys, more for boys, for both, more for girls, only for girls, but
we found two main problems with this explicit measure: first,
because the words for boy and girl in Portuguese are very
similar (there is only a change in the last letter—menino vs.
menina), children may have misheard or misread the options;
second, we did not use pictorial stimuli to represent each point
of the scale, as done in previous studies. As a result, we
decided not to include the data.
In conclusion, our attempt to adapt the IRAP to children
was successful. Nonetheless, some procedural variables
which may influence participants’ responses remain un-
known. In particular, the IRAP may not be suitable for use
with children with limited reading ability, although this hy-
pothesis should be tested by further investigation. The appro-
priateness of the IRAP for use with school-age children might
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
open many possibilities to explore aspects of children’s cog-
nition that cannot be assessed by explicit measures, especially
when they do not have sufficiently sophisticated verbal reper-
toires to express their views on a particular topic.
References
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R.,
& Stewart, I. (2006). Do you really know what you believe?
Developing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)
as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32(7),
169–177.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Waldron, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I.
(2009). Testing the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment
Procedure and the Implicit Association Test: measuring attitudes
toward Dublin and country life in Ireland. The Psychological
Record, 59, 389–406.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I.
(2010a). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: exploring
the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency
criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish
individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 43–66.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Murtagh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I.
(2010b). Using the implicit association test and the implicit relation-
al assessment procedure to measure attitudes toward meat and
vegetables in vegetarians and meat-eaters. The Psychological
Record, 60, 287–306.
Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit
attitudes evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and
adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53–58. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9280.2005.01664.x.
Blakemore, J. E. O., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys’ and
girls’ toys. Sex Roles, 53, 619–633.
Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2012). Equivalent stimuli are more
strongly related after training with delayed matching than after
simultaneous matching: a study using the Implicit Relational
Assessment Procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record,
62, 41–54.
Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Children’s perceptions of discrim-
ination: a developmental model. Child Development, 76(3),
533–553.
Brown, C. S., Alabi, B. O., Huynh, V. W., & Masten, C. L. (2011).
Ethnicity and gender in late childhood and early adolescence: group
identity and awareness of bias. Developmental Psychology,
47(2), 463.
Carter, D. B., & Mccloskey, L. A. (1984). Peers and the maintenance of
sex-typed behavior: the development of children’s conceptions of
cross-gender behavior in their peers. Social Cognition, 2, 294–314.
Chan, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009).
Implicit attitudes to work and leisure among North American and
Irish individuals: a preliminary study. International Journal of
Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 9(3), 317–334.
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender
stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development,
82(3), 766–779. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to
Japanese village: a cross-cultural investigation of implicit race atti-
tudes. Child Development, 77(5), 1268–1281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2006.00933.x.
Friedman, C. K., Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. (2007). Do mothers’ gender
related attitudes or comments predict young children’s gender be-
liefs? Parenting: Science and Practice, 7, 1–15.
Psychol Rec (2014) 64:71–77
Greenwald, A. G., Mcghee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998).
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit
Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1464–1480.
Langlois, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as
socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviors in young children.
Child Development, 51, 1217–1247.
Leaper, C. (2011). Research in developmental psychology on gender and
relationships: Reflections on the past and looking into the future.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 347–356.
Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). Gender. In M. K. Underwood & L. S.
Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, child-
hood, and adolescence (pp. 289–315). New York: Guilford Press.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of
boys and girls: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 267–296.
Mckenna, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I.
(2007). Testing the fake-ability of the Implicit Relational
Assessment Procedure (IRAP): the first study. International
Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(2), 123–138.
Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The Implicit Relational
Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear.
Psychological Record, 62, 263–278.
O’Toole, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, C., O’Connor, J., & Barnes-
Holmes, Y. (2009). Relational flexibility and human intelligence:
extending the remit of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. International
Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 9, 1–17.
77
Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Suizzo, M. A. (2012). Relations between
colorblind socialization and children’s racial bias: evidence from
European American mothers and their preschool children. Child
Development, 83, 1164–1179. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01770.x.
Power, P., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009).
The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure
of implicit relative preferences: a first study. The Psychological
Record, 59, 621–640.
Roddy, S., Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Anti-fat, pro-slim, or
both? Using two reaction time based measures to assess implicit
attitudes to the slim and overweight. Journal of Health Psychology,
15, 416–425.
Smith, P. (2010). Children and play: Understanding children’s worlds.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stockwell, F. M., Walker, D. J., & Eshleman, J. W. (2010). Measures of
implicit and explicit attitudes toward mainstream and BDSM sexual
terms using the IRAP and questionnaire with BDSM/fetish and
student participants. The Psychological Record, 60, 307–324.
Timko, C. A., England, E. L., Herbert, J. D., & Forman, E. M. (2010).
The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure as a measure of self-
esteem. The Psychological Record, 60, 679–698.
Wanderlind, F., Martins, G. D. F., Hansen, J., Macarini, S. M., & Vieira,
M. L. (2006). Diferenças de gênero no brincar de crianças pré-
escolares e escolares na brinquedoteca [Gender differences in play
of prescholar and scholar’s children at toy-library]. Paidéia, 16(34),
263–273.