ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Invisible or Involved Fathers? A Content Analysisof Representations of Parenting in Young Children’sPicturebooks in the UK

Matthew Adams & Carl Walker & Paul O’Connell

Published online: 31 May 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Although gender-role stereotyping in children’sbooks is a consistent focus of research, the study of thegender role stereotyping of parenting in particular is lesscommon, despite a developing academic interest in thechanging social meanings of fathering and mothering incontemporary societies. Previous analysis has suggestedthat fathers are under-represented in children’s books andwhen present, are less likely than mothers to be featuredexpressing affection towards, or caring for, children. Thispaper reports the results of a content analysis of a sample ofbest-selling young children’s picturebooks in the UK whichfeature representations of parents. It was predicted thatfathers would feature less often, particularly at home, andbe less likely to be depicted sharing physical contact withother family members, involved in domestic chores orchildcare activity, or expressing emotion. The resultsupheld a number of the hypotheses, indicating that fathersremain ‘invisible’ in an important sense. However scenesfeaturing fathers with children, some forms of physicalcontact, or caring for children were not significantly lesslikely to feature in these picturebooks than equivalentscenes featuring mothers; perhaps reflecting a moreprogressive portrayal of ‘involved’ fatherhood. The find-ings are discussed in terms of their methodological, social,and political implications.

Keywords Children’s literature . Fathers . Genderstereotypes .Mothers . Parents . Picturebooks

Introduction

From fairy tale to adventure story, what society providesfor its children reflects those values which it interprets ascentral to its continuity. In this way, children’s bookscan be seen as a part of the text of history and are asignificant part of the discourse of how society ismoulded. (Lees and Senyard 1985, p. 174)

This paper builds on Anderson and Hamilton’s (2005)study of parental stereotypes in US picturebooks. Ouremphasis on the UK market provides a novel sample anduseful counterpoint to most existing work, and is thereforeof potential interest to scholars internationally. Further-more, the study draws from a sample of best-selling books,rather than award-winners; it focuses on a pre-schooltarget audience, whereas previous work has tendedtowards broad or undifferentiated samples; it extendsnumerous elements of previously established codinginstruments; and it aims to provide a more robust andaccurate form of analysis. The primary research questionasked was whether representations of mothers and fathersreflect or challenge traditional gender stereotypes. Quan-titative content analysis was the method selected toaddress our research questions, suited as it is to discerningsystematic patterns in content (Krippendorff and Bock2008). The authors developed a coding instrument torecord differences and similarities between representationsof mothers and fathers in every scene in every book inwhich they appear across the sample.

M. Adams (*) :C. Walker : P. O’ConnellSchool of Applied Social Sciences,University of Brighton,Falmer,Brighton BN1 9HP, UKe-mail: ma21@bton.ac.uk

C. Walkere-mail: C.J.Walker@bton.ac.uk

P. O’Connelle-mail: P.OConnell@bton.ac.uk

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-0011-8

The study of gender stereotypes in children’s media isimportant because exposure to traditional gender stereotypeshas been found to impact negatively on boys’ and girls’development, narrowing the range of acceptable behavioursand naturalizing inequalities (Karniol and Gal-Disegni 2009;Witt 2000). Despite the global growth and diversity of mediaaimed at children there remains a strong rationale forresearchers interested in gender stereotyping to focus onyoung children’s picturebooks. As an identifiable culturalform young children’s picturebooks have been in existencein Europe and North America since the mid-eighteenthcentury (Hunt 2009), and hence are firmly embedded inpopular culture. Despite the growth in the range of mediaavailable to young children since the early days of picture-books children’s literature has maintained an audience andgained in artistic and literary credibility (Hunt 2009). Thiscredibility is reflected in the recent creation of the role of‘children’s laureate’ by royal appointment in the UK, andvarious well-publicised annual prizes globally. In morerudimentary measures, sales of children’s books in the UKhave increased their share of the overall volume of booksales in recent years (Noble 2010); in 2008 22.9 millionpreschool picturebooks were sold in the UK, an increase of4.4% over the previous year, with a sales value of £98.9 m(Stone 2009; approximately 159 m USD). In educational anddevelopmental psychology there is an emphasis on theimportance of shared reading (or reading aloud) from anearly age in child development, in terms of languagedevelopment (Raikes et al. 2006; Whitehurst et al. 1998)and emotional and personality development (Blake andMaiese 2008; Whitehurst et al. 1998). This emphasis is alsoprevalent in parentcraft literature (Sunderland 2000)—mag-azines, websites, and online discussion forums dedicated toparenting advice, expertise, and testimony (for examplewww.raisesmartkid.com)—and popular journalism (forexample Randerson 2008). As a medium this statusincreases its likely contribution to early socialisation,including gender socialisation (Karrass and Braungart-Rieker 2005; Whitehurst et al. 1998).

We are drawn to parenting in particular because in mostdeveloped countries there is a great deal of debate over theextent to which the gendered nature of these roles hasundergone change in recent years, and how far change isreflected in, or driven by, cultural representations of parenting(Daly 1993). There is increased acknowledgment for the ideathat fathers, as well as mothers, should have a caring andnurturing relationship with their children (Bowers Andrewset al. 2004); that both mothers and fathers can be earners andcarers; and that both boys and girls should be brought upencouraged to consider a shared role in caring for children asnormal. Such ideas have become increasingly common-placein the UK and much of the developed world (Hall 2005;Hobson 2008). Thus ‘the emphasis now, from policy-makers

as much as partners, is on a more involved role for fathers’(Williams 2008, p. 488), to the extent that being a ‘caringand present father’ has become ‘a new ideal’ (Johansson andKlinth 2008, p. 42). Everyday realities are, as always, morecomplicated than hopes and ideals. Some European andAmerican research has confirmed that fathers spend moretime with their children than did previous generations(Hall 2005); other studies suggest it is at least a highpriority for fathers (Brannen and Nilsen 2006, p. 347);whilst some have questioned the extent to which ‘involvedfatherhood’ has been translated into actual practices (Craig2006; Jamieson 1999; La Rossa 1988, 1997; Speakmanand Marchington 1999).

An important tributary to this debate is how mothers andfathers are depicted in cultural representations of familylife. Such a consideration is important in providing abarometer of change at the level of cultural representations,as reflected in the opening quote, but also because suchrepresentations are arguably vital in the socialisation ofchildren and young people into gender roles and themaintenance and confirmation of gendered identities acrossthe lifespan. Children’s literature demands our attentionbecause it is another site where gender stereotypes areencountered and learned, a point established in workdrawing on a range of methodologies and theoreticalapproaches in the study of related media such as televisionand parenting magazines, as well as picturebooks, in the USand Europe (Anderson and Hamilton 2005; Sunderland2006; Witt 2000). If as Weitzman et al. (1972) assert‘children’s books reflect cultural values and are animportant instrument for persuading children to acceptthose values’ (p. 1126) then it seems probable that theportrayal of parents in children’s books will also directlyimpact the attitudes, expectations, behaviours, and subjec-tivities of parents and children (Anderson and Hamilton2005; Ussher 1997). However the majority of studies haveanalyzed central or title characters, whether animal orhuman, and these have tended to be child characters;adults (and therefore parents) are ‘invariably secondarycharacters’ (Kortenhaus and Demarest 1993, p. 223).Thus adult figures have rarely been the focus of study,with some notable exceptions (Jackson and Gee 2005;Weitzman et al. 1972).

Anderson and Hamilton’s (2005) focus on the specificrepresentations of mothers and fathers provide the mostsustained departure from the usual focus on main charac-ters. In studies of the latter female characters were generallyless likely to be present, but more likely to be depicted asdependent, submissive, passive, placid, following, serving,and nurturing; male characters were overrepresented ingeneral, and as independent, instrumental, creative, leading,rescuing, aggressive, and competitive (Allen et al. 1993;Hamilton et al. 2006; Kortenhaus and Demarest 1993;

260 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270

Oskamp et al. 1996; Peterson and Lach 1990; Weitzman etal. 1972). In contrast to the overrepresentation of malecentral characters, Anderson and Hamilton found fathers tobe largely invisible, and, when they did appear, charac-terised as indolent and ineffectual parents; whereas motherswere much more likely to appear, and ‘made most of thecontact with children, did most of the feeding, andexpressed emotion more often than did fathers’ (p. 149).The authors developed a coding instrument in order toquantify the occurrences of physical presence, actions,emotions, and mentions of mothers and fathers in any text.The instrument was then used to analyse the representationof mothers and fathers in a sample of 200 ‘prominent’children’s books, including Caldecott winners and runners-upfrom 1995 to 2001, and popular texts derived from compilingvarious American newspaper and website best-seller listsfrom 1999 to 2001. Their analysis revealed that in contrast tothe under-representation of women and girls more generally,fathers were under-represented in their sample compared tomothers. When fathers did appear, they were portrayed as‘withdrawn and ineffectual parents’ compared to mothers,behaving in accordance with traditional gender stereotypes ofparenting (Anderson and Hamilton 2005, p. 145). We haveattempted to replicate the basics of Anderson andHamilton’s analysis (for example number of appearancesof fathers and mothers) in a contemporary UK context,whilst making the sample more age-specific and populist,extending the scope of the instrument and refining anumber of the categories.

Existing work has tended to analyse samples that cutacross a wide or unidentified age-range (for example Allenet al. 1993; Clark et al. 2003). This is particularly apparentin research focussing on prize-winning or prize-nominatedbooks in the United States (Gooden and Gooden 2001;Kolbe and LaVoie 1981; Ly Kok and Findlay 2006). TheCaldecott medal criteria, for example, allows for any booksaimed at children up to 14 years old, is restricted to authorswho are residents or citizens of the United States, and onlybooks which were first or simultaneously published in theUnited States in the previous year (American LibraryAssociation 2009).

A focus on media aimed specifically at pre-school childrenis advantageous because developmental psychology suggeststhis is the period when children commence the practice ofidentifying and differentiating between genders and catego-rising them according to culturally prevalent stereotypes(Powlishta et al. 1993). It follows that exposure to genderstereotypes at this age is particularly vital in the socialisationof children into gender roles and the maintenance andconfirmation of many aspects of gendered identities acrossthe lifespan (Bradbard et al. 1986; Peterson and Lach 1990;Tepper and Cassidy 1999; Turner and Gervai 1995; Zemoreet al. 2000). Consequently media representations of male and

female characters may well ‘have serious effects on thesechildren’s gender role development and self-image’(Hamilton et al. 2006, p. 758), an assertion substantiatedby a wealth of research (Blake and Maiese 2008; Bradbardet al. 1986; Frawley 2008; Karniol and Gal-Disegni 2009;Peterson and Lach 1990; Tepper and Cassidy 1999; Turnerand Gervai 1995; Whitehurst and Lonigan 1998; Zemoreet al. 2000). A further rationale for a predominantemphasis on picturebooks reflects the attentional capaci-ties of the pre-school child reader; as discovered by recentevidence from eye movement monitoring studies. Thesestudies demonstrate that preschool children spend muchmore time exploring images than text, regardless ofvariations in layout: On average they spent eighteen timeslonger looking at illustrations compared to text (Evans andSaint-Aubin 2005).

A focus on the UK market serves as a useful correctiveand interesting counterpoint to the predominant US focus ofmost existing research in this area. The results of thepresent study are thus of interest to readers from manycountries who are willing to reflect on the universality orotherwise of US-based findings. There is less overlap thanone might imagine in best-selling titles even betweenEnglish-speaking nations alone, as a cursory glance atAmazon UK versus Amazon USA’s best-seller lists for anyage-range will indicate. This suggests that the level ofgender stereotyping across national context cannot beassumed equal, even if the underlying stereotypes andthe development of gender schemas are deemed to bevery similar. In addition, our methodological develop-ments are not restricted to a UK focus, and will be ofinterest to all readers involved in the study of genderstereotypes.

The combined importance of stereotypes, parentalfigures and the established importance of early childhoodexposure to gender stereotyping inform our focus onparental stereotypes in pre-school children’s picturebooks.Our general hypothesis was that mothers and fathers wouldbe represented as behaving in accordance with genderstereotypes in best-selling picturebooks specifically aimedat very young children in the British market in one year,2008. As noted above, despite a shift in ideals towardsmore involved fatherhood, in practice change appears to bemore piecemeal and uncertain. Thus the reasoning for ourinitial hypothesis is akin to Anderson and Hamilton’s(2005) assertion that picturebooks contribute to culturalresources that ‘interfere with a broader role for fathers thatincludes more nurturing and housework’ (p. 145).

A number of more specific predictions were made. Itwas hypothesised that fathers would be significantly lesslikely to appear than mothers. We predicted that findingshere would be broadly in line with those of Anderson andHamilton’s US study, as both countries have similar levels

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270 261

of gender equality (United Nations Development Report2010) and share cultural stereotypes around masculinityand femininity to a large extent (Furnham and Bitar 1993;Gilly 1988). Picturebooks also appear to play a similar rolein normative cultural, pre-educational, and familial routines(Babycenter 2010; Halsey 2010). We made the additionalhypothesis that as well as appearing less often, fatherswould be less likely than mothers to appear at home or withtheir children, and more likely to appear alone. Clearly sucha pattern would reinforce the stereotype of invisible fathers,if it is found that when they are visible, they are less likelyto appear with their children. Being portrayed alone morefrequently than mothers would reflect the more generalnorm of male characters being more likely to be appearalone (independent and autonomous) than female characters(dependent and embedded in relationships) (Gooden andGooden 2001). These hypotheses clearly build on Andersonand Hamilton’s study; there is little precedent for a specificfocus on parental stereotypes elsewhere, though as we havediscussed, their findings broadly reiterate stereotypicalrepresentations found in accounts of main characters inpicturebooks.

A further hypothesis reflecting Anderson and Hamilton’spreviously published data is that fathers would be lesslikely than mothers to be portrayed touching their children.The logic here is that physical contact reflects a rudimen-tary visual measure of the nurturing behaviour essential toroutine childcare. The prevalence of mothers touching theirchildren would reflect, and perhaps reinforce, the traditionalstereotype of women and mothers as default carers andcomforters of children. The absence of fathers touchingtheir children would support the corollary stereotype thatthe role of men and fathers is to be more emotionallydistant and (literally) ‘hands-off ’ when it comes toeveryday nurturing behaviour. Anderson and Hamiltonmade similar predictions about nurturing behaviour (overalltouch, carry, hug, kiss, other contact, talk, and feed) thatwere upheld. Again there is little precedent, aside from theaforementioned study, in the analysis of touch or parentingin terms of gender stereotyping in children’s books. Inseeking to extend the remit of the present study, weadditionally hypothesised that mothers, although morelikely than fathers to be touching their children overall,would be overrepresented in some forms of touching, butnot others. Specifically we predicted that fathers would beless involved in ‘nurturing’ and ‘functional’ touching thanmothers, but not necessarily less involved in ‘playful’touching. We made this distinction as playful touching mayactually be admissible within a traditional gender stereotypeof fathering (Weitzman et al. 1972), where it reinforces afather’s active and educational role.

Our next hypothesis was that fathers would be lesslikely to express any emotion than mothers. This

prediction essentially reflects Anderson and Hamilton’s(2005) hypothesis concerning emotional expressionthough we considered it probable that mothers would bemore likely to express any emotion, not just ‘stereotypicallyfeminine emotions of happiness and sadness’ (p. 146). Webase this prediction on an extension of the ramifications of theprofound invisibility of fathers, suggesting that even whenpresent, fathers are less likely to be represented as anemotional presence in any form. To test this hypothesismore comprehensively, we took the opportunity to extendthe range of emotions accounted for by the codinginstrument (for example examples of smiling, laughing,encouraging, consoling, sadness, crying, exasperation,fear, and worry).

Anderson and Hamilton (2005) did not code foractivities and settings in any detail beyond what wascaptured in their focus on ‘nurturing behaviour’: ‘Touching(by hand), carrying, hugging, kissing, making other typesof physical contact with, talking to, and feeding’ (p. 147).Previous studies that have considered the activities, and to alesser extent settings, of main characters in Americanpopular and award-winning children’s picturebooks, havefound male characters to be more likely to be depictedoutdoors (Hamilton et al. 2006) and less likely to beinvolved in childcare or domestic duties than their femalecounterparts (Gooden and Gooden 2001). Consequently,our final hypothesis was that when mothers and fathers didappear, they would be depicted as involved in stereotyp-ical gender activities and settings. We specifically pre-dicted that fathers would be less likely to be pictured asinvolved in domestic activities (for example cooking,cleaning), and childcare activities (for example bath time,bed time) than mothers. These are only a handful ofpossible types of activities and settings that could becoded for, but for the purposes of this study they wereconsidered apposite as reflections of traditional genderstereotypes.

In sum the specific hypotheses being tested, based on acount of the number of times parents appear and arereferred to in each book within the sample, coding everypage/scene and sentence, are as follows: (1) Representa-tions of fathers would be significantly less likely to appearthan representations of mothers; (2) fathers would be lesslikely to appear at home; (3) fathers would be less likely toappear with their children; (4) fathers would be morelikely to appear alone; (5) fathers would be less likely tobe portrayed touching their children than mothers;including sub-categories of ‘nurturing’ and ‘functional’touching, but not necessarily less ‘playful’ touching; (6)fathers would be less likely to express any emotion thanmothers; (7) fathers would be less likely than mothers tobe pictured as involved in domestic activities andchildcare.

262 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270

Method

Sample

The sample was based on best-selling pre-school children’spicturebooks in the UK in 1 year (2008), as determined byNielsen BookScan (2010), a company which collects theretail sales information from point of sale systems. Theinformation provided allowed us to focus in on picturebookfiction in the 0–5 years category (‘preschool’) in establish-ing our initial sample, which consisted of 750 books. Salesfigures on the list ranged from 280,000 in the UK in 1 yearat the top to 2000 at the bottom. A sub-sample was thenselected based on the single criteria that they contained anyrepresentations of parents; all texts which had no image orreference to parents were excluded. From this sub-sampleof approximately 160 books a random sample of 60 wasselected for the present analysis (see Appendix 1). A poweranalysis was carried out using the GPower statisticalprogramme (Faul et al. 2009). This revealed that, with aneffect size of .5, this sample size would be sufficient togenerate a power .80 for the selected data analysis.

Procedure

Coding Instrument Design

Two of the authors piloted an adapted version of thecoding instrument used in Anderson and Hamilton’sstudy (2005). Based on their initial reading of children’spicture books, the instrument was edited and refinedbefore further preliminary testing. Colleagues in theSchool of Applied Social Sciences at the University ofBrighton then read a sample of eight books, completingcopies of the preliminary coding sheets. The groupdiscussed queries and issues with the coding process.The authors modified the instrument in light of thisdiscussion, and then produced a revised coding sheet andcoding instructions. The process was then repeated: Therevised coding sheet was used by the group to codeanother sample, followed by further discussion andrevision until the research team was confident that thesample was being coded consistently by all readers. Clearinstructions on coding were drawn up and each book inthe final random sample was then coded independently bytwo of the authors.

Instrument Contents

The coding instrument was developed to record frequenciesof the detail of mother and father appearances, scene byscene in each book sampled. The details of the codinginstrument took Anderson and Hamilton’s (2005) 43 items

as a point of departure. Each occurrence of the appearance,setting, expression and activity of characters identifiable intext and/or pictures as mothers or fathers was coded. Everyillustrated page, or every scene if there were multiplescenes per page, was coded in every book in the sample.Scoring involved frequency counts per book—recordingcounts as individual marks which were then summed. Thecoding instrument contained 140 items reflecting thehypotheses. Basic information on each book, includingtitle, name and gender of author/illustrator, year ofpublication was collected in items 1–7. Item 8 accountedfor overall number of appearances of mothers and fathers.Items 9–12 addressed occupations of parents. Items 13–15were counts of the general setting of parents (indoors,outdoors, unclear). The specific setting/location of eachparental appearance (home, work, school/nursery, park,other public, nature, shopping, other) was recorded in items16–23. All subsequent items noted the gender of parents incombination with gender of child(ren) where scenes wereshared. Items 24–31 covered the various possible permuta-tions of family scenes (for example mother alone, motherand father only, mother with son, mother with daughter,mother with both). Items 32–35 addressed any appearanceof parents touching or being touched (for example fathertouching or being touched by son, daughter or unspecifiedgender). More specific touching activity was coded for interms of hugging/cuddling, carrying/holding, piggyback/shoulders, handholding, pushing, dressing/undressing, othertouching not play and play contact in items 36–62. A rangeof gendered parental activities, including but not onlyvariants of nurturing and domestic work were coded for initems 63–106 (for example bath-time, reading, DIY,housework and bedtime routine). Items 107–126 concernedexplicit communication behaviour—disciplining, instruct-ing, consoling, encouraging, talking with. Items 127–135were dedicated to emotional expressions of anger, sadness,happiness, fear, worry, affection, confusion, and neutral/unreadable. The final four items counted all references toparents in the text. Items are grouped together into broadercategories for the purposes of analysis.

An Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was gener-ated in order to test interrater reliability of the codinginstrument. This has been suggested as an appropriateanalysis for interrater reliability (Gliner and Morgan2000) and was used in order to provide an account of thereliability between Rater A and Rater B. Reliability wascalculated using the 60 books coded by two raters. TheICC analyses for observations between raters on scores forthe coding instrument was .957. This high coefficientrepresents an excellent standard of interrater reliability(Aronson et al. 2002). Hinojosa and Kramer (1998)suggest specifically that an ICC of .85 be considered anacceptable level of interrater reliability. Hence the reliability

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270 263

of this instrument is clearly well beyond this convention ofacceptability.

Data Analysis

The SPSS 16 statistical package was used to perform theanalyses in this study. In order to ensure the accuracy andintegrity of the dataset, a set of frequency checks wascarried out. To supplement this, 10% of the dataset waschecked in order to test whether the number of data entryerrors was sufficiently low. It was decided that, should thenumber of errors fall below the 1% level then the data setwas sufficiently accurate to proceed to analyses. The 1%level of acceptable error count was 39. Our actual recordederror count was 16 and so it was considered that the dataentry process was accurate. Strong rater agreement inresearch contexts is important because it demonstrates thatresearchers and practitioners can consider the same caseinformation similarly (Murrie et al. 2009). Since the dataare based on counts, χ2 analyses were used to assesswhether the paired observations of parental gender andactions were independent of each other. The counts for theappearance variables in Tables 1 and 2 were subject to thecategorisation of each book into high, medium and lowpresence through a 33rd percentile split. That is, thecategory ‘low’ constituted scores in the first percentileband, ‘medium’ constituted scores in the second percentileband and ‘high’ constituted scores in the final thirdpercentile. The data in Table 2 additionally considers thepresence of mothers and fathers in the home as a proportionof the overall appearances of mothers and fathers. For thevariables in Tables 3 and 4 the counts for the appearanceand action variables were split into presence and absencecategories as a result of the relatively low counts ofappearances and actions present. In order to minimise theprobability of generating a Type-I error, all analyses weresubject to appropriate Bonferonni corrections. We subse-quently generated an original Bonferroni level of signifi-cance by dividing .05 by the number of analyses used. Thisled to a new level of significance that we felt would havecreated an increased probability in the chance of incurring atype-II error. As such, .01 was used in order to achieve anacceptable balance in the probability of incurring a type I orType II error.

Results

The first hypothesis was that fathers would be significantlyless likely to appear than mothers. This prediction wastested using a single item counting the occurrences of animage of a mother or father on each page/scene of everybook in the sample. A total of 717 images of a parent werefound and subsequently coded; 439 mothers, 278 fathers, aratio of 1.6:1. As Table 1 illustrates, mothers weresignificantly more likely to appear than fathers. The secondprediction was that fathers would be less likely thanmothers to appear at home—Table 2 indicates that differ-ences did not reach significance. The third hypothesis wasthat fathers would be less likely to appear with theirchildren and more likely to appear alone. Table 3 indicatesthat this hypothesis was not confirmed. The fourthhypothesis that fathers would be less likely to be portrayedtouching their children than mothers, and less likely to beinvolved in ‘nurturing’ and ‘functional’ touching, but notnecessarily less ‘playful’ touching, than mothers, waspartially supported, as specified in Table 4. Fathers werefound to be significantly less likely to be depicted inphysical contact with their children, though the relatedpredictions regarding specific forms of touching, identifiedin Table 4, were not upheld.

The fifth prediction was that fathers would be less likelyto express any emotion than mothers. This predictionstemmed from the reasoning that the invisibility of fathersmight stretch as far as their lacking a clear emotionaldimension, reflecting a ‘hands-off ’ and detached depictionof their role. This prediction was upheld. Table 4 indicatesthat mothers expressed positive and negative emotionssignificantly more than fathers.

The final prediction was that mothers and fathers wouldfollow traditional gender stereotypes in terms of theactivities they appeared to be engaged in. Traditionalgender stereotypes were translated into the following

Table 1 Appearances of parental characters (low, medium or highfrequency)

Overall appearances** Low Medium High

Mother appears 16.7% 36.7% 46.7%

Father appears 43.3% 40.0% 16.7%

**<.001

Table 2 Appearances of parental characters at home

Appearances at homea Low Medium High

Mother 30.0% 35.0% 35.0%

Father 50.0% 18.3% 31.7%

aAs a proportion of scenes in which a parent appears

Table 3 Appearances of parental characters with others

Appearance variable Mother Father

One parent present with son 46.7% 26.7%

One parent present with daughter 33.3% 15.3%

Parent on their own without children 26.7% 18.3%

264 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270

activities: As mothers being more likely/fathers less likely tobe represented as involved in domestic activities (for examplecooking, cleaning), and childcare activities (for example bathtime, bed time). The hypothesis was partially upheld. Table 4indicates a comparison of mothers and fathers in terms ofactivities they were featured as involved in. Despite notbeing more likely to feature in and around the home thanfathers (see Table 2), mothers were more frequently depictedundertaking various domestic chores in the home thanfathers—in fact this was the most significant difference ofthe study. There were no significant differences betweenmothers and fathers in terms of those childcare activities notclassed under touching.

Discussion

Our results mirror earlier studies of gendered stereotypingof adult characters in children’s literature (Jackson and Gee2005; Weitzman et al. 1972), and Anderson and Hamilton’smore recent analysis of parenting stereotypes in particular(2005), on a fundamental point: Fathers are notable largelyby their absence. In addition the books studied have a widecirculation in the UK and are marketed towards an age-group particularly susceptible to gender stereotyping.

Anderson and Hamilton’s subsequent assertion thatpicturebooks contribute to cultural resources that ‘interferewith a broader role for fathers that includes more nurturingand housework’ (2005, p. 145) has only been partiallyconfirmed however. Fathers were not significantly lesslikely to appear with their children, but were less likely tobe pictured touching them. They were not significantly lesslikely to be pictured at home, but were less likely to befeatured undertaking domestic chores. They were less likelythan mothers to be depicted displaying any form of explicit,recognisable emotion. These findings confirm father ‘invis-ibility’, at a primary level of visual representation,

regarding some aspects of traditional gender stereotypes—a mother’s physical closeness to her children, her emotion-ality, and her domestic orientation—at a crude butimportant level. More detailed comparisons indicate a morecomplex pattern of representations however.

Contrary to Anderson and Hamilton’s findings, fatherswere not significantly less likely to be depicted as nurturingtheir children via various forms of touching, neither werethey underrepresented in other activities related to caringfor children. The lack of a significant disparity betweenportrayals of fathers and mothers involved in nurturingcontact and childcare activities perhaps suggests somemovement away from invisibility and towards the ideal ofinvolved fatherhood outlined above. The substantial under-representation of fathers involved in forms of routinedomestic chores suggests that the celebration of moreprogressive representations in our sample should be furtherqualified however.

Our results may reflect increased cultural acceptabilityfor the idea that fathers should have a caring and nurturingrelationship with their children, at least in the UK, and thata shared role in caring for children is normal, in much ofthe developed world. If they do, our results also make someimportant qualifications. A lack of significant difference interms of childcare activity does not extend to physicalcontact or emotional engagement; potentially portraying thepaternal role as literally more ‘hands-off ’, distant, andtherefore one-dimensional. It could be argued that bypresenting fathers as stereotypically uninvolved in familylife in an important sense in cultural scripts, men anddeveloping boys are still being encouraged to miss out on‘the privilege and emotional development that may comefrom increased contact and work with children’ (Hearn1994, p. 48); not least those that might be in their care.

Our findings also indicate that there is a danger that the‘dirty work’ of mundane domestic chores remains margin-alised as ‘women’s work’ in the rush to romanticiseinvolved fatherhood in representational terms. It may bethat it is more difficult to culturally validate domesticchores in connection with masculinity than it is childcare.Indeed, for women, household activities related to estab-lished stereotypical gender roles appear to persist, withAmerican mothers performing more housework than fatherseven when both work full-time (Bond et al. 2002). Studiesin the UK make similar claims about ‘new’ chores such asdomestic recycling (Oates and McDonald 2006); thoughother research has identified moves towards greater equalityin the division of domestic labour (Sullivan 2000).

No doubt the ‘piecemeal’ and ‘discontinuous’ nature ofprogress in attenuating traditional notions of masculinityand femininity argued to be taking place across variousfields of action (McNay 1999), is reflected in contemporarypicturebook portrayals of parents. The present study builds

Table 4 Actions of parental characters present

Action by parent (as present) Mother Father

Overall touching * 55.0% 30.0%

Playful contact 3.3% 1.7%

Functional contact 28.3% 11.7%

Explicitly nurturing 20.0% 5.0%

Positive emotion** 76.7% 41.7%

Negative emotion* 50.0% 26.7%

Childcare activity 40.0% 30.0%

Housework** 41.7% 8.3%

Disciplining 5.0% 5.0%

*<.01 **<.001

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270 265

on previous work to suggest that cultural representations ofmothers and fathers continue to perpetuate problematicstereotypes—but unevenly. If we are to avoid perpetuatinga situation where ‘the choice of being an active father isjeopardized by evoking a very basic conflict in the symbolicuniverse of masculinity’ (Hojgaard 1997, p. 245), changes inthat symbolic universe need to be more forthcoming than thecontemporary truism of involved fatherhood suggests,despite some ground being gained.

The study offered a number of developments in relationto previous studies. Drawing from a sample of best-sellingpicturebooks suggests that we have studied texts morelikely to be actually read by parents, carers, and childrenthan the common focus on award-winners. The range ofbooks sampled was narrowed to those aimed at pre-schoolchildren, whilst most previous studies have made noattempt to differentiate in this way. Pre-school age iscommonly considered the developmental stage duringwhich children are most susceptible to gender stereotypesin the formation of their own gender schema. Thus themodifications introduced to make the present study distinctfrom Anderson and Hamilton’s make the findings particu-larly concerning to those addressing gender role socializa-tion and its consequences for gender inequalities.

In contrast to previous studies we narrowed our initialsample according to whether they contained any represen-tations of parents, excluding all texts which had no imageor reference to parents. Although time-consuming (unless itwas obvious from the cover, publicity or title, the only wayto do this was to read the books in situ), this process furtherstrengthened our confidence that the remaining total sampleof 160 books reflected an advance on previous research interms of representativeness of young children’s picture-books featuring images of parents. Interestingly theproportion of books featuring images of parents in thissample is approximately 21%; much lower than Andersonand Hamilton’s (2005) final sample of books includingparental figures, which was almost 70% of their originalsample of various best-seller lists and prize-winners. Thismight reflect the different ways each study collected itssample, the nature of the sample, or the different nationalcontexts—we can only speculate. Although the eventualsub-sample of 60 books could be deemed small in size, theextended coding instrument allowed for thorough scrutiny,blurring the boundaries between qualitative and quantitativecontent analysis, whilst the GPower statistical poweranalysis showed that the sample size was sufficient. Whilstwe could not claim that the books in the sample were beingread, or that they were the only books being read, inpractical terms we were confident that our sample wasreasonably representative of books with a wide circulationcompared to a focus on prize-winning texts. In addition,the UK focus provides an interesting corrective to the

US-centred literature, and confirms that persistent genderstereotyping in popular media is not restricted to theUSA.

The relative ambivalence of our findings compared toAnderson and Hamilton’s (2005) may be attributable tochanges in the sample (and/or the prevalence of genderstereotypes more generally) over time, a UK sample, or thenarrower intended age-range of the books being analyzed.Additionally, as far as we are able to ascertain, Andersonand Hamilton (2005) used a considerable number ofpairwise T-tests without the application of appropriateBonferroni corrections to reduce the considerable probabil-ity of generating a Type-I error. The calibration ofsignificance at p<.01 in the present study represented anattempt to balance the respective probabilities of making aType-I or Type-II error. As such we believe this minimisedthe potential for our analysis to present a spurious significantresult. Moreover while Anderson and Hamilton’s (2005)study included key measurement criteria as regards parentalgender roles, it is our contention that a number of theircriteria would benefit from further specificity. The instru-ment used in the present study, through a more detailed arrayof measurement items, represented an attempt to reflect thenuanced and sophisticated ways in which parental identitiesare configured in children’s picturebooks. The high interraterreliability of the coding instrument suggests that it is a viableinstrument with which to measure gendered representationsof parenthood for future research.

There are numerous limitations to the present study. Thesample was reflective of high sales but this does notguarantee wide readership nor inform us about the contextin which they are read. In terms of the first point the initialintention was to supplement sales figures with UK libraryborrowing figures. However, at the time of data collection,borrowing figures were not detailed or extensive enough tomeaningfully integrate the data into a sample of best-sellers. Future research might benefit from advances inlibrary technologies or consider focussing on the micro-settings of individual libraries. If resources allow it,surveying what parents read with their children and basingone’s sample on the results is a commendable attempt topinpoint books that are actually being read (Tepper andCassidy 1999). There are clear limitations to the general-izability of our results, not least in terms of the UK focus.Further studies within and across cultures are necessary tobuild up a composite picture.

Although attempts have been made here to look intogreater detail at established themes in the content analysisof gender stereotypes, we do not profess total confidence inour own attempts at categorisation. It may be that differentactivities could be grouped under the heading ‘childcare’and ‘domestic activity’ perhaps, from which differentresults might follow. Any quantitative coding instrument

266 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270

is inevitably limited in that it embodies an essentiallyarbitrary set of precepts and a different instrument andfocus may have found different results. The process ofquantitative content analysis itself offers an abstractedportrayal of the interrelated dynamics of stereotypes foundin picturebooks. For example the placing of parents inrelation to each other, their positioning in relation to anoverall narrative, associated descriptive terms, and thenuances of relationships between parents, children andothers of both genders often remain opaque; subsequently astrong case could again be made for qualitative content ornarrative analysis to provided a thicker description ofgender representations. It should also be noted that whiledifferences may have been significant, in some cases theactual frequencies of either parent fulfilling the categorywere very small. This suggests that future refinements ofthe coding instrument items are possible within aquantitative approach, incorporating novel activities andbehaviours.

Conclusion

In sum, we extended and refined findings indicating animbalance in representations of mothers and fathers, inwhich fathers are significantly under-represented in general,and in terms of physical contact and emotional expressionin relation to their children. They remain ‘invisible’ anduninvolved in an important sense, though the subtleties ofour results suggest some acknowledgment of fatherhood asinvolved in childcare activity, if not domestic chores. Inreflecting on the results of their content analysis, Andersonand Hamilton (2005) argue that:

A risk of stereotypical portrayals is that they maysocialize children and parents at important periods intheir development, when parents identify their role inthe spectrum from affectionate caregiver to deadbeatabsentee, and when children form their expectationsof parents. (p. 150)

The present study analyzed a sample more sharplyfocused on books targeted at preschool children, an agewhich education psychology suggests is when children aremost susceptible to stereotypes, when they are developingtheir very sense of the reality of the world of the aroundthem (Powlishta et al. 1993). Of course picturebooks can beread alone, but also with adults who may actively negotiatemeanings in communication with children, in a culturalcontext saturated by a plethora of media portrayals of everyaspect of reality. Caution is vital in making claims about theeffect of stereotypical representations upon children—thetraffic between is likely to be fraught with structural,situational, and idiosyncratic translations. However, ifrepresentations of parents in children’s picturebooks are a

reflection of cultural norms to anything approaching theextent suggested by the opening quote, obstacles toegalitarian parenthood remain, and the quality of life ofchildren and parents of both genders are truncated as aresult.

Appendix 1

Sample Details (author; illustrator; year first published inany edition; publisher)

Ahlberg, A. & Ahlberg, J. (1990). Starting School.London: Puffin.

Ahlberg, A. & Ahlberg, J. (1978). Each Peach PearPlum. London: Puffin.

Ahlberg, A. & Ahlberg, J. (1977). Burglar Bill. London:Puffin.

Ahlberg, A. & Ahlberg, J. (1978). Cops and Robbers.London: Puffin.

Alborough, J. (2003). Some Dogs Do. Walker Books.Andreae, G. & Cabban, V. (2001). There’s a House

Inside My Mummy: London: Orchard Picturebooks.Anholt, L. & Anholt, C. (1997). Going to Playgroup.

London: Orchard Picturebooks.Bergman, M. & Maland, N. (2007). Oliver Who Would

Not Sleep. London: Hodder Children’s Books.Briggs, R. (1978). The Snowman. London: Puffin.Brown, J & Nash, S. (1968). Flat Stanley. London:

Egmont Books.Browne, A. (2000). My Dad. London: Doubleday.Browne, A. (2005). My Mum. London: Doubleday.Donaldson, J. & Scheffler, A. (2000). Monkey Puzzle.

London: Pan Macmillan.Donaldson, J. & Scheffler, A. (2002). The Smartest

Giant in Town. London: Pan Macmillan.Donaldson, J. & Scheffler, A. (2004). The Gruffalo’s

Child. London: Pan Macmillan.Donaldson, J. & Scheffler, A. (2005). Charlie Cook’s

Favourite Book. London: Pan Macmillan.Donaldson, J. & Roberts, D. (2007). Tyrannosaurus

Drip. London: Pan Macmillan.Falconer, I. (2000). Olivia. London: Simon & Schuster.Freedman, C. & Cort, B. (2007). Aliens Love Under-

pants! London: Simon & Schuster.Freedman, C. & Cort, B. (2008). Dinosaurs Love

Underpants. London: Simon & Schuster.Gravett, E. (2007). Monkey and Me. London: Pan

Macmillan.Hill, E. (1981). Spot’s First Walk. London: Puffin.Hill, E. (1987) Spot Goes to the Farm. London: Puffin.Hill, E. (1991) Spot Goes to the Park. London: Puffin.Holabird, K. & Craig, H. (1983). Angelina Ballerina.

London: Puffin.

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270 267

Hughes, S. (1977). Dogger. London: Red Fox.Hughes, S. (1981). Alfie Gets in First. London: Red

Fox.Kerr, J. (1970). Mog the Forgetful Cat. London: Harper

Collins Children’s Books.Kerr, J. (1988). Mog and Bunny. Harper Collins Child-

ren’s Books.Kerr, J. (1996). Mog and the V.E.T. Harper Collins

Children’s Books.McBratney, S. Jeram, A. (2004). You’re All My Favour-

ites. Walker Books.McKee, D. (1980). Not Now Bernard. London: Red Fox.Monks, L. (2004). Aaaarrgghh, Spider! London:

Egmont Books.Murphy, J. (1980). Peace at Last. London: Macmillan

Children’s Books.Murphy, J. (1987). Five Minutes’ Peace. London:

Walker Books.Postgate, D. (2007). Smelly Bill Stinks Again. London:

Meadowside Children’s Books.Roberts, D. (2002). Dirty Bertie. London: Little Tiger

Press.Rosen, M. & Oxenbury, H. (1989). We’re Going on a

Bear Hunt. London: Walker Books.Ross, T. (1984). I’m Coming to Get You. London:

Andersen Press.Ross, T. (2007). I Want My Light On! London: Andersen

Press.Ross, T. (2007). I Want My Tent. London: Andersen

Press.Ross, T. (1986). I Want My Potty. London: Harper

Collins Children’s Books.Ross, T. (2007). I Don’t Want a Cold. London: Andersen

Press.Ross, T. (2008). I Don’t Want to Comb My Hair!

London: Andersen Press.Shields, G. & Reeve, R. (2008). Sam’s Snowflake.

London: Macmillan Children’s Books.Simmons, J. (2001). Where the Fairies Fly. London:

Orchard Picturebooks.Stanley, M. (2001). Lettice the Dancing Rabbit. London:

HarperCollins Children’s Books.Stephens, H. (2008). Fleabag. London: Alison Green

Books.Stimson, J. (2008). Stories for 3 Year Olds. London:

Ladybird.Stimson, J. (2008). Stories for 4 Year Olds. London:

Ladybird.Stimson, J. (2008). Stories for 5 Year Olds. Ladybird.Waddell, M. & Benson, P. (1992). Owl Babies. London:

Walker Books.Whybrow, I. (2004). Harry and the Dinosaurs at the

Museum. London: Puffin.

Whybrow, I. (1999). Harry and the Bucketful ofDinosaurs. London: Puffin.

Whybrow, I. (2006). Harry and the Dinosaurs Go toSchool. London: Puffin.

Whybrow, I. (2008). Achoo! We’re Not Well! Harry &His Bucket Full of Dinosaurs. London: Puffin.

Willis, J. & Parsons, G. (2008). There’s an Ouch in MyPouch! London: Puffin.

Wilson, K. & Chapman, J. (2008). Where is Home, LittlePip? London: Simon & Schuster.

Yolen, J. & Teague, M. (2000). How Do Dinosaurs SayGood Night? London: Harper Collins Children’s Books.

Yolen, J. & Teague, M. (2005) How Do Dinosaurs EatTheir Food? London: Harper Collins Children’s Books.

References

Allen, A. M., Allen, D. N., & Sigler, G. (1993). Changes in sex-rolestereotyping in Caldecott Medal Award Picture Books 1938–1988. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 7, 67–73.doi:10.1080/02568549309594842.

American Library Association (2009). Caldecott terms & criteria.Retrieved from the American Library Association website: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/caldecottmedal/caldecottterms/caldecottterms.cfm.

Anderson, D. A., & Hamilton, M. (2005). Gender role stereotyping ofparents in children’s picture books: The invisible father. SexRoles, 52, 145–151. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1290-8.

Aronson, N., Alonso, J., Burnam, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., &Perrin, E. (2002). Assessing health status and quality of lifeinstruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of LifeResearch, 11, 193–205. doi:10.1023/A:1015291021312.

Babycenter (2010). Bedtime rituals: Best bets. Retrieved from http://www.babycenter.com/0_bedtime-rituals-bestbets_1292649.bc#articlesection7.

Blake, J., & Maiese, N. (2008). No fairytale… The benefits of thebedtime story. The Psychologist, 21, 386–388.

Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002).Highlights of the national study of the changing wokforce. NewYork: Families and Work Institute.

Bowers Andrews, A., Luckey, I., Bolden, E., Whiting-Fickling, J., &Lind, K. A. (2004). Public perceptions about father involvementresults of a statewide household survey. Journal of Family Issues,25, 603–633. doi:10.1177/0192513X03258303.

Bradbard, M. R., Martin, C. L., Endsley, R. C., & Halverson, C. F. (1986).Influence of sex stereotypes on children’s exploration and memory:A competence versus performance distinction. DevelopmentalPsychology, 22, 481–486. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.481.

Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A. (2006). From fatherhood to fathering:Transmission and change among British fathers in four-generationfamilies. Sociology, 40, 335–352. doi:10.1177/0038038506062036.

Clark, R., Guilmain, J., Saucier, K., & Tavarez, J. (2003). Two stepsforward, one step back: The presence of female characters andgender stereotyping in award-winning picture books between the1930s and the 1960s. Sex Roles, 49, 439–449. doi:10.1023/A:1025820404277.

Craig, L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison ofhow mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children.Gender and Society, 20, 259–281. doi:10.1177/0891243205285212.

268 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270

Daly, K. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. Journal ofFamily Issues, 14, 510–530. doi:10.1177/019251393014004003.

Evans, M. A., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2005). What children are looking atduring shared storybook reading evidence from eye movementmonitoring. Psychological Science, 16, 913–920. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01636.x.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statisticalpower analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation andregression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.

Frawley, T. J. (2008). Gender schema and prejudicial recall: Howchildren misremember, fabricate, and distort gendered picturebook information. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,22, 291–303. doi:10.1080/02568540809594628.

Furnham, A., & Bitar, N. (1993). The stereotyped portrayal of menand women in British television advertisements. Sex Roles, 29,297–310. doi:10.1007/BF00289940.

Gilly, M. (1988). Sex roles in advertising: A comparison of televisionadvertisements in Australia, Mexico, and the United States.Journal of Marketing, 52, 75–85.

Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in appliedsettings: An integrated approach to design and analysis.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gooden, A. M., & Gooden, M. A. (2001). Gender representation innotable children’s picture books 1995–1999. Sex Roles, 45, 89–101. doi:10.1023/A:1013064418674.

Hall, S. S. (2005). Change in paternal involvement from 1977 to 1997:A cohort analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences ResearchJournal, 34, 127–139. doi:10.1177/1077727X05280664.

Halsey, C. (2010). Children and sleep. BBC Health. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/child_development/primary_sleep.shtml.

Hamilton, M. C., Anderson, D., Broaddus, M., & Young, K. (2006).Gender stereotyping and under-representation of female charac-ters in 200 popular children’s picture books: A twenty-firstcentury update. Sex Roles, 55, 757–776. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9128-6.

Hearn, J. (1994). Research in men and masculinities: Some sociolog-ical issues and possibilities. Journal of Sociology, 30, 47–70.doi:10.1177/144078339403000104.

Hinojosa, J., & Kramer, P. (1998). Occupational therapy evaluation:Obtaining and interpreting data. Bethesda: The AmericanOccupational Therapy Association.

Hobson, B. (Ed.). (2008). Making men into fathers: Men, masculin-ities and the social politics of fatherhood. London: Sage.

Hojgaard, L. (1997). Working fathers: Caught in the web of thesymbolic order of gender. Acta Sociologica, 40, 245–261.doi:10.1177/000169939704000302.

Hunt, P. (2009). The world in pictures. In S. Hallam (Ed.), Illustratedchildren’s books (pp. 8–26). London: Black Dog.

Jackson, S., & Gee, S. (2005). “Look, Janet,” “No, you look, John”:Constructions of gender in early school reader illustrations across50 years. Gender and Education, 17, 115–128. doi:10.1080/0954025042000301410.

Jamieson, L. (1999). Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the‘Pure Relationship’. Sociology, 33, 477–494. doi:10.1177/S0038038599000310.

Johansson, T., & Klinth, R. (2008). Caring fathers: The ideology ofgender equality and masculine positions. Men and Masculinities,11, 42–62. doi:10.1177/1097184X06291899.

Karniol, R., & Gal-Disegni, M. (2009). The impact of gender-fairversus gender-stereotyped basal readers on 1st-grade children’sgender stereotypes: A natural experiment. The free library.Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+impact+of+gender-fair+versus+gender-stereotyped+basal+readers+on…-a0204681841. doi:10.1080/02568540909594670.

Karrass, J., & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (2005). Effects of sharedparent–infant book reading on early language acquisition.Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 133–148. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.003.

Kolbe, R., & LaVoie, J. C. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping in preschoolchildren’s picture books. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 369–374.

Kortenhaus, C. M., & Demarest, J. (1993). Gender role stereotyping inchildren’s literature: An update. Sex Roles, 28, 219–232.doi:10.1007/BF00299282.

Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). The content analysisreader. London: Sage.

La Rossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations,37, 451–457.

La Rossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood: A social andpolitical history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lees, S., & Senyard, J. (1985). Taste and table manners: Class andgender in children’s books of the 1950s. Journal of Sociology,21, 174–193. doi:10.1177/144078338502100202.

Ly Kok, J., & Findlay, B. (2006). An exploration of sex-rolestereotyping in Australian award-winning children’s picturebooks. Australian Library Journal, 55, 248–261.

McNay, L. (1999). Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu andthe Limits of Reflexivity. Theory, Culture and Society, 16, 95–117.doi:10.1177/026327699016001007.

Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Woods, C., & Tussey,C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures ofsexually violent predator proceedings. Psychology, Public Policy& Law, 15, 19–53. doi:10.1037/a0014897.

Nielsen BookScan (2010). Retrieved from http://www.nielsenbookscan.co.uk.

Noble, F. (2010). Every picture(book) tells a story: Green shoots areemerging in the picturebook genre. Bookseller, 5420, 27.

Oates, C. J., & McDonald, S. (2006). Recycling and the domesticdivision of labour: Is green pink or blue? Sociology, 40, 417–433.doi:10.1177/0038038506063667.

Oskamp, S., Kaufman, K., & Wolterbeek, L. A. (1996). Gender roleportrayals in preschool picture books. Handbook of GenderResearch, 11, 27–39.

Peterson, S. B., & Lach, M. A. (1990). Gender stereotypes inchildren’s books: Their prevalence and influence on cognitiveand affective development. Gender and Education, 2, 185–197.doi:10.1080/0954025900020204.

Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., & Moller, L. C. (1993). The stability ofindividual differences in gender typing: Implications for under-standing gender segregation. Sex Roles, 29, 723–737. doi:10.1007/BF00289214.

Raikes, H., Pan, B. A., & Luze, G. (2006). Mother–child bookreadingin low-income families. Child Development, 77, 924–953.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00911.x.

Randerson, J. (2008, May 13). Benefits of bedtime reading. TheGuardian newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/13/schools.uk4.

Speakman, S., & Marchington, M. (1999). Ambivalent patriarchs,breadwinners and housework. Work Employment & Society, 13,83–105. doi:10.1177/09500179922117809.

Stone, P. (2009). Pre-school sector picture perfect: Philip Stonediscovers a buoyant picture book market, with many booksenjoying an anniversary in 2009. Bookseller, 5386, 27.

Sullivan, O. (2000). The division of domestic labour: Twenty years ofchange? Sociology, 34, 437–456. doi:10.1177/S0038038500000286.

Sunderland, J. (2000). Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant and linemanager: Discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourseand Society, 11, 249–274. doi:10.1177/0957926500011002006.

Sunderland, J. (2006). ‘Parenting’ or ‘mothering’? The case of modernchildcare magazines. Discourse & Society, 17, 503–527.doi:10.1177/0957926506063126.

Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270 269

Tepper, C. A., & Cassidy, K. W. (1999). Gender differences inemotional language in children’s picture books. Sex Roles, 40,265–280. doi:10.1023/A:1018803122469.

Turner, P. J., & Gervai, J. (1995). A multidimensional study of gendertyping in preschool children and their parents: Personality,attitudes, preferences, behavior, and cultural differences. Devel-opmental Psychology, 31, 759–772.

United Nations Development Report (2010). Gender developmentindex. Retrieved from the United Nations website: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/89106.html.

Ussher, J. (1997). Fantasies of femininity: Reframing the boundariesof sex. London: Penguin.

Weitzman, L. J., Eifler, D., Hokada, E., & Ross, C. (1972). Sex-rolesocialization in picture books for preschool children. TheAmerican Journal of Sociology, 77, 1125–1150. doi:10.1086/225261.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development andemergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06247.x.

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Acceleratinglanguage development through picture book reading. Developmen-tal Psychology, 24, 552–559. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552.

Williams, S. (2008). What is fatherhood? Searching for the reflexivefather. Sociology, 42, 487–502. doi:10.1177/0038038508088837.

Witt, S. D. (2000). The influence of television on children’s genderrole socialization. The Journal of Childhood Education: InfancyThrough Adolescence, 76, 322–324. Retrieved from http://gozips.uakron.edu/∼susan8/arttv.htm.

Zemore, E. S., Fiske, T. S., & Kim, H. (2000). Gender stereotypes andthe dynamics of social interaction. In T. B. Eckes & H. M.Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender(pp. 207–241). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

270 Sex Roles (2011) 65:259–270