Back

Gender attitudes, self-perceived traits, and developmental outcomes among Pakistani children in middle childhood

Pan, Y.; Frost, A.; Bates, L.; Kachoria, A. G.; Gallis, J. A.; Baranov, V.; Biroli, P.; Maselko, J.

2026-01-30 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.01.27.26345000 medRxiv
Show abstract

This study examined gender attitudes and self-perceptions of culturally positive traits (bravery, leadership, and competitiveness) among 838 eight-year-old children (422 boys, 416 girls) in rural Pakistan. We assessed their attitudes patterns, and explored associations with mental health and academic outcomes. Overall, 35% of boys and 39% of girls attributed positive traits to both genders (egalitarian), associated with high self-perceptions of positive traits and more favorable outcomes. Children who endorsed gender stereotypes tended to favor their own gender, i.e. attribute positive traits only to their own gender. 5.5% of boys who attributed positive traits to women only (women-attributing) had lower Urdu ({beta}= -0.50, 95% CI: -0.80, -0.20) and Math ({beta}= -0.76, 95% CI: -1.06, -0.46) scores, while 12.7% of girls who attributed positive traits to men only (men-attributing) had modestly higher Math scores ({beta}= 0.21, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.46). 9.5% of boys and 15.4% of girls attributed different positive traits to both genders (mixed-attributing), which was associated with poorer outcomes, including higher depressive symptoms among boys ({beta}= 0.45, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.82). 36.0% of boys and 33.4% of girls reported high self-perception of positive traits, but self-perception alone was not strongly associated with outcomes. Findings suggest that, by middle childhood, children in rural Pakistan exhibit distinct gender attitudes that link with developmental outcomes. Notably, women-attributing and mixed-attributing attitudes were linked to poorer academic and mental health outcomes especially among boys, indicating potential educational and psychosocial costs of holding nonconforming gender views in patriarchal contexts.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.