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.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
23.8%
2
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
13.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.7%
4
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.9%
8
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
9
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
10
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
11
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
12
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
13
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
14
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
15
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
17
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
19
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
21
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
25
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
26
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
COVID
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%