Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
1
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters
among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
By
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Introduction
e rst Caldecott Medal was awarded in 1938 and
is not only the most prestigious award for preschool
literature, but also guarantees its recipients phenomenal
sales (Clark 1992). e America Library Service to
Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library
Association, awards the Caldecott Medal yearly to the
illustrator who has created the “most distinguished”
American picture book made for children.
1
e Medal
assures its winners unusual inuence among young
children (and their parents) and makes them a likely
source of ideas about gender. Our goal here is to
examine Caldecott Medalists from nine decades—the
1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s,
2010s—to determine the kinds of messages about
1
Members of the ALSC Caldecott committee vote on rst, second, and
third place winners determined by a point system. e overall winner
must secure eight rst place choices and receive eight more points than
any other book. Medals are awarded the year following the nominated
books’ publishing.
gender young readers in each of these decades might
have derived from them.
It has been almost 50 years since Weitzman et al.
(1972) observed that celebrated picture books for
children, published between 1967 and 1971, were
largely devoid of female main characters and, in general,
presented the female characters they did include in
gender stereotyped ways. is study inspired a cottage
industry of feminist research into the gender content
and eects of children’s books (e.g., Ashton 1983; Clark,
Almeida, Gurka, & Middleton 2003; Clark, Guilmain,
Saucier & Tavarez 2003; Clark, Kessler & Coon 2015;
Clark, Lennon, & Morris 1993; Davis 1984; Gooden &
Gooden 2001; Grauerholz & Pescosolido 1989; Jennings
1975; Karniol & Gal-Disegni 2009; Knopp 1980;
Koblinsky, Cruse, & Sugawar 1978; Koike & LaVoie
1981; Kropp & Halverston 1983; Lutes-Dunckley 1978;
McCabe, Fairchild, Grauerholz, Pescosolido & Tope
2011; Ochman 1996; Peirce & Edwards 1988; Peterson
& Navy 1990; Purcell & Stewart 1990; Scott & Feldman-
Abstract
Researchers have examined the visibility and stereotyping of female characters in picture books for children at
least since Weitzman et al.’s (1972) landmark study. To the best of our knowledge, however, no one has examined
these traits in all of the Caldecott-Medal winning picture books since 1938. Because of the inuence the Caldecott
Medal, generations of girls and boys have been exposed to Medal-winning picture books even if they have been
exposed to few others. Our study was guided by two broad hypotheses. First, when gender norms in the larger
society are relatively settled--that is, societal norms suggest relatively unambiguously that men and women should
behave in either dierent or similar ways, female characters are likely to be relatively plentiful in award-winning
books. However, at such times female and male characters will, in general be created to conform to the norms of
the larger society. Second, when gender norms are unsettled —that is, when there is societal disagreement about
whether men and women should behave in dierent or similar ways— however, female characters will be less
visible and their gendered behavior will be less predictable. Our study of the 82 Caldecott award-winning picture
books provides support for these hypotheses.
Keywords: children's picture books, gender stereotyping, female visibility, content analysis.
2
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Summers 1979; St. Peter 1979; Sugino 2000; Tepper
& Cassidy 1999; Turner-Bowker 1996; White 1985;
Williams, Vernon, Williams, & Malecha 1987). Some of
these studies, using experimental methods, have found
support for the hypothesis that storybooks are among
the factors that shape children’s use and development
of conventional and atypical gender stereotypes (e.g.,
Ashton 1983; Scott & Feldman-Summers 1979;
Jennings 1975; Karniol & Gal-Disegni 2009). “Gender
stereotypes” may be dened as “pictures in our heads”
of the ways males and females act in a society (Kenscha
& Clark 2016).
Most of the other studies have examined the degree
to which gender stereotyping and/or female visibility
are present in certain kinds of children’s books. At one
point, it was plausibly argued that these studies had
themselves led to changes in picture books towards
greater female visibility and less gender stereotyping
(e.g., Clark, Lennon & Morris 1993; Clark Kulkin &
Clancy 1999; Clark, Almeica, Gurka & Middleton 2003).
One of the goals of the current paper is to present our
examination of Caldecott Medal books to ascertain
whether such changes have continued to occur in the
twenty-rst century.
Our Expectations
We came to our study unsure of what we would nd.
One possibility was that we would nd that, over time,
Caldecotts have consistently made female characters
more visible and presented them in less stereotyped
ways. Several studies (e.g., Clark, Lennon, & Morris
1993; Clark, Almeida, Gurka, & Middleton 2003; Clark,
Kessler & Coon 2015) had found that there was a
greater relative visibility of female characters, and less
stereotyping, in the late 1980s and 1990s than there had
been in the late 1960s, the period covered by Weitzman
et al. (1972). Perhaps such progress, by liberal feminist
standards, would have been characteristic of the entire
period (1938 to 2018) during which Caldecotts had
been awarded.
But we did not really believe our data would bear
out this “onward and upward” thesis. History, as we
know, involves ebbs and ows in virtually every arena
of human endeavor. And we had reason to believe
that the presentation of gender in children’s picture
books was likely to be one such arena. McCabe et al.
(2011), for instance, had examined the titles and main
characters in 5,618 children’s books published in the
20
th
century and found that, while the visibility of
female characters did increase from the 1960s to the
1990s, it had actually been highest in the 1910s. ey
interpreted these ndings, in part, with the notion that,
in periods—like the 1910s and the post-1960s--when
women’s rights were a signicant social and political
issue, authors, publishers and award givers were likely
to make female characters more visible than at other
times. Moreover, Clark, Guilmain, Saucier & Tavarez
(2003) had examined both visibility and stereotyping
in Caldecott award winners and runners-up in the
last few years of each decade between the 1930s and
1960s. ey found evidence that in decades like the
1930s and 1950s, when traditional gender norms
2
were
most clearly embraced by the U.S. population at large,
female characters were, in fact, unusually visible, if also
unusually stereotypically portrayed. ese authors
suggested that, in times when there is relatively little
conict over gender norms, authors, publishers and
award givers have little trouble with books presenting
female characters visibly and stereotypically.
No study that we are aware of has focused exclusively
on all the Caldecott-Medal winners since 1938. e
studies that have looked at both the visibility of female
characters and the degree of their stereotyping have
examined only winners (and runners-up) at the close
of each decade rather than the whole of the decade.
And even those that have examined both visibility and
stereotyping have failed to look at award winners over
the whole course of the period that the Caldecott Medal
has been awarded.
Finally, we found ourselves disinclined to credit the
“onward and upward” thesis coming out of research
focused on children’s books written between the end
of the 1960s and the end of the rst decade of the 21
st
century. Given our understanding of historical ebbs
and ows, as well as the ndings of McCabe et al. (2011)
and Clark et al. (2003), we hypothesized there would
be local variation by decade in both the visibility and
stereotyping of female characters depending on the
state of gender politics in each decade. In general, we
expected that female characters would be most visible
in decades when there was general agreement about
gender expectations. us, in the 1930s and the 1950s
we expected that Medal-winning books would be more
likely to focus on female characters because there was
general agreement that men and women should have
distinct roles in society. We also believe that in the 1930s
and 1950s, male and female characters would tend to be
portrayed as behaving in traditionally stereotypical ways.
2
In this paper “gender norms” refer to informal rules and shared
expectations that distinguish behavior based on gender. One
example of a traditional gender norm is that girls and women
should do the majority of domestic work.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
3
Between the 1970s and the 1990s, however, the second
wave of feminism would have favored males and females
doing more similar things with their lives.
ere might not have been complete agreement
about these egalitarian norms
3
in the 1970s, 1980s and
1990s, but these norms were surely better established in
those decades than they had been in the 1960s (see next
paragraph). Consequently, we anticipate that female
characters would have had relatively high visibility in the
1970s, 1980s and 1990s, but that the behaviors of male
and female characters would have been less traditionally
stereotypical in those decades than they had been in the
1930s and 1950s.
e second wave of feminism created upheaval in
gender norms during the 1960s. e publication of
books like Betty Friedan’s (1963) e Feminine Mystique,
the founding of the National Organization of Women
and the emergence of, and political activity associated
with, various branches of feminism challenged notions
of conventional femininity and masculinity. We posit
it would have been more challenging, then, for authors
and publishers in the 1960s to know how females “should”
be presented, so they might be expected to have presented
fewer of them. It is possible, however, that the presentation
of the relatively few female characters created in this
decade would have been less stereotypical than it had
been in the 1930s and 1950s.
Our expectations about the decades of the 1940s,
2000s and 2010s were less denite than for the other
decades largely because we have greater diculty
characterizing the prevailing gender norms of the
times. Our diculty with the 1940s is that, with the
benet of historical hindsight, we think of it as a decade
in which the norms of its rst half--when women were
being drawn into the workplace during World War II—
and the norms of the second—when they were being
asked to return to traditional roles in the home—were
very dierent. On the other hand, the norms of both
halves of the 1940 s were relatively clear and, so, given our
suggestion that in times when gender roles are reasonably
clear, more female characters will be presented in children’s
book, we might expect reasonably high female visibility
throughout the decade. Still, given the divided nature of
the decade in terms of the dominant norms, we would
expect less stereotyping of female characters in the 1940s
than occurred in either of the surrounding decades—the
1930s and 1950s—but perhaps more stereotyping than
occurred in the books of the 1960s.
Historical hindsight is less useful for the 2000s and
3
One example of an egalitarian gender norm might be that girls
and women and boys and men should share domestic work.
almost entirely useless for the current decade, the 2010s.
ere is certainly some evidence that the march towards
gender equality continued apace aer the 1990s. e
percentage of the US Congress that is female, for example,
has almost doubled since 2000 (Manning & Burdick
2019). On the other hand, progress has notably stalled
on some fronts. e female labor force participation
rate, for instance, dropped from 61% in 2000 to 57.5%
in 2016 (Black, Schanzenbach, & Breitweiser 2017).
Moreover, while the gender segregation of occupations
(i.e., the tendency of many occupations to have workers
who are predominantly one gender or the other)
consistently diminished between 1970 and 2000, it has
undergone essentially no change since 2000 (Kenscha
& Clark 2016:47-49).
Despite the uncertainty that we feel about the nature
of gender norms of the rst two decades of the 21st
century, our general impression has been that they are
ones in which the egalitarianism, that characterized the
1970s, 1980s and 1990s, continued to prevail. erefore,
we hypothesized female characters in books of the 2000s
and 2010s would be no less visible than they were in
the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and that there would be no
more stereotyping of female and male characters in those
decades than there had been in the last three decades of
the 20
th
century.
Methods
We collected data about the recipients of the
Caldecott medal, an award given by the American
Library Association to the most distinguished children’s
picture book of the year. Our population was 82 books,
published from 1937 to 2018 (see Appendix A). e
concepts of interest were female visibility and gender
stereotyping. We measured female visibility using four
indicators: the percentage of books in each decade that
had females characters at all, the percentage of books
in each decade with a central female character, and the
percentage of human single-gender illustrations that
depict girls or women, and the percentage of single-
gender non-human (usually animal) illustrations that
depict females. We tended to give greatest emphasis to
the second of these indicators, the percentage of books
in with central female characters, when comparing
female visibility across the nine decades, though all
indicators informed our overall impression of female
visibility.
We measured gender stereotyping in terms of traits
that have been seen traditionally as either stereotypically
feminine or masculine. We relied on Davis’ (1984) set
4
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
of variables for dealing with 14 gender-related traits
(see Appendix B for variable denitions). Adjectives
that we associated with the stereotypically feminine
were: dependent, cooperative, submissive, creative,
imitative, nurturant, and emotional. Adjectives we
saw as stereotypically masculine were: independent,
competitive, directive, persistent, explorative, aggressive,
and active. We assessed as many as two characters per
book: the major female character, if there was one, and
the major male character, if there was one.
Four of us individually coded each book, to ensure
inter-rater reliability. We then compared our ndings
and created a nal evaluation by utilizing a majority
rules method. If three or four of us independently
decided that a character possessed a trait, we accorded
this trait to that character. If three or four decided that
a character did not have a trait, we decided the trait was
not present. If there was a tie (with two of us seeing a
trait and two not seeing it), we assigned a missing value
to the relevant character and that character was deleted
in analysis of that trait. Finally, we made comparisons
within the decades about the presence of traits among
female and male characters. Because there were never
more than 10 (and, in the case of the 1930s, only three)
books examined in individual decades, and because
we were examining the whole population of Caldecott
winners, not a sample of them, we did not calculate
the statistical signicance of percentage dierences.
As a result, we interpreted the dierences we did nd
as theoretically suggestive rather than as denitive.
We decided that percentage dierences characterizing
female and male characters in a decade were indeed
“dierent” only if they could not be explained by
dierences in the number of males and females, alone.
us, if ve of nine (55%) of females had a trait and
ve of 10 (50%) of males did, we did not count this as
a dierence because the disparity could have been due
to dierences in the numbers of females and males.
If, however, four of nine (44%) of females had a trait
and six of 10 (60%) of males did, we did count this as
a “real” dierence because this dierence is not simply
a reection of the dierence in the number of females
and males.
Results
As we had expected, our analysis provided almost
no support for the view that Caldecotts winners
presented female characters ever more visibly and non-
stereotypically over time. We observed much more
support for the view that there was local variation by
decade, based on the prevailing gender norms of the
decade. We present our results, decade by decade.
e 1930s
e rst three Caldecott medalists, the only ones
published during the 1930s, were published in 1937,
1938 and 1939. ese were the only winners of the
1930s. Consequently, we hesitate to make too much
of the results for this decade. ose results, however,
are consistent with our expectations that, because
gender norms during the Depression decade favored
men working outside the home and women staying
inside those homes, female characters would be highly
visible, compared to other decades, and be portrayed
stereotypically.
Table 1 shows that all three winners had female
characters and two of the three (67%) had central female
characters. We also judge that the female characters
of the 1930s were presented very stereotypically.
Table 2A shows that females were portrayed as more
dependent, creative, imitative and emotional than
male characters, while male characters were more
independent, competitive, directive, persistent and
active than females (i.e., dierences are consistent with
the view that gendered behaviors were stereotypical on
nine of the 14 traits examined) (see Table 2A). Two
of the three Medal winners (Fish and Lathrop’s [1937]
Animals of the Bible: A Picture Book and the D‘Aulaire’s
[1939] Abraham Lincoln) may have reected a desire
on the part of the Caldecott committee to reach back
to American and Western stories and myths during the
tumultuous Depression years, but they were also so long
that they could hardly have omitted female characters.
e other winner, Handforth’s (1938) Mei Li, focused
on a surprisingly active female and, by itself, accounts
for the two instances of reverse stereotyping
4
found
among the 1930s books.
e 1940s
e early 1940s involved a period when women were
actively recruited into the workforce (think; Rosie the
Riveter), a direct result of World War II. e late 1940s
were a time, however, when women were encouraged to
get back into the home, while men returned from the
war and were encouraged to become “breadwinners”
again. 1940s Caldecott winners ranked as one of the
highest in female character visibility (see Table 1) and
4
Mei Lei, a spirited young girl, intent on testing limits, was neither
particularly cooperative nor nurturant.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
5
one of the lowest in gender-stereotyping (see Table 2A).
Males and females were deemed equally persistent,
a trait that is most oen associated with males. Both
Many Moons (1943) and Make Way for Ducklings (1941)
feature very persistent and directive female characters
(Lenore and Mrs. Mallard, respectively). We see male
characters (like Mr. Mallard, the King and Juan) take on
more female-associated traits, such as dependence and
nurturance, in Make Way for Ducklings (1941), Many
Moons (1943) and Song of the Swallows (1949).
e 1950s
e Cold War began soon aer the end of World War
II and at the end of the 1940s. Marriage rates skyrocketed
during this decade and traditional gender roles were
strongly encouraged through the media and even
through anti-communist propaganda. e Caldecott
winners of the 1950s reected these gender norms,
presenting characters with gender-stereotyped traits that
were the equal of those in the 1930s (see Table 2B). is
decade’s winners also had one of the highest numbers
of central female characters and female illustrations
(see Table 1). Female characters in Cinderella (1954)
and Nine Days to Christmas (1959) were portrayed as
nurturant and dependent. e intrinsic tensions of late
1950’s gender norms laid the foundation for the 2
nd
wave of feminism in the 1960s. Could this be the reason
why some female characters near the end of the 1950s
are found to be more independent than those of the
rst half? e daughter in McCloskey’s (1957) Time of
Wonder is both persistent and explorative as she looks
into the natural world around Penobscot Bay, Maine.
1960s
e 1960s brought with them the rise of the 2
nd
Wave Women’s movement, a movement that stirred
great controversy about how women and men should
act, and we believed that authors would have a more
dicult time deciding what the roles for the female
characters should take on. We thought this might mean
that authors would tend to leave female characters out
of their books due to these conicts. And we found this
to be true.
Although 80% of the books did have at least one
female character present, only 30% of the books had a
central female character (see Table 1). Females appeared
in 14% of the human single-gendered illustrations and
in only four percent of the non-human single-gendered
illustrations.
Table 2B suggests that during this time period
stereotyping characters by their gender dropped by
a great deal. Female characters still appeared to be
nurturant (100% of the female central characters
exhibited nurturance, compared to only 22% of males).
Male characters were also more active than female
characters (100% of male characters versus 33% female
characters). Regarding dependence, however, we found
an interesting reversal: only 20% of the central female
characters were portrayed as dependent, while 60% of
the male characters had this characteristic. Baboushka,
from Baboushka and the ree Kings by Ruth Robbins
(1960), was both independent and active. is character
did not have the stereotypical dependence that
tradition associated with females. In fact, Baboushka,
like the three kings with whom she shares the book’s
title, pursues a search for the newborn baby, Jesus.
She, however, does her search alone. Consequently,
we found that female and male characters the 1960s
evinced as little stereotyped behavior as they did in any
other decade. is was an unexpected nding and one
about which we will say more in our Conclusion.
1970s
We expected that the award-winning books of the
1970s would contain more visible female characters
than the 1960s books. We also expected the 1970s
books to present female characters in less stereotypical
ways than, say, the books of the 1930s and 1950s did.
We found support for both of these hypotheses. e
results show, for example, that 100% of the 1970s books
portrayed a female character and 60% of them had a
central female character (see Table 1). ere was less
stereotyping than we found in books of the 1930s or the
1950s. Male characters tended to be more submissive
and more creative than female characters (see Table 2C).
In the book e Funny Little Woman by Arlene Mosel
(1972), the little woman shows great independence and
persistence, following a dumpling (yes, a small ball of
dough), and consequently runs into the Oni monsters,
from whom she escapes through brilliant planning and
surprising energy.
1980s
e Caldecott award recipients from the 1980s show
a moderate amount of female visibility. As Table 1
shows, females are depicted in 24% of the total single-
gendered human illustrations. is result is largely due
to the book Lan Po Po: A Red-Riding Hood Story from
6
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
China. e only human characters in Lan Po Po are
three sisters who make up 100% of the book’s single-
gendered human illustrations. Fiy percent of the 1980s
books have a main female character.
Regarding gender stereotyping, the Caldecotts from
the 1980s again evince less stereotyping than winners
of the 1930s and 1950s; the dierences between female
and male characters being in the stereotyped direction
on seven traits, as opposed to nine traits in the 1930s
and 1950s (see Table 2C). Still, this is a relatively high
number of stereotyped dierences for the post-1960s
period. And Una from Saint George and the Dragon
exhibits eight stereotypical traits including dependence
and nurturance, even though other female characters,
such as Judy from Jumanji, show few (four) stereotypical
traits and more reverse-stereotypical traits such as
independence and persistence.
1990s
Female visibility in the 1990s Caldecott winners was
similar to that of the 1980s winners, so much so that
we ranked them together. Table 1 shows that there was
an increase in the prevalence of female characters from
80% in the 1980s to 90% in the 1990s. However, the
prevalence of main female characters decreased from
50% in the 1980s to 40% in the 1990s.
Some of the 1990s winners had a signicant number
female single-gender illustrations. In Mirette on the
High Wire, 10 out of 14 single-gendered illustrations
were female. Other books had fewer, but most (six of 10
of the books) had at least some single-gendered female
illustrations.
e female characters from the 1990s’ books were
slightly less stereotyped than those in the 1980s. We
noted only six of the 14 traits about which we observed
female and male dierences. e dierences in these
two decades agreed with stereotyped expectations (see
Table 2D). Mama in Bunting’s (1994) Smoky Night, is
perhaps the least stereotyped female character from
the decade. She is portrayed as thoughtfully directive,
non-imitative, and independent as she protects her son
Daniel from the ravages of a Los Angeles riot. However,
protecting her son is an indication of her profoundly
nurturing character.
2000s
We found that the 2000s’ Caldecotts ranked near the
middle of the nine decades examined here in terms of
female-character visibility. As Table 1 shows, 50% of
its books had a major female character. And, as Table
2D suggests, these female characters were tied with
those in the 1960s for being the least stereotyped. ey
were slightly less competitive, more dependent and less
directive than their male counterparts. But on all 11
other characteristics examined their presentation was
either not stereotyped or reverse-stereotyped, at least
in comparison with the male characters presented in
winners of the 2000s (see Table 2D).
e only reason that females do not appear in a higher
percentage of single-gender human pictures (only 16%)
in this decade’s winners is because of the presence of
Selznick’s (2007) graphic novel, e Invention of Hugo
Cabret, on this decade’s list of winners. e 65 images
in this book show only males, mainly Hugo. But the 11
images that show only a female (Isabelle) depict her as
a very independent, explorative and active girl. In this
regard, Isabelle is typical of other female characters in
this decade’s winners.
2010s
Tables 1 and 2E provide evidence that the 2010s
winners exhibited slightly more female visibility than
those of any decade since the 1970s but also slightly
more stereotyping than those of any decade since the
1980s. Fiy ve percent of the books had a major female
character and dierences on seven of the behavioral
traits in our stereotyped direction suggest moderate
gender stereotyping.
Closer inspection of the data makes the visibility
of female characters in this decade stand out. e
percentage of single-gender human images that are
female (41%) is second only to that of the 1950s (65%).
e percentage of single-gender non-human images
(100%) is only matched by the 1990s.
And even the 2010’s modest record on stereotyping
is complicated. While the award winners of the 2010s
do apparently exhibit stereotyping on seven behavioral
traits, there is only a substantial dierence between male
and female characters on one of these (persistence).
Moreover, once one gets into the 2010s books, a reader
sees that what may appear stereotyped in terms of our
coding rules might actually be much more ambiguous
in fact. us, for example, we observed and coded
Basquiat’s mother in Javaka Steptoe’s (2016) Radiant
Child: e Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat
as profoundly nurturing of the young artist’s skills both
because of her artistic instruction and the model of her
own art. However, this character is also a mother whose
inner turmoil requires that she be taken away from
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
7
Basquiat’s home to get help—and, therefore, in a sense,
she ends up deserting him.
CONCLUSION
Children’s books have been shown to aect the
acquisition and enactment of gender stereotypes among
young children (e.g., Ashton 1983; Scott & Feldman-
Summers 1979; Jennings 1975; Karniol & Gal-Disegni
2009). Caldecott Medal books, because of their prestige,
sales and circulation (Clark 1992), are among the books
most likely read to young children, and so deserve close
attention.
We examined all 82 of the picture books that had
been awarded the Caldecott Medal by the American
Library Association between 1938 and 2019. Largely
because of the possibility of the “symbolic annihilation”
(e.g., McCabe et al. 2011) of female characters, we were
as interested in the degree to which females were visible
in these books as we were in the degree to which they
were stereotyped. We thought it possible that there
might have been a steady improvement, by feminist
standards, over time: one towards increased female
visibility and decreased stereotyping. Instead, we found
an ebb and ow in the visibility and stereotyping of
female characters in these books. We speculate that in
large measure, this ebb and ow is dependent on the
dominant societal views about appropriate gendered
behavior in each decade.
Before we began our research, we had speculated
that the visibility of female characters in Caldecott
Medal winners would depend on the degree to which
there was relatively little societal controversy about how
women and men should behave. Our data support this
hypothesis. us, the decade in which there was perhaps
the greatest tension over gender roles, the 1960s—the
decade in which the 2
nd
wave of feminism was bursting
onto the American cultural scene—is the decade in
which we found the lowest visibility of female character,
by almost every measure we use here. For example, only
30 percent of the 1960s Caldecott winners had a central
female character, whereas 70 percent of 1950s winners
did. e nding about low female visibility in 1960s
children’s books is consistent with results reported by
Weitzman et al. (1972) and McCabe et al. (2011) and is
now armed by data about (likely) the most inuential
children’s books of the decade—the Caldecott Medalists.
ere was not quite a “symbolic annihilation” of female
characters during this decade, but a young female
reader of this decade’s Medalist winners might well have
gotten the impression that females were less important
than males in American society because of their relative
absence in these books.
By contrast, the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s were the
decades in which the visibility of female characters was
greatest in the population of Caldecott winners, with the
1950s perhaps being the decade in which they enjoyed
the greatest visibility. e 1950s was the only decade
when the images of female characters constituted a
majority of the human single-gendered illustrations.
e “Ozzie and Harriet” decade gave cover to authors,
publishers and award-givers to depict female characters
liberally—as long as the female characters were
portrayed in a particular way, which, as we also showed,
they were. e same sort of “cover” was provided by
the gender Zeitgeist of the 1930s. ere were no Ozzies
and Harriets modeling behavior then, but there were
directive Wizards (of Oz) and Dorothys, dreaming
of home. Government and business propaganda
lms, oen shown as trailers before the main event,
kept women (and men) clearly informed of what was
expected of them during the 1940s, even though those
expectations changed radically as men returned from
the battles of World War II.
Every decade since the 1960s has yielded Caldecott
Medalists in which female characters were more visible
than they were in the 1960s; but no decade produced
winners in which females were more visible than they
were in the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s. We had wondered
whether Medalists of the 2000s and 2010s would be
more visible than they had been in the 1960s, since we
were unsure that gender norms were any more settled,
especially in the 2010s, than they were in the 1960s.
Apparently, authors, publishers and American Library
Association award-givers did not feel particularly
inhibited about the creation, publication and awarding
of books with female characters in these decades.
We speculate that the reason that female visibility in
Caldecotts has not re-achieved its levels of the 1930s
through the 1950s, however, reects continuing
ambiguity about appropriate gender behavior. Although
this ambiguity was perhaps most confusing in the 1960s,
it may not have completely dissipated yet. Egalitarian
norms have penetrated most social arenas, but they
do not yet enjoy the consensus that traditional gender
norms did in the 1950s in many of these arenas yet.
In general, we expected that the degree to which male
and female characters were stereotyped would also
vary with the degree of consensus about gender norms
in the larger society. We found less support for this
“stereotyping” hypothesis than we did for our “visibility”
hypothesis, although we found a good deal of support
8
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
for it as well. As one might expect, given the hypothesis,
the 1930s and the 1950s were the decades in which the
most stereotyping was found in the behavior of female
and male characters. ere was less stereotyping of
gendered characters in the 1940s, a nding consistent
with our view that this was a decade in which strong,
but opposing, signals were given to women about
appropriate work-related behavior outside the home at
dierent times.
Intermediate levels of stereotyping of gendered
characters were also found in all post-1960s decades,
with one exception. Again, these intermediate levels are
consistent with a view that, while egalitarian norms were
more strongly informing Americans’ behavior than they
had before, they were still not as pervasive as traditional
gender norms had been in the 1930s and 1950s. e
one exception among the post-1960s decades was in the
2000s, a decade in which stereotyping among Caldecott
characters was very low indeed. is nding would be
consistent with a view that egalitarian gender norms
were as pervasive during the 2000s as they’d been during
the period studied here. Even in this decade, however,
major male characters were more notably achieving
than major female characters. us, all the of the U.
S. Presidents mentioned in St. George’s book (2000), So
You Want to Be President, achieved more celebrity than
did Isabelle in Selznick’s book (2007), e Invention of
Hugo Cabret. And, aer all, the titular invention was
Hugo’s, not Isabelle’s.
e most surprising deviation from our “stereotyping”
hypothesis occurred in books of the 1960s. is was
the decade in which we expected to see low female
visibility—which we did—but, at best, moderate levels
of stereotyping. Instead, our data suggested very low
levels of stereotyping occurred in the characters of
this decade. is nding stands in contrast with that
of Weitzman et al.’s (1972) claim that female characters
of the latter part of the 1960s were very stereotyped.
We attribute this discrepancy, to some degree, to our
including books from the early part of the decade
as well. Samantha in Ness’s (1966) Sam, Bangs, and
Moonshine is an extremely helpless little girl who relies
on her father to save the boy, omas, whom she’s sent
on a perilous mission to save her cat, Bangs. Ness’s
book was a central example in Weitzman’s study. e
fact that we examined books from the entire decade, as
well as the fact that there are so few female characters
in the rst half of the 1960s, means that any unusually
“masculine” female character from that rst half could
tip our ndings in the opposite direction. And one did.
us, Babouschka in Robbins’ (1960) Baboushka and
the ree Kings, a traditional Russian Christmas story,
had outsized inuence on our ndings. Babouschka is
an elderly Russian peasant who, like the three kings of
more conventional Christmas stories, goes o in search
of the baby Jesus. A more persistent, explorative, and
independent female character is hardly imaginable.
e Caldecott Medalists of the 1960s, perhaps
particularly because of their surprising evidence of
reverse stereotyping, stand as an object lesson about
the limitations of our study. We divided the population
of our units of observation (Caldecott Medalists) into
nine groups by decade of publication. e resulting
numbers-- at most 10 books per decade, did not allow
decisive within-decade or between-decade comparisons.
us, one or two books in a decade could have a large
impact on our ndings. All our conclusions, then, must
remain more tentative than we would have liked.
Nonetheless, our research does suggest that the nature
of a period’s gender norms can have a large impact on
both the visibility of female characters and the degree
to which they are presented in stereotypical ways in
Caldecott award-winning books. When gender norms
are well agreed upon, whether or not they suggest that
men and women should behave dierently or in similar
ways, female characters in these children’s picture books
seem to become more visible than they are when gender
norms are widely disputed. However, to the degree that
there is agreement upon gender norms, female (and
male) characters are likely to exhibit behaviors that
conform to those norms.
References
Aaarons-Mele, M. 2011. The Shifting Roles and
Expectations for Men and Women. Hupost: https://
www.hupost.com/entry/its-the-role-reboot_b_810
434?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ld3c
Z29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_
sig=AQAAAC0kMx3N-YSK3_L-kyGXBEcr4f4
Un27wOqO_3x3vgmFP16jEASKIDAatIKPnNn
2wmcb5xseiketyVVm9LNCGDySFE_zFXbeL_
QmsCMWV-4P5ym12JYvMIh7ax9V2juB8U-
dOnhv6PJ9jWm057tQ_S6-
gcKK2UgXISU9igMm3ApaK (Retrieved 8/4/19).
Ashton, E. 1983. “Measures of Play Behavior: The
Inuence of Sex-Role Stereotyped Children’s Books.”
Sex Roles. 9:43-47.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
9
Black, S., D. Schanzenbach, & A. Breitweiser. 2017. e
Recent Decline in Women’s Labor Force Participation.
The Hamilton Project. https://www.brookings.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/es_10192017_
decline_womens_labor_force_participation_
blackschanzenbach.pdf (Retrieved August 4, 2019).
Clark, B. 1992. “American Children’s Literature: Background
and Bibliography.” American Studies International,
30:4-40.
Clark, R., M. Almeida, T. Gurka, & L. Middleton. 2003.
“Engendering Tots with Caldecotts: An Updated
Update.” In E. S. Adler & R. Clark (Eds.), How It’s
Done: An Invitation to Social Research (2nd ed., pp.
379-385). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Clark, R., J. Guilmain, P. K. Saucier & J. Tavarez. 2003.
“Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: e Presence
of Female Characters and Gender Stereotyping in
Award-Winning Picture Books between the 1930s
and the 1960s”. Sex Roles. 9/10:439-449.
Clark, R, J. Kessler, & A. Coon. 2015. “Who Envisions
the Dista Side? Female Visibility in Children’s
Picture Books Over Time and by Authors’ Race,
Ethnicity, Sexual Sympathies and Gender.” In E. S.
Adler & R. Clark (Eds.), How It’s Done: An Invitation
to Social Research (5th ed., pp. 338-343). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Clark, R., H. Kulkin, & L. Clancy. 1999. “e Liberal
Feminist Bias in Feminist Social Science Research
on Children’s Books.” In B. L. Clark & M. R. Higonet
(Eds.), Girls, Boys, Books, Toys: Gender, Children’s
Literature, and Culture (pp. 71-82). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press.
Clark, R., R. Lennon & L. Morris. 1993. “Of Caldecotts
and Kings: Gendered Images in Recent American
Children’s Books by Black and Non-Black Illustrators.”
Gender and Society. 5:227-245.
Davis, A. 1984. “Sex-Dierentiated Behaviors in Nonsexist
Picture Books.” Sex Roles. 11:1-15.
Friedan, B. 1963. e Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton
and Company.
Gooden, A., & M. Gooden. 2001. “Gender Representations
in Notable Children’s Picture Books: 1995-1999.” Sex
Roles. 45:89-101.
Grauerholz, E., & B. Pescosolido. 1989. “Gender
Representation in Children’s Literature: 1900-1984.”
Gender and Society. 3:113-125.
Jennings, S. 1975. “Eects of Sex Typing in Children’s
Stories on Preference Recall.” Child Development.
46:220-223.
Karniol, R. & M. Gal-Disegni. 2009. “e Impact of
Gender-Fair Versus Gender-Stereotyped Basal Readers
on 1st-Grade Children’s Gender Stereotypes: A Natural
Experiment.” J. Res. Child. Educ. 23:411–420.
Knopp, S. 1980. “Sexism in Pictures of Children’s Readers:
East and West Germany Compared.” Sex Roles.
6:189-205.
Kenscha, L., R. Clark (and D. Ciambrone). 2016. Gender
Inequality in Our Changing World: A Comparative
Approach. New York: Routledge.
Koblinsky, S., D. Cruse & A. Sugawara. 1978. “Sex-
Role Stereotypes and Children’s Memory for Story
Content”. Child Development. 49:452-58.
Kolbe, R. & J. LaVoie. 1981. “Sex-Role Stereotyping in
Preschool Children’s Picture Books.” Social Psychology
Quarterly. 44:369- 374.
Kropp, J. & C. Halverston. 1983. “Preschool Children’s
Preferences and Recall for Stereotyped Versus
Nonstereotyped Stories.” Sex Roles. 9:261-272.
Lutes-Dunckley, C. 1978. “Sex-Role Preferences as a
Function of Sex of Storyteller and Story Content.”
Journal of Psychology. 100:151-158.
McCabe, J., E. Fairchild, L. Grauerholz, B. Percosolido
& D. Tope. 2011. “Gender in Twentieth-Century
Children’s Books: Patterns of Disparity in Title and
Central Characters.” Gender and Society. 25:197-
226.
Ochman, J. M. 1996. “e Eects of Nongender-Role
Stereotyped, Same-Sex Role Models in Storybooks
on the Self-Esteem of Children in Grade ree.” Sex
Roles. 35:711-35.
10
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Peirce, K., & E. Edwards. 1988. “Children’s Construction
of Fantasy Stories: Gender Dierences in Conict
Resolution Strategies.” Sex Roles. 18:393-404.
Pescosolido, B., E. Grauerholz & M. Milkie. 1997.
“Culture and Conict: e Portrayal of Blacks in U.S.
Children’s Picture Books rough the Mid- and Late-
Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review.
62:443-464.
Peterson, S. B. & N. A. Navy. 1990. “Gender Stereotypes
in Children’s Books: eir Prevalence and Inuence
on Cognitive and Aective Development.” Gender
and Education. 2:185-197.
Purcell, P. & L. Stewart. 1990. “Dick and Jane in 1989.”
Sex Roles. 22:177-185.
Peter, S. 1979. “Jack Went Up the Hill... But Where Was
Jill?” Psychology of Women Quarterly. 4:256-260.
Scott, K. P. & S. Feldman-Summers. 1979. "Children’s
Reactions to Textbook Stories in Which Females
are Portrayed in Traditionally Male Roles." J. Edu.
Psychol. 71:396–402.
Sugino, T. 2000. “Stereotypical Role Models in Western
and Non-Western Children’s Literature.” Paper
presented at the International Conference for Global
Conversations on Language and Literacy, Utrecht,
TTie Netherlands.
Teczar, R., K. Rocha, J. Palazzo & R. Clark. 2018 “Cultural
Attitudes Towards Women Legislatures and Cabinet
Ministries.” Sociology Between the Gaps: Forgotten
and Neglected Topics. 4:49-55.Available at: https://
digitalcommons.providence.edu/sbg/vol4/iss1/7
Tepper, C. & K. Cassidy. 1999. “Gender Dierences in
Emotional Language in Children’s Picture Books.”
Sex Roles. 40:265-280.
Toossi, M. & T. Morisi. 2017. Women in the Workforce
Before, During and Aer the Great Recession. U.S.
Bureau of Labor Force Statistics. https://www.bls.
gov/spotlight/2017/women-in-the-workforce-
before-during-and-aer-the-great-recession/pdf/
women-in-the-workforce-before-during-and-aer-
the-great-recession.pdf (Retrieved August 4, 2019).
Turner-Bowker, D. 1996. “Gender Stereotyped Descriptors
in Children’s Books: Does “Curious Jane” Exist in the
Literature?” Sex Roles. 5:461-88.
Weitzman, L., D. Eier, E. Hokada & C. Ross. 1972. “Sex-
Role Socialization in Picture Books for Preschool
Children.” American Journal of Sociology. 77:1125-
1150.
White, H. 1985. “Damsels in Distress: Dependency emes
in Fiction for Adolescents.” Adolescence. 21:251-256.
Williams, A., J. Vernon, M. Williams & K. Malecha.
1987. “Sex-Role Socialization in Picture Books: An
Update.” Social Science Quarterly. 68:148-156.
About the Authors: Jessica Gauthier is a senior Justice
Studies major at Rhode Island College, with minors
in Art and Sociology. Madison Mellor is graduating
from Rhode Island College in the spring of 2020,
having majored in Psychology and Sociology. Madeline
MacKay is a junior Early Childhood Education major
at Rhode Island College with intentions of obtaining a
Master’s Degree in Early Childhood Special Education.
Roger Clark is Professor of Sociology at Rhode Island
College, where he teaches Research Methods and the
Sociology of Gender.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
11
Table 1. Books Containing Female Visibility by Decade
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Percentage with
female characters 100% 90% 89% 80% 100% 80% 90% 80% 78%
Percentage with
central female
character 67% 70% 70% 30% 60% 50% 40% 50% 55%
Human Single-
gender illustration
Percentage that are
Female 26% 37% 65% 14% 26% 24% 23% 16% 41%
Non-human
single-gender
illustrations 33% 5% 8% 4% 0% 0% 100% 53% 100%
Total Number
of books 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9
12
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Table 2A. Comparison of Female and Male Character Traits by Decade: 1930s and 1940s
(Numbers Represent Percentage of Characters with Relevant Trait)
1930s Caldecott Winners 1940s Caldecott Winners
Female Male Female Male
Character Traits
Dependent 100 0 S 67 75 T
Independent 50 100 S 67 100 S
Cooperative 0 100 R 67 83 T
Competitive 0 100 S 0 0 T
Directive 0 100 S 33 20 R
Submissive 0 0 T 0 20 R
Persistent 50 100 S 60 60 T
Explorative 100 100 T 17 80 S
Creative 50 0 S 40 20 S
Imitative 50 0 S 0 0 T
Nurturant 0 100 R 67 67 T
Aggressive 0 0 T 0 33 S
Emotional 50 0 S 40 25 S
Active 50 100 S 33 83 S
Note: In the nine Male columns in Tables 2A-E, the code “S” indicates a stereotypical dierence between
female and male characters on the character trait; e code “T” indicates an essential tie on the character
trait; e code “R” indicates a reverse-stereotypical dierence on the character trait.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
13
Table 2B. Comparison of Female and Male Character Traits by Decade: 1950s and 1960s
(Numbers Represent Percentage of Characters with Relevant Trait)
1950s Caldecott Winners 1960s Caldecott Winners
Female Male Female Male
Character Traits
Dependent 83 40 S 20 60 R
Independent 80 100 S 80 89 T
Cooperative 100 100 T 60 80 R
Competitive 14 33 S 0 10 S
Directive 17 60 S 25 50 S
Submissive 67 60 T 0 25 R
Persistent 100 83 R 75 88 T
Explorative 57 67 T 40 50 T
Creative 50 0 S 17 57 R
Imitative 0 0 T 0 0 T
Nurturant 67 40 S 100 22 S
Aggressive 0 17 S 0 0 T
Emotional 75 50 S 33 38 T
Active 86 100 S 33 100 S
Note: In the nine Male columns in Tables 2A-E, the code “S” indicates a stereotypical dierence between female
and male characters on the character trait; e code “T” indicates an essential tie on the character trait; e
code “R” indicates a reverse-stereotypical dierence on the character trait.
14
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Table 2C. Comparison of Female and Male Character Traits by Decade: 1970s and 1980s
(Numbers Represent Percentage of Characters with Relevant Trait)
1970s Caldecott Winners 1980s Caldecott Winners
Female Male Female Male
Character Traits
Dependent 60 67 T 50 29 S
Independent 80 86 T 60 100 R
Cooperative 50 75 R 100 88 S
Competitive 0 13 S 0 25 S
Directive 50 57 T 75 43 R
Submissive 17 33 R 40 29 S
Persistent 60 86 S 80 88 T
Explorative 40 63 S 75 72 T
Creative 67 88 R 50 55 T
Imitative 0 0 T 20 0 S
Nurturant 40 29 S 50 38 S
Aggressive 0 13 S 20 22 T
Emotional 40 25 S 25 56 R
Active 80 86 T 100 86 R
Note: In the nine Male columns in Tables 2A-E, the code “S” indicates a stereotypical dierence between female
and male characters on the character trait; e code “T” indicates an essential tie on the character trait; e
code “R” indicates a reverse-stereotypical dierence on the character trait.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
15
Table 2D. Comparison of Female and Male Character Traits by Decade: 1990s and 2000s
(Numbers Represent Percentage of Characters with Relevant Trait)
1990s Caldecott Winners 2000s Caldecott Winners
Female Male Female Male
Character Traits
Dependent 40 38 T 100 33 S
Independent 100 88 R 100 100 T
Cooperative 100 100 T 67 63 T
Competitive 0 0 T 0 11 S
Directive 25 29 T 0 57 S
Submissive 25 11 S 0 0 T
Persistent 20 100 S 60 75 T
Explorative 20 33 S 100 75 R
Creative 0 67 R 100 71 S
Imitative 40 0 S 0 11 R
Nurturant 100 71 S 20 20 T
Aggressive 0 0 T 0 0 T
Emotional 75 50 S 33 25 T
Active 75 78 T 100 86 R
Note: In the nine Male columns in Tables 2A-E, the code “S” indicates a stereotypical dierence between female
and male characters on the character trait; e code “T” indicates an essential tie on the character trait; e
code “R” indicates a reverse-stereotypical dierence on the character trait.
16
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
Table 2E. Comparison of Female and Male Character Traits by Decade: 2010s
(Numbers Represent Percentage of Characters with Relevant Trait)
2010s Caldecott Winners
Female Male
Character Traits
Dependent 75 50 S
Independent 83 100 S
Cooperative 100 83 S
Competitive 14 20 T
Directive 0 14 S
Submissive 20 0 S
Persistent 25 85 S
Explorative 67 50 R
Creative 20 33
Imitative 0 0 T
Nurturant 86 67 S
Aggressive 0 0 T
Emotional 50 60 T
Active 100 100 S
Note: In the nine Male columns in Tables 2A-E, the code “S” indicates a stereotypical dierence between female
and male characters on the character trait; e code “T” indicates an essential tie on the character trait; e
code “R” indicates a reverse-stereotypical dierence on the character trait.
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
17
APPENDIX A. Caldecott Medal Winners Organized by Decade and Year Published
Decade
Published
Year
Published
Book Title Author Publisher
1930s 1937 Animals of the Bible Dorothy P. Lathrop J. B. Lippincott & Co.
1938 Mei Li omas Handforth Doubleday and Company
1939 Abraham Lincoln Ingri & Edgar Parin
d’Au l a i r e
Doubleday and Company
1940s 1940 ey Were Strong and
Good
Robert Lawson e Viking Press
1941 Make Way for
Ducklings
Robert McCloskey e Viking Press
1942 e Little House Virginia Lee Burton Houghton Miin
Company
1943 Many Moons James urber Harcourt, Brace &
Company
1944 Prayer for a Child Rachel Field e Macmillan Company
1945 e Rooster Crows Maud & Miska
Petersham
e Macmillan Company
1946 e Little Island Margaret Wise Brown &
Leonard Weisgard
Doubleday and Company
1947 White Snow, Bright
Snow
Alvin Tresset Lothrop, Lee & Shepard
Books
1948 e Big Snow Berta & Elmer Hader e Macmillan Company
1949 Song of the Swallows Leo Politi Charles Scribner’s Sons
1950s 1950 e Egg Tree Katherine Milhous Charles Scribner’s Sons
1951 Finders Keepers Will & Nicolas Harcourt, Brace &
Company
1952 e Biggest Bear Lynd Ward Houghton Miin
Company
1953 Madeline’s Rescue Ludwig van Bemelmans e Viking Press
1954 Cinderella Marcia Brown & Charles
Perrault
Charles Scribner’s Sons
1955 Frog Went A-Courtin’ John Langsta Harcourt, Brace &
Company
1956 A Tree is Nice Janice Udry Harper Collins
1957 Time of Wonder Robert McCloskey e Viking Press
1958 Chanicleer and the Fox Barbara Cooney omas Crowell Company
1959 Nine Days to Christmas Maria Hall Ets e Viking Press
1960s 1960 Baboushka and the
ree Kings
Ruth Robbins Parnassus Press
1961 Once a Mouse Marcia Brown Charles Scribner’s Sons
1962 e Snowy Day Ezra Jack Keats e Viking Press
18
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
1963 Where the Wild ings
Are
Maurice Sendak Harper Collins
1964 May I Bring a Friend? Beatrice Schenk de
Regniers
Atheneum Books
1965 Always Room for One
More
Sorche Nic Leodhas Holt, Reinhart & Company
1966 Sam, Bangs &
Moonshine
Evaline Ness Holt, Reinhart & Company
1967 Drummer Ho Barbara Emberly Simon & Schuster
1968 e Fool of the World
and the Flying Ship
Arthur Ransome Farrar, Straus & Giroux
1969 Sylvester and the Magic
Pebble
William Steig Simon & Schuster
1970s 1970 A Story, A Story Gail E. Haley Atheneum Books
1971 One Fine Day Nonny Hogrogian e Macmillan Company
1972 e Funny Little
Woman
Arlene Mosel E. P. Dutton Company
1973 Duy and the Devil Harve & Margot Zemach Farrar, Straus & Giroux
1974 Arrow to the Sun Gerald McDermott e Viking Press
1975 Why Mosquitoes Buzz
in People’s Ears
Verna Aardema Dial Press
1976 Ashanti to Zulu:
African Traditions
Margaret Musgrove Dial Press
1977 Noah’s Ark Peter Spier Doubleday and Company
1978 e Girl Who Loved
Wild Horses
Paul Goble Bradbury Press
1979 Ox-Cart Man Donald Hall e Viking Press
1980s 1980 Fables Arnold Lobel Little, Brown & Company
1981 Jumanji Chris Van Allsburg Houghton Miin
Company
1982 Shadow Marcia Brown Charles Scribner’s Sons
1983 e Glorious Flight:
Across the Channel
with Louis Bleriot
Alice & Martin
Provensen
e Viking Press
1984 Saint George and the
Dragon
Margaret Hodges Little, Brown & Company
1985 e Polar Express Chris Van Allsburg Houghton Miin
Company
1986 Hey, Al Arthur Yorinks Farrar, Straus & Giroux
1987 Owl Moon Jane Yolen Philomel Books
1988 Song and Dance Man Karen Ackerman Alfred A. Knopf
1989 Lon Po Po: A Red-
Riding Hood Story
from China
Ed Young Philomel Books
Ebbs and Flows in the Feminist Presentation of Female Characters among Caldecott Award-Winning Picture Books for Children
19
1990s 1990 Black and White David Macaulay Houghton Miin
Company
1991 Tuesday David Wiesner Clarion Books
1992 Mirette on the High
Wire
Emily Arnold McCully G. P. Putnam’s Sons
1993 Grandfather’s Journey Allen Say Houghton Miin
Company
1994 Smoky Night Eve Bunting Harcourt, Brace &
Company
1995 Ocer Buckle and
Gloria
Peggy Rathmann G. P. Putnam’s Sons
1996 Golem David Wisniewski Clarion Books
1997 Rapunzel Paul O. Zelinsky Dutton Children’s Books
1998 Snowake Bentley Jacqueline Briggs Martin Houghton Miin
Company
1999 Joseph Had a Little
Overcoat
Simms Taback e Viking Press
2000s 2000 So You Want to Be
President?
Judith St. George Philomel Books
2001 e ree Pigs David Wiesner Clarion Books
2002 My Friend Rabbit Eric Rohmann Roaring Brook Press
2003 e Man Who Walked
Between the Towers
Mordicai Gerstein Roaring Brook Press
2004 Kitten’s First Full Moon Kevin Henkes Greenwillow Books
2005 e Hello, Goodbye
Window
Norton Juster Michael di Capua Books/
Hyperion Books
2006 Flotsam David Wiesner Clarion Books
2007 e Invention of Hugo
Cabret
Brian Selznick Scholastic Press
2008 e House in the Night Susan Marie Swanson Houghton Miin
Company
2009 e Lion & the Mouse Jerry Pinkney Little, Brown & Company
2010s 2010 A Sick Day for Amos
McGee
Philip C. Stead Roaring Brook Press
2011 A Ball for Daisy Chris Raschka Schwartz & Wade Books
2012 is is Not My Hat Jon Klassen Candlewick Press
2013 Locomotive Brian Floca Atheneum Books
2014 e Adventures
of Beekle: e
Unimaginary Friend
Dan Santat Little, Brown & Company
20
Jessica Gauthier, Madeline MacKay, Madison Mellor and Roger Clark
2015 Finding Winnie: e
True Story of the
World’s Most Famous
Bear
Lindsay Mattick Little, Brown & Company
2016 Radiant Child: e
Story of Young Artist
Jean-Michel Basquiat
Javaka Steptoe Little, Brown & Company
2017 Wolf in the Snow Matthew Cordell Feiwel & Friends
2018 Hello Lighthouse Sophie Blackall Little, Brown & Company
APPENDIX B: Behavioral Denitions
5
Dependent: seeking or relying on others for help, protection, or reassurance; maintaining close proximity to
others.
Independent: self-initiated and self-contained behavior, autonomous functioning, resistance to externally
imposed constraints.
Cooperative: working together or in a joint eort toward a common goal, complementary division of labor in a
given activity.
Competitive: striving against another in an activity or game for a particular goal, position, reward; desire to be
rst, best, winner.
Directive: guiding, leading, impelling others toward an action or goal; controlling behaviors of others.
Submissive: yielding to the direction of others; deference to wishes of others.
Persistent: maintenance of goal-directed activity despite obstacles, setbacks, or adverse conditions.
Explorative: seeking knowledge or information through careful examination or investigation; inquisitive and
curious.
Creative: producing novel idea or product; unique solution to a problem; engaging in fantasy or imaginative
play.
Imitative: duplicating, mimicking, or modeling behavior (activity or verbalization) of others.
Nurturant: giving physical or emotional aid, support, or comfort to another; demonstrating aection or
compassion for another.
Aggressive: physically or emotionally hurting someone; verbal aggression; destroying property.
Emotional: aective display of feelings; manifestation of pleasure, fear, anger, sorrow, and so on via laughing,
cowering, crying, frowning, violent outbursts, and so on.
Active: gross motor (large muscle) physical activity, work, and play.
5
ese behavioral denitions are from Davis, A. 1984. “Sex-Dierentiated Behaviors in Nonsexist Picture Books.” Sex Roles. 11:1-15.
