Kohlberg believed that gender development, like moral development, was dependent upon cognitive development. He thought that stages in our ability to think pre-determined both moral and cognitive development and he used Piaget’s stages of cognitive development as a basis.In turn, Piaget believed that maturation of the brain was crucial to our ability to think. As a result, we have a theory, whose stages are under-pinned by brain biology. Piaget also believed that these changes were universal, so applied to everyone, regardless of culture.
Gender Identity (2 to 3 years)
By the age of two, children recognise themselves as boy or girl. In fact, apart from their name, this is one of the first concepts to develop.
By the age of three they can label others as boy or girl and appear to know where they fit into the overall picture. However, at this stage, they are merely labelling. They have little or no idea of what it means to be a boy or a girl and are still unaware that sex is permanent.
Thompson (1975) – Found that two year olds were 76% correct in identifying their sex whereas three year olds were 90% correct.
Gender Stability (4 to 5 years)
By the age of four children realise that their sex is permanent but there is still confusion about stability of sex in others. They are also confused by non-stereotypical appearance such as long-haired boys and presumably granny’s moustache lol. Similarly non-gender stereotypical behaviours cause confusion.
Kuhn et al (1978) also looked into sex stereotyping by asking very young (2-3 year old children about dolls). They found strong stereotyping and they tended to give positive characteristics to their own gender but not the opposite.
Gender Constancy (6 years onwards)
By the age of six, they realise that sex is fixed for everyone and across all situations regardless of appearance or behaviour. Appearance is just appearance.
At this stage, children begin to seek out gender-appropriate role models, resulting in imitation and internalisation of gender appropriate behaviours. This is of course similar to SLT. SLT, however, would allow for this process at any age.
Evidence for Gender Constancy: Damon (1977) –
Children aged 4-9 years-old were shown a picture of George and asked “Is it alright for George to play with the dolls?”
Children’s answers varied according to their age. Common answers included:
4 Years Old (Gender Stability): It’s Okay
6 Years Old (Gender Constancy): It’s wrong and he shouldn’t be play with dolls
9 Years Old: It’s unusual but it’s not bad
Evaluation
Slaby and Frey (1975) tested 55 children between the ages of two and five. They were shown split-screen images of men and women performing the same task, some of which were gender specific for men and some for women.
Younger children spent similar amounts of time watching both images regardless of sex and task. However, the older children spent significantly longer watching their own sex, providing evidence for Kohlberg’s idea that by gender constancy, children would be looking for gender-specific role models. They also noticed that the effect was more pronounced in boys than in girls. More on this later.
Slaby and Frey again asked a different set of questions such as “If you played football would you be a boy or a girl?” and “Could you be a boy/girl if you wanted to be/”. They found that children who scored high on both stability and constancy showed greater interest in same-sex models. This suggests, as Kohlberg predicted, that an increasing sense of constancy leads children to pay more attention to gender-appropriate models, furthering gender development.
Munroe et al (1984) found cross-cultural support for Kohlberg and suggesting that, as he predicted, the stages were universal and developed independently of culture.
Ruble et al (1981) compared two groups of pre-school children, one group high in gender constancy and the other low. They watched television advertisements for toys that were either suitable for boys or for girls. They found that these had far more impact on both sexes who had score high on gender constancy. It is therefore important to point out that it is not just the nature of the advertisements that are important but also what the individual child is bringing to the party.
However, Bussey & Bandura found that children as young as four were showing signs of gender constancy. They reported that children at this age report feeling good about playing with gender-appropriate toys and bad about playing with toys more typical of the opposite sex. This suggests that sex-typing starts earlier than gender constancy and often gender-appropriate toys are being selected as early as the age of two. This raises the possibility that different aspects of gender development occur at different ages.
Is it all cognitive?
It is thought that Kohlberg over-emphasises the importance of cognitive factors in determining gender development. If we take Kohlberg’s theory at face value there should be a close association between beliefs about gender and gender-typed behaviours and attitudes. According to Huston (1985) there is no evidence for this, especially in girls. The fact that beliefs about gender are not reflected in development is difficult for Kohlberg’s theory to explain.
Methodology
Most sources of information have relied on interviews. Questioning children as young as two, who have very restricted vocabulary, about their gender is not the most valid measure!
Comparisons with other explanations
Social Learning Theory
The two theories (Kohlberg’s and SLT) do at first glance, appear to be very similar. However, remember the biological causation behind Kohlberg’s theory. Social Learning Theory approaches psychology from the extreme nurture side of the divide. It is after all a product of behaviourism or learning theory.
Kohlberg’s theory is a biological stage theory so is hard-line nature!
SLT is much better able to explain the sex differences in gender development. The fact that peers and parents are much more likely to punish boys for feminine behaviours than they are to punish girls for masculine, leads to a much stronger gender identity in boys than in girls. Kohlberg’s universal, one size fits all approach struggles to explain gender differences.
Biological
Clearly, Kohlberg’s theory is one of biological determinism. Changes win brain structure as it matures allows for higher levels of cognitive functioning, which in turn, produces changes in gender development. The evidence that gender development is similar across all cultures, suggests a biological predisposition driving gender development.
Gender Schema Theory
Like Kohlberg’s theory above, a cognitive theory (well done, you spotted the word ‘schema’) and another stage theory that suggests gender identity develops with age. However, unlike Kohlberg’s theory, this one sees a gradual, analogue change rather than a stepped, digital-style stage development. This addresses the main issue with Kohlberg’s theory; sex-stereotyped behaviour develops long before gender constancy stage is reached.
Like Kohlberg however, it sees gender development as an active process and linked to underlying development in cognitive development.
Gender Schema
By now we should all understand the concept of a schema (see what I did there). According to Tolman, they are internal mental representations. A few are innate but very simple such as grasping and sucking. The rest develop through experience and are therefore the product of nurture.
As with all other concepts, we have a schema for gender. This represents our total knowledge of what it means to be male or female. Gender-appropriate toys, behaviours, jobs, feelings, emotions…
According to Martin & Halverson, for t’is their theory, gender identity develops at about two to three years of age. After this the child seeks all sources of information that will help it develop their own gender schema. NB: An important distinction here. Kohlberg believes this process doesn’t start until the age of six (a full two or three years later).
This does address one of the main criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory. Sex-stereotyped behaviour develops long before Gender Constancy. (See notes below).
Schemas direct our understanding
Again, this is true of all schemas. In terms of gender, once we’ve established gender stereotypes (boys play with trucks, girls with dolls etc) these stereotypes direct our behaviour. One of the earliest concepts the child seems to understand is their sex. Soon after learning their name they can state whether they’re a boy or a girl. Although this may mean little to them at the time, it is initially a label, it does direct them to behave in gender appropriate ways, as determined by this schema. ‘I’m a girl so I play with dolls.’
As we saw with memory, schemas are powerful and influence our recollection of events. Therefore the child tends to focus and remember when it sees gender-appropriate behaviour, whilst ignoring or failing to recall gender-inappropriate behaviour such as a boy playing with a doll.
According to this theory, our gender schema develops the moment we develop gender identity at about the age of two. Once formed the child organises its understanding of gender and this schema determines how the child will view gender from then on. Over time, like all schemas it will evolve to accommodate new experiences.
Ingroups and outgroups
From an early age children are aware of their own gender and focus on the behaviours most associated with their own gender. This develops their ingroup schema. Anything associated with the outgroup (opposite sex) is ignored. About the age of eight, each gender starts to develop an outgroup schema and begins to better understand the workings of the opposite sex.
This ingroup/outgroup mentality explains why younger children have such fixed ideas about gender identity. There is a tendency at this age to only focus on gender-consistent behaviours and ignore behaviours that do not fit with their existing gender schemas. Unlike many schemas, the gender schema appears resilient to change.
Development of schemas
Martin et al (1990) suggest three stages:
One: Learning what things are associated with each sex, for example boys: short hair, shirts and trousers, play with cars, whilst girls have long hair, wear skirts and play with dolls.
Two: They start to group ideas together, so for example, if a person has short hair they are more likely to play rough and wear trousers. At this stage the main focus is own own gender.
Three: Application of same rules to the opposite sex and realise that dolls are not a suitable toy for a boy!
Evaluation
An obvious source of evaluation would be comparison to Kohlberg. They are, after all, both cognitive explanations of gender development. The main issue with Kohlberg’s theory is its inability to explain how children begin to absorb gender specific attitudes and behaviours long before gender constancy is reached at the age of six. According to Bussey and Bandura, boys and girls as young as four explain how they feel better engaging in gender appropriate activities and playing with gender appropriate toys. Martin & Halverson’s GST can explain this. Essentially this preference develops as soon as the sexes become aware of their own gender and begin to develop their gender schemas (about the age of three).
A compromise: keeping both sides happy J
Stangor & Ruble (1989) believe there is room for both cognitive theories in explaining different aspects of gender development.
Gender schemas are believed to be involved in organisation of gender information, so for example our memories.
Gender constancy is believed to be involved at a motivational level. Once the child knows it always has been and always will be that sex it is motivated to seek out information about their future role in life and to start behaving in a gender-consistent fashion.
Stangor & Ruble tested children aged four to ten. They found
- Memory and organisation of gender-consistent information increased with age (gender schemas)
- As gender constancy increases so does their preference for finding gender consistent activities (gender constancy theory).
Over-simplification
Both models fail to consider outside influences such as parental expectations and the role of society. Parents clearly play a role, particularly in boys’ development since they actively discourage boys from playing with girls toys or developing feminine attitudes. Generally western societies see masculinity as more desirable than femininity. Cognitive models fail to consider this.
Cognitive models focus on the thinking process. Much as people’s attitudes to gender have changed over the years and much as people agree in principle to behave in more androgynous ways, for example married couples agreeing to share the housework, it rarely happened in practice. This suggests that there are forces at work that are more powerful than thoughts. An obvious factor would be our biology. Perhaps our hormones have a much greater impact than these models allow.
CGS Psychology Blog: Mrs Harris 