1. Introduction

Relevance and a quick background:

As the world progresses, the notion of “gender” and its development remains as relevant as ever before. According to the American Psychological Association, gender “refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviours that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex”. This implies that gender is something very complex, as its development can be attributed to biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors. This blog, however, will only examine the cognitive aspect of gender development – specifically the theories put forth by Kohlberg (1966), and Bem (1981).

After a comprehensive analysis of the aforementioned theories (as well as research supporting the theories), an observational study triangulated with an interview was carried out. Details regarding the method of this study can be found under the “Methodology” tab.

Research question: 

In terms of the cognitive explanations of gender role development, to what extent is Kohlberg’s theory a better explanation than gender schema theory in an international school setting?

Theories and research supporting the theories:

1). Kohlberg (1966)

Kohlberg’s developmental theory states that “children acquire gender identity and enact appropriate role behaviours when they are mentally ready” (Pearson, 2010, p.208). This puts emphasis on the mental maturity aspect of gender development, as it proposes that a child’s sense of gender is developed in stages. As a child advances through these stages, their notion of gender becomes increasingly more complex.

Stage 1: Gender identity (usually reached by age 2)

→ Child is aware of biological sex

→ Does not understand that gender is constant (for instance, they believe that gender can change due to clothes or hair, etc.)

Stage 2: Gender stability (usually reached by age 4)

→ Child understands that their gender remains stable over time

→ Notion of gender is strongly influenced by external factors (i.e. a boy may think that if he dresses up like a girl he will become a girl)

Stage 3: Gender constancy (usually reached by age 7)

→ Child begins to understand that gender remains constant in spite of external factors (such as clothing, hair, etc.)

Evaluation:

→ The theory may be inherently gender biased. Moreover, the theory is descriptive rather than explanatory. This means that it fails to explain in detail the “why” aspect

Supporting research:

1). Slaby and Frey (1975)

Aim: to test gender constancy

Procedures:

→ Children aged 2-5 were divided into two groups (through assessment, one group was deemed as having high gender constancy, and the other group low)
→ Children were shown film that was split screen. One side depicted a male model and the other side depicted a female model

Findings and conclusions

→ The “high gender constancy” group showed more same-sex bias in their attention

→ This supports Kohlberg’s theory, as it implies that children with high gender constancy actively seek and respond to models who are the same gender as them

Evaluation:

→ Positive = ingenious procedure (using a split screen with models of different genders)
→ Negative = difficult to assess children and group them as having high gender constancy or low gender constancy. Thus there may be researcher bias

The other cognitive theory on gender role development is the gender schema theory.

2). Bem (1981)

Sandra Bem is responsible for the creation of gender schema theory, which “proposes that children form mental guides for action linked around concept clusters that radiate information on how to behave appropriate to gender” (Crane and Hannibal, 2009, p.211). A schema can be defined as a mental representation of knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, thus gender schema theory refers to the heightening complexity of the schemas that a child develops regarding gender. The theory focuses on the individual, as it argues that children assimilate new information in their environments based on the masculinity or femininity of this information. In other words, gender schemas are developed as children identify with particular behaviours, activities, and objects that correspond with their own gender, as they reject those that do not. For example, a 3 year-old boy may reject anything that is pink.

Evaluation:

→ Positives: A lot of supporting research

→ Negatives: Too much focus on the child as an individual in gender development and not enough on the role of social and cultural factors. Does not really explain in great detail how and why these gender schemas are formed

Supporting evidence:

1). Martin and Halverson (1983)

Aim: to show how information may be distorted to fit existing schemas

Procedures:

→ Sample included boys and girls aged 5-6 years old

→ Participants were shown pictures of both males and females performing activities which corresponded with gender role schemas (i.e. girl playing with dolls) and activities that did not (i.e. girl playing with gun)

→ After one week, the participants were asked to recall the pictures

Findings and conclusions:

→ It was found that a significant proportion of the children distorted their memories of the pictures that were not in line with their existing gender role schemas

→ This supports Bem’s gender schema theory

Evaluation:

→ Strength = schema theory in general has a lot of empirical support

→ Limitations = the children may have discussed the pictures within the one week frame before recall, thus skewing the results. In addition, it is difficult to determine which activities fit in with gender role schemas, limiting the method of the study

Justification for current study:

Because there are flaws in each of the aforementioned theories and studies, more research is necessary in order to come to more concrete conclusions regarding cognitive explanations for gender development. This is the reason why the study was carried out.