Kohlberg continued

Put the date in your diary 12th-16th December: Mock exam week

Homework: due Monday Current knowledge: compare and contrast the two cognitive theories of gender development (preparation for timed essay on Monday) Thursday: 15 minutes to answer question on Kohlberg

Gender… covered so far Sex role stereotypes/Androgyny The role of chromosomes and hormones Cognitive explanation of gender Kohlberg’s theory Gender Schema Theory Psychodynamic explanation of gender development: Freud’s psychoanalytic theory: Oedipus complex, Electra complex; identification and internalisation. Social learning theory as applied to gender development. Atypical gender development: gender identity disorder, biological and social explanations for gender identity disorder.

To note… Describe and evaluate the WMM (16 marks) We will be looking at these at the beginning of your second lesson. Please can you hand them into me when I come round. Make sure your names are on the back.

Mini quiz recap Answer the sheet Answers below

Kohlberg continued… Kohlberg believed that children can only learn gender-behaviours when they realise that gender is constant, i.e., they cannot change from one to the other. This only happens at age 7. Age 2-3: Gender Identity: the child learns which gender they are. They also recognise others as male or female. This is simply based on their physical appearance, so if a boy wears a skirt, he therefore becomes a ‘girl’. Age 3-7: Gender Stability: the child learns that gender is fixed: males stay male and females stay female. But they still don’t realise that gender stays the same over situations: if a boy acts like a girl he might turn into one! Age 7-12: Gender Constancy: children now fully understand gender and realise that it stays the same, even if the person looks or behaves differently. If a girl cuts her hair short, she is still a girl. At this stage, children are ready to learn about gender-appropriate behaviours. This third stage is related to the theory of cognitive development by Jean Piaget. He studied how children’s general thinking develops. His studies demonstrated that children aged under 7 don’t understand that objects remain the same even if they change shape. If you show a child some water in a short, fat glass, then pour it into a tall, thin glass, children under 7 will believe that there is now more water, as the level is higher. Children over 7 realise that there is the same amount of water. This is called conservation and is related to a child’s understanding that gender stays the same, even when appearances change.  

Activity 1 In your groups, ground the research that support/refute Kohlberg’s theory of gender development… Kuhn and Maccoby Slaby and Frey Martin and Little Munro Evidence: Munro: Universal sequence of development. Cross culturally, biological development (especially brain maturity) is similar, lending credibility to claims that cognitive maturation is more important than different social experiences in gender concept development. Martin and Little: Only rudimentary gender understanding is needed before children learn about sex stereotypes and show strong sex-type preferences for peers and toys. Slay and frey: Children's responses to the questions seemed to support Kohlberg’s sequence of gender identity development. However adjustments to the ages are necessary. This is not a direct challenge of the theory, as it still supports the same idea and thinking.

Activity 1 Example: Huston (Point) Kohlberg’s theory is unable to explain why boys show stronger sex typing then girls. Evidence: Huston (1985) found that it was relatively easy to get girls to engage in masculine activities, but not vice versa as boys generally resist. Explain/so what? This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory is not a complete explanation of gender development; it is clearly more complex and cannot be explained by one theory. This can be explained using the Social Learning Theory. Male role models tend to be more powerful (and therefore more likely to be imitated), than female counterparts so boys are more likely than girls to identify with their same-sex model and act appropriately. Males are also more likely to be punished for gender-inappropriate behaviour than girls and therefore learn appropriate gender more quickly.

Activity 2: Thinking about the theory holistically Activity 2: Thinking about the theory holistically. mind-map the evaluation points What has been the contribution of the theory? Comparison with other explanations of gender? Soft determinism? Nature vs. nurture? Universal approach?

What has been the contribution of the theory? Kohlberg’s contribution has primarily been to describe the relevant processes in gender development rather than to explain those processes. Kohlberg’s stages, for example, tell us how children are likely to think at different ages but relatively little about why gender thinking develops in this way. The reliance on quasi-experimental methods used to investigate Kohlberg’s explanation of gender is problematic. Studies supporting Kohlberg’s explanation such as Slaby and Frey (1975) can tell us that boys and girls think differently or that seven year- olds think differently from four year-olds but do not allow us not make causal inferences about why. Gender schema theory offers a more detailed alternative cognitive explanation looking at the process that underpin gender as opposed to just giving a description of gender development.

Comparison with other approaches Kohlberg’s theory takes a very broad approach to understanding gender development. It states that all children will go through 3 qualitatively distinct stages of gender development. This could be criticised as not all children have the same understanding of gender. For example, research conducted by Huston (1985) has shown that boys have much less flexible concept of gender role then females, and boys show greater resistance to opposite-sex activities than girls. These differences are likely to be social/cultural in origin and are difficult to explain in detail from the perspective of a cognitive-development theory. Perhaps this difference could be better understood by the Social Learning theory, which places much more emphasis on the child’s development, such as the role of socialisation in gender development, than Kohlberg does.

Nature vs. Nurture Kohlberg’s theory of gender development is founded on soft determinism and can be seen to take an interactionist approach to gender development. This is a strength of the theory as it explains the roles of both nature and nurture within gender development. The apparent universality of Kohlberg’s stages supports the idea that the sequence of gender development may have a biological basis because all males and females seem to progress in the same way. However, if gender development were purely due to biological maturation there would be no difference in male and female gender identity with males being less flexible than females. This suggests that nurture is involved in gender development through the child’s process of self-socialisation. Male’s lack of flexibility is due to socialisation, and psychologists have found that fathers, in particular, react more negatively towards their sons’ feminine play than mothers do, suggesting a role for both environmental influences and biological maturation of the brain in gender development.

Universal approach to gender Kohlberg’s theory explains universally how gender identities develop. This is supported by Munro’s (1984) cross-cultural analysis finding in both western and non-western cultures children go through all of Kohlberg’s stages in the order he claimed. As a result, Kohlberg’s theory of gender development has higher external validity as it can be generalised to many different cultures.

Activity 3 In your pairs. Improve the points from the responses you identified as weaknesses. The second stage is gender stability this is where the child believes that gender is fixed across time and not situations. This occurs at the age of 5. For example if a child saw a women in parts they’ll think it’s a man. A strength of this study is that it provides strength for nature and nurture…. However it can be criticised for underestimating a childs ability in cognition because it has been found that gender constancy can occur earlier….