Recap of psychological explanations of gender

Description (AO1) / Evaluation (AO2/3)
Gender Consistency Theory /
  • Children acquire an understanding of gender in age related stages.
  • These are: Gender Identity, Gender Stability and Gender Consistency
  • According to Kohlberg, only once children have reached the final stage will they begin to show behaviour that fits their gender. Children need to understand gender properly to begin the self-socialisation process.
  • This means they actively seek out same sex role models and other information on how to behave as male or female.
/ IDA: Nature-nurture: Nature part is questionable (ages/stages), perhaps nurture plays a larger role.
Evidence:
  • Martin & Little – children had basic understanding of gender but had strong understanding of gender roles – challenges Kohlberg’s idea that children need gender consistency to understand gender appropriate behaviour.
  • Slaby and Frey – support for gender developing in age related stages but challenges the actual ages that children pass through these stages.
Evaluation of evidence:
Slaby and Frey – used simple, age appropriate questions therefore less chance of children being confused by questions – increases internal validity.
Wider evaluation points:
+ Acknowledges that cognition plays a role in gender development – this is often ignored in other explanations e.g. biological and biosocial.
- General problems with measuring cognitions
Gender Schema Theory / •Gender identity develops through both cognitive and social processes.
•Unlike Kohlberg doesn’t suggest that children need to know that gender is permanent to develop gender schema.
•The child’s gender schema develops around 2/3 as soon as the child notices differences between boys and girls and can label the two groups reliably. Having developed the schema, the child then looks for support and evidence to support their schema.
•Two types of sex-related schema: the “in-group out-group” schema and the “own-sex” schema. / IDA: Nature-nurture: Emphasis on nurture - ignores the role of biology.
Evidence:
  • Martin & Little – supports – schemas develop at 2/3 yrs old & ‘ingroup’ and ‘outgroup’ schemas
  • Martin, Eisenbud and Rose– supports – developed ‘own-sex’ schema
  • Eisenberg et al–problematic for theory – not all children play with toys based on gender schema
Evaluation of evidence:
Overall: Use of lab studies –high internal validity
Wider evaluation points:
+ More flexible explanation of gender development than G.C.T and is supported by a wealth of research.
+ Explains why children may have a rigid view of gender – do not accept information that goes against their schema.
- Difficulties in explaining individual differences (especially if they are exposed to similar information) - not all children conform to gender specific behaviour.