Any cognitive developmental theory is based on the idea that children have to have reached a certain level of cognitive development before they can appreciate certain concepts, such as what it means to be a boy or girl, and the full implications of this. KOHLBERG proposed that children go through stages in the development of full gender identity.
The first stage is known as “gender labelling” or “basic gender identity”. This occurs between 1.5 and 3 years, and refers to a child’s recognition of being male or female. Kohlberg understood that this recognition allows us to understand and categorise the world. This knowledge is fragile, with “man”, “woman” ,”girl” and “boy” meaning little more that labels, equivalent to personal names. Children sometimes use incorrect labels at this age e.g. they may believe that a person can change gender.
The second stage is “gender stability”. By the age of 3 to 5 years, most children recognise that gender stays the same for life, but rely on superficial, physical signs to determine gender. E.g. children may believe that a woman who has her head shaven becomes a man.
The third and final stage is gender constancy or consistency. At around 6-7, children realise that gender is permanent; if a woman has her head shaven, she is still female. Gender understanding is only complete when a child appreciates that gender is permanent over time and different situations.
This leads onto an essential element of Kohlberg’s theory; that children will not display fully sex-typed behaviour until they reach gender constancy stage. Once they understand gender completely, they begin to value the behaviours and attitudes associated with their gender. To learn more about these behaviours and attitudes, children will actively imitate models of the same gender
There has been extensive research into Kohlberg’s theory. MUNROE ET AL found that children in several cultures went through the 3 stages proposed by Kohlberg. This suggests that the theory can be applied across different societies, meaning it possesses high cross-cultural validity. Also, the fact that gender development is the same regardless of social circumstances, suggests a biological influence on gender development.
Evidence for the age of gender labelling comes from THOMPSON who found that two year olds were 76% correct in identifying their sex, whereas three year olds were 90% correct. This shows an increasing ability to label themselves, as predicted by kolhberg’s theory.
The theory however, is descriptive, rather than explanatory. It describes the stages of gender development, but gives no explanation as to how they happen and disregards the many factors influencing this development.
It has also been argued that Social Learning Theory provides a better account of children’s motivation for selecting and conforming to gender categories.
This theory also ignores individual differences. Not all children have the same understanding of gender. There are always children that do not conform to the norm. For example, some girls play with boy’s toys and play football. Kohlberg’s theory does not account for this as it states that girls will imitate same-sex models, actively seeking to conform to their own gender’s behaviour and attitudes. It is beta biased. Difference between male and female is minimised.
It also does not account for external factors (e.g. reward and punishment by parents) that determine much early gender role behaviour. If a child is punished for displaying certain gender traits; for example if a boy plays with dolls and is told that is wrong, they may not demonstrate this behaviour again. This punishment moulds the development of gender, suggesting that gender development is not only influenced by the child’s own cognitions as suggested by Kohlberg, but also by external influences.
The theory also struggles to explain the change in gender roles over time. The theory suggests that we would have the same attitudes and beliefs as those who we “imitate”. If this were true, then gender roles would not change across generations. They do however, as shown by the entrance of women into the workplace. They did not learn these attitudes from their parents, but created them of their own accord; thus weakening Kohlberg’s theory.- biologically reductionist.
Another issue is that it may well be that children are at these stages earlier, but because of limits in their language skills they are not able to verbalise this. Kohlberg’s theory could therefore be less of a gender development theory, and more a theory of the ability to talk about different concepts of gender.
It has also been argued that Kohlberg exaggerated the role of cognitive factors. Huston purported that Kohlberg’s theory suggests there should be a close relationship between gender and gender-typed attitudes and behaviour. This relationship is actually fairly weak- weaker in girls than in boys. As Kohlberg’s theory is based on the idea that beliefs influence behaviour these findings cannot be explained by his theory, hence reducing the theory’s validity.
Gender stability was investigated by SLABY ET AL, who asked young children what gender they were when they were younger and what gender they will be when they are older. Children did not recognise that these traits were stable over time until they were three or four years old, as Kohlberg predicted
Gender consistency was also considered by SLABY ET AL. Those children high in gender constancy (a combination of stability and consistency) showed greatest 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 behaviour.
McCONAGHY also found evidence to support the gender stability stage. This was done by showing children dolls dressed in transparent clothes with left their genitals visible. Children aged three to five used the clothes to identify gender, showing that they still use superficial indicators.
One problem with this study is the question of whether the researchers were actually testing what they intended to test. BEM demonstrated that it is genital knowledge rather than gender constancy which explains these findings. After doing a study similar to the previous one, many of the children who failed to display gender constancy also failed a genital knowledge test. This suggests that the previous study lacks internal validity, as the doll’s genitals gave the children no useful information.
There may be a gender bias in this theory, as some critics claim that females are being judged using a male standard. This is largely because Kohlberg’s original research, which he used as a basis for this model, was done only on males. Gender development happens differently in males than it does in females. For example, girls are generally more willing to do masculine activities than boys are to do feminine activities.
These findings may be better explained by gender schema theory, which suggests that children begin to take on gender appropriate behaviours as soon as they are aware of their own gender (gender labelling). These finding may also be able to be explained biologically, as the boys’ hormones may lead them to be more interested in masculine activities than in feminine activities.