Most people feel that gender is a strong part of their identity - however, most people also think that this identity consists of either being a girl or boy, man or woman and again, these terms are typically used with regards to social and cultural d...
Many psychologists have attempted to explain the human development of gender as an innate and universal process. One of the most well-known gender development theory comes from Kohlberg.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Kohlberg's gender constancy theory is an example of the cognitive developmental approach which emphasises the role of thinking {cognitions} in the process of development. Kohlberg believed that children actively structure their own experiences and according to his theory, children acquire an understanding of gender by going through three different stages. The establishment of gender consistency results from the child maturing and going through the process of socialisation, whereby they interact and perhaps imitate peers of the same age and gender.
The first stage is gender labelling {2-3.5 years}. Children label themselves and others as "girl" or "boy", but this label is based on outward appearances only – the label will change as appearance is changed, for example: "he has long hair now, so he must be a girl". A child's way of thinking at this point is described as pre-operational {Piaget}.
The second stage is gender stability {3.5-4.5 years}. Here, children recognise that gender is consistent over time – for example, boys grow into men, girls grow into women, but they don't recognise that it is consistent over situations – i.e. a male will be seen as female when engaging in "female activities" and thus, they are still swayed by outward appearances.
The third stage is gender constancy {established at around 6-7 years old}. Children realise that gender is consistent over time and situations. Kohlberg believed that at this point, children also start to learn gender-appropriate behaviour, as before that point they thought that their gender could still change.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Support for Kohlberg's theory comes from Thompson who found that 76% of two year olds and 90% of three year olds correctly identified their gender. This shows that children at that age do indeed label themselves and thus increases support for the gender identity stage of Kohlberg's theory.
Further support comes from Slaby and Frey who asked children what gender they were when they were younger and what gender they would be when they were older and they found that children didn't recognise that these traits were stable over time until they were about three or four years old, and this is what was predicted {the gender stability stage}.
However, a criticism of gender constancy theory comes from Bem. Although she agrees with Kohlberg that there are cognitive stages in gender development, she argues that it is genital knowledge rather than gender constancy which lies at the root of gender development. She found that 40% of three to five year olds were capable of conserving gender. Additionally, 77% of those who failed also failed a genital knowledge test, which showed that they simply didn't know what they were. She argues that when asked to resolve a contradiction between genitalia and clothing, they go for the cue that is clearly present in society – gender difference are demarcated through hair styles and clothing choices – therefore, all these children are doing is simply showing that they have learnt about the world. This decrease support for Kohlberg's theory as it shows that not all the three stages that he identified are relevant in developing gender and suggests that gender schema theory – which states that children begin to take on gender appropriate behaviour as soon as they are aware of their gender {i.e. gender identity} – may be a better explanation of gender development.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Furthermore, Kohlberg's theory falls on the Nurture side of the Nature vs. Nurture debate. However, there is evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, Money et al found that mothers who took male sex hormones to cease uterine bleeding during pregnancy consequently had girls who behaved in a tomboyish manner. Ultimately, this implies that cognitions may not be the only thing to aid gender development, as it may also be biologically determined. In fact, contradictory evidence suggests that there is a wider scope to the development of gender and so perhaps a diathesis-stress* approach should be adopted when trying to explain it.
*a diathesis-stress approach refers to a psychological perspective which takes into account both biological and psychological factors, be it regarding gender development or some other area of study.
Thank you for reading. I must point out that pretty much all the gender development theories in mainstream psychology focus on genders within the binary and studies/research have been conducted by cisgender individuals on cisgender participants. But the theories are interesting nonetheless, I'd love to hear what you think.
