Outline and evaluate the gender schema theory by Martin and Halverson. (6 marks)Therapies.

Outline and evaluate the gender schema theory by Martin and Halverson

The gender schema theory was introduced as Martin and Halverson didn’t agree with Kohlberg’s study of ‘gender development theory’. It addresses the main problem of Kohlberg’s theory that sex-typed behaviour emerges long before children reach an understanding of gender consistency and includes elements of Social Learning Theory. Children learn pre-programmed gender schema between the ages of two and three to work out if they are a boy or a girl.

A schema is a cognitive structure that each person has about people, events and/or experiences. It begins as a basic structure that slowly becomes more complex through age and throughout different experiences. Once we have a schema we can use it to organisation information and to make sense of new experiences.

In gender we can use children’s drawings as an example to help understand how a gender schema may grow in complexity. This helps the child make sense of the world and predict what will happen in certain situations, this then forms memory and can be added to when necessary.

As the child gets older we can see the drawings become more complex and we see evidence of gender related information such as boys with footballs and girls with long eyelashes and carrying handbags.

Therefore we have a simple gender schema. We view our own group as the ‘in-group’ with people that we associate with every day, such as close family and friends. Boys pay close attention to boy’s toys and pay minimal attention to anything ‘girly’, whereas girls focus on girly things and avoid anything perceived to be ‘boy’. Children will also look to the environment to build gender schemas. For example, toys, games and sport go from being neutral to categorised as boys or girls.

One support for the gender schema theory is from Campbell (2000). Found three month old babies showed minor preferences for watching same sex babies. 9 month boys, preferred to look at and watch ‘boy toys’ and male activities (stronger in boys). Another study – two year old gender labelling had a rapid gender schema development.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another support for this theory was by Paulin-Dubois et al (2002). A Canadian study two-three year olds had to choose a doll and had to do either male (shaving) or female (vacuuming) tasks. The girls chose gender appropriate doll for the task, the boys didn’t, and therefore girls as young as two are affected by gender stereotype behaviours. Boys at thirty one months old showed this type of behaviour.

However one study that disagrees with Paulin-Dubois’s study is Tenenbaum and Leaper (2002). They argue that parents ‘gender schema’ is influential in shaping children’s views about gender. The way parents behave reinforces / models the behaviour. For example, jobs in the home done by mum or dad, behaviour of each parent.

Another study to support is from Martin et al (1995). Children aged four to five got given toys to play with which were labelled whether they were boys or girls toys. The findings were that the boys played with the boys’ toys and the girls played with the girls’ toys. They didn’t play with the opposite sex toys after being told which toys were for which sex. Strengths for this study were that it supports gender schemas and the perceived gender stereotypes have over behaviour. It had an important finding which highlights labelling and categorisation of objects, labelled in the same way as appropriate gender behaviour and gender stereotypes. The criticisms for this study were that the children might just want to please the adults and treat it as an acceptable response to play with right toys and might think they’d get into trouble if not playing with the right toys.

Bauer (1993) study doesn’t support the gender schema theory. His study was whether gender consistent and gender inconsistent occurs in very young children too. He tested boys and girls as young as 25 months. The children observed an experimenter carry out short sequences of stereotypically female, male, or gender neutral activities. E.g – changing a nappy, shaving a teddy, going on a treasure hunt. Tested the children by ‘elicted imitation’ both immediately and after a delay of 24 hours to see if they would copy what they had seen. The girls showed equivalent quality of recall for all three types of sequence. The boys showed superior recall of male stereotyped activities and the same for neutral activities. This shows that the boys more than girls make use of schemas by the age of 25 months and appear to remember more accurately event sequences with their own gender. Girls show no difference in recall of gender. This might be because some parents penalise sons (usually fathers) for playing with girls toys. Also, Bauer is female and the child’s environment wasn’t taken into account.

Bem’s lenses of gender (1993) has her own sort of theory on gender schema. She says that gender schemas become the lenses through which we view the world. E.g men are the dominant and superior sex, she agreed that these beliefs are like lenses through which we view males and females and it is important to make these lenses visible so that we are looking at them and not through them. She has three main points for this view. Androcentrism, which is male centred society, with the males being the norm and females not. Gender and Polarization, which is differences between genders usually with the male way of doing things given greater value. Lastly, Biological essentialism, which is men and women being biologically different and having different roles. Through Bem’s lenses theory it empowers men but not women.

One support for the schema theory is the Empirical support for stereotypes. Liben and Sighorella (1993) gave pictures to young children of adults engaging in stereotypical activities (attributed to opposite sex) e.g –male nurse. The study found that later the children insisted that nurses are female, therefore supporting the gender stereotypes. Research shows people remember gender consistent information and forget gender inconsistent information.

Another support for the gender schema theory is reinforcement selectivity. Fagot (1985) carried out a study with 40 children aged 21 to 25 months in a playgroup. He observed what was reinforced by children and teachers, and how effective it was on the children. The findings were that boys were influenced a lot by other boys. The girls were more influenced by teachers and other girls. Boys weren’t influenced by teachers. Boys and girls will still behave traditionally due to gender schemas.

One weakness for the gender schema theory is the gender awareness and gender typed behaviour. This predicts a close relationship between the two but research has found no roblist connection. Girls tend to be more flexible whereas boys engage is behaviour reserved for them (Archer).

Another weakness of the gender schema theory is the appearance of gender schemas. The age for this may be earlier than suggested. Bauer suggests 25 months. Another study compared 18 and 24 month old children and found 24 months old had gender preferences. Hill and Flom supporting earlier age.

The IDA’s for this theory is Culture bias, with the female stereotype being the weaker sex. Damaging to self-esteem, and it also gives an inaccurate perception of women.

Also, Bems gender lenses theory is interactionist because it should be what it is to be human, not what it is to be male and female.

This theory has gender bias because it supports the male sex more than the female, within the gender roles and gender stereotypes.

I think that the gender schema theory is very convincing because it is more flexible with the ages. Gender consistency can happen from a younger age – 18 months.

Chloe Howard