However, further research has shown that it is fathers who are most likely to discourage boys from playing with “girls” toys. LANGLOIS & DOWNS (1980, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). This was supported by SIEGAL (1987, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002) who found fathers more likely to reinforce gender appropriate behaviour in boys, and that this led to boys adopting gender specific behaviours earlier and more rigidly than girls. Despite this there is little indication that reinforcement by fathers has significant effect on the learning of gender roles. In fatherless families, boys and girls still emerge with gender appropriate behaviours. A fathers’ absence appears to have little impact on the development of boys’ gender roles and virtually none on girls’. STEVENSON & BLACK, (1988, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002)
Observational learning based on models can occur without reinforcement, where the child imitates an adults’ behaviour. Parental models are the most obvious source of observational learning with Social Learning theorists often citing same-sex parents as the main gender role model for children. LYTTON & ROMNEY, (1991, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). However, evidence from non-conventional families suggests this is not so. PATTERSON, (1992, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002), argued that children reared in gay or lesbian families show few differences in gender role development to children of heterosexual parents.
In a study of 8-9 year olds watching adults in a gender-neutral activity, children tended to opt for the same choice as an adult of the same sex. PERRY & BUSSEY (1979, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). BUSSEY & BANDURA (1984, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002) concluded that children pay more attention to a role model who is the same gender and is behaving in a gender appropriate way and that this influences behaviour. However this is not always the case, as a review of 80 studies of same gender imitation found that this only occurred in 18 of the studies. BARKLEY et al (1977, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002)
Gender stereotypes shown in the media have a strong influence on children who are acquiring their gender identity. Evidence on the effects of stereotypes is shown in a study by WILLIAMS (1985, as cited in CARDWELL et al, 2000). Williams compared gender role attitudes of children in three Canadian towns. Notel had no TV channels, Unitel had one TV channel and Multitel had 4 TV channels. After two years, Notel had acquired 1 TV channel, Unitel now had 2 TV channels and Multitel still had 4 channels. Behaviour was observed over the two year period and one of the main findings was that Notel’s children’s view on gender roles changed to become very traditional and gender stereotyped with the advent of TV.
LEARY et al, (1982, as cited in CARDWELL et al, 2000) found that children who watched television frequently were more likely to have stereotypical views of gender and more likely to conform to gender role attitudes. However these sets of data are correlational and therefore it cannot be shown whether television programmes make children more stereotyped or that gender stereotyped children watch more television. However, Duck (1990, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002) suggests that the relationship between children and media role models is more complex, with children actively seeking out media figures who reflect a similar sense of identity to themselves and then modelling themselves on them rather than simply being influenced by whatever and whoever they see.
Peers are also important in the process of gender behaviour reinforcement with evidence of considerable pressure to conform to the “norm”. A study observed a group of nursery children during free play periods and found that generally the children involved in gender appropriate play were given more attention or imitated by their peers thus reinforcing the behaviour. It was also found that gender inappropriate play was criticised. LAMB & ROOPNARINE, (1979, as cited in CARDWELL et all, 2000). Judith Rich HARRIS (1999, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002) argues that peer groups have the most influence on a child, far outweighing the parental influence.
Social Learning Theory describes how children learn behaviour appropriate for their gender and culture. It shows that gender identities change over time and vary from culture to culture. This suggests that gender identities are learned in a social setting. However, Social Learning theory fails to explain why gender identities change significantly as children grow older. STANGOR & RUBLE, (1987, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). It has also been criticised for presenting an oversimplified view of learning. Reinforcement tends to indicate a child manipulated by the powers that be and observational learning portrays children as merely imitating same sex models. In both cases, very little is said about the childs ability to choose role models and their ability to accept or reject reinforcement. SCHAFFER, (1996, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002).
Lawrence Kohlberg developed cognitive Development Theory in the 1960’s. KOHLBERG, (1966, as cited in CARDWELL et al, 2000) suggests that as a childs cognitive ability matures so does their understanding of gender, and, that once a child has acquired a gender concept they then actively seek to identify with members of the same gender in order to learn further information about gender appropriate behaviour. Children, therefore, increase and control their own gender development and are not simply passive products of social training. KOHLBERG, (1966, as cited in CARDWELL et al, 2000) proposed a three stage theory of gender identity and role development.
GENDER IDENTITY
At around age 2-3 a child can correctly identify him/herself as a boy or a girl, however they are still unsure if gender is fixed. THOMPSON, (1975, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002), found that 2 year olds could correctly categorise themselves as male or female when presented with pictures and by age 3 most can categorise others by using clues such as hairstyle and clothing. However, children remain unsure of permanence of gender. SLABY & FREY, (1975, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002)
GENDER STABILITY
At around age 3-4 a child is aware that gender is fixed, but is unsure if gender is constant or if it can change to suit a situation. Children at this stage know that they were the same sex as babies and that they will grow up to be the same sex in adulthood, but are unsure if gender changes with differing situations. SLABY & FREY (1975, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002).
GENDER CONSISTENCY
At around age 4-7 a child understands that gender is constant and that changing dress or hairstyle will not change gender.
Kohlberg was strongly influenced by PIAGETS’ “Stages of Cognitive Development” and he argued that gender identities and roles are only possible when children have reached the necessary stage in their cognitive development; when they have developed the mental structures required to understand gender and its’ constancy. Once fully aware of the concept of gender, children relate to relevant information i.e. particular clothes, hairstyles and gender appropriate behaviours. At this stage, models become important and children select gender appropriate behaviours from the range of available models, they imitate models they themselves consider appropriate. Children therefore socialise themselves. FREY & RUBLE, (1992, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). According to Kohlberg there should be a close relationship between cognitions about gender and gender typed attitudes and behaviour. HUSTON, (1985, as cited in HEFC class notes, 2004), argued that this was exaggerated as the relationship was weak especially in girls.
A number of studies have indicated a link between the various stages and gender typed behaviour. WEINRAUB et al, (1984, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002), studied 2-3 year olds and found that those with the most developed gender identity were more likely to play with gender typed toys. Further to this, a study of gender constancy looked at the response of 4-6 year olds to TV adverts in which toys were presented as suitable for either boys or girls. Children with a high understanding of gender constancy were more likely to pick up these gender messages. RUBLE et al, (1981, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002). However, Social Learning theorists, suggest that children show preferences for gender typed toys and models before gender constancy is acquired. BUSSEY & BANDURA, (1984. as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002).
KOHLBERG (1966, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002) rejects Social Learning theorists’ view of the thought process sequence that leads to gender acquisition; I want rewards, I get rewards when I do girl like things, therefore I want to be a girl, I am a girl. Kohlberg views the sequence of thought as; I realise I am a girl, therefore I want to do girl like things, doing girl like things is intrinsically rewarding.
In conclusion, social factors are clearly influential in the development of gender behaviour. The Social Learning approach portrays the child as passive, where learning of appropriate gender behaviour is by observation, mimicking and reinforcement. The evidence supporting this can be weak; reinforcement is not always clearly demonstrated, as children seem to acquire gender roles regardless of whether rewards are given or not. It is also unclear whether children adopt their gender from role models or actively choose role models based on their existing sense of gender identity.
Kohlberg’s Cognitive-Development Theory differs because it suggests that gender development leads to identification rather than identification leading to
gender development. It also emphasises that the child is active in gender development; the child is self-socialising and uses adults’ reinforcements as clues as to what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable. However, Cognitive-Development Theory does have weaknesses. It solely takes stages of development into account and therefore places little or no importance on the role of biology, emotion, social environment or culture and offers no explanation as to why masculinity and femininity are valued by society differently. BEM, (1993, as cited in HARALAMBOS et al, 2002).
In 1992, BANDURA & BUSSEY, (1992, as cited in CARDWELL et al, 2000) adapted the traditional Social Learning Theory to allow for cognitive and motivational factors. This new theory, Social Cognitive Theory, suggests that a child has it’s own ability to regulate his/her own activities according to the rules of gender appropriate behaviour. This combines Social Learning Theory with Cognitive Development Theory and shows a move from parental control over this process to an understanding that children actively evaluate situations and adapt their behaviour accordingly. This more recent theory aims to broaden and combine earlier approaches and to develop them further.
Approx. 2000 words.
Reference List
Cardwell.M, Clark.L, Meldrum.C (2000) Psychology for A Level London Harper Collins
Haralambos.M, Rice.D, Foreman.N, Jones.S, Stenner.P, Brown.S, Kinderman.P, Sharp.K (2002) Psychology in Focus for A Level Lancashire Causeway Press