The psychological explanation of gender development would be the gender schema theory. Gender schema is an organised body of knowledge about the attributes and behaviours associated with a specific gender. The theory assumes children acquire their gender identity through their active processing of information. However, if differs in that Martin and Halverson believed that gender identity alone was sufficient for children to begin to show gender-appropriate behaviour, meaning that realising that gender remains constant is not a pre-requisite for gender-appropriate behaviour. The child’s gender schema begins to develop as soon as they notice the difference between males and females, know their own gender and can label the two groups fairly reliably, all of which happens between the age of two of three (Bee 2000).
Both explanations are supported by research, for example to support the biological approach, Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964) injected testosterone into pregnant monkeys. The female offspring were more aggressive and engaged in more ‘rough and tumble’ play than their female counterparts who were not exposed to excess testosterone. This supports the role of genes and hormones as it may have made a genetically female monkey have more masculine traits and perhaps gender. However this study may not be completely reliable as it has extrapolation issues, humans are much more complex than animals, though monkeys are said to be most human-like. Also, ethical issues have arisen from this research as it may be socially sensitive and against the animal rights. To support the psychological explanation of gender development, Campbell et al (2000) researched into the gender schema theory. They used the visual preference technique with a sample of babies aged 3 months, 9 months and 18 months. Three month old babies showed a minor preference for watching babies of the same sex as themselves, by 9 months boys preferred to look at and watch ‘boy toys’ and this was also true at 18 months. Research to support the biological approach seems somewhat more reliable overall as it tends to be more experimental. For example, Young (1966) gave doses of male hormones to female rats during a critical period of their early development and found that their sexual behaviour was reversed, with female rats attempting to mount from behind. This study shows a definite cause and effect link, the cause being injected male hormones and the effect being the female rats reversed sexual behaviours.
With regards to explanatory power, gender schema can explain why stereotypes persist as in the early years, children’s gender schema is incredibly simple, consisting of two groups: boys and girls. Their own group is seen as the ‘in-group’ and the opposite sex is viewed as the ‘out-group’. Bradbard et al found that 4-9 year olds took greater interest in objects labelled as ‘in-group’ and a week later were able to remember more details about objects from the ‘in-group’. This supports the stereotype of gender in childhood and explains why girls may play with dolls and boys with cars. The biological approach may also offer an explanation of why stereotypes persist by suggesting individuals inherit set hormones that determine how masculine or feminine an individual is and therefore stereotypes continue to exist. To add to this, if, for example, boys and girls were both given a doll to play with, perhaps the girls’ maternal instinct would cause a nursing and caring reaction; whereas, a boy with higher testosterone levels, which often leads to an increase in aggression, may be more likely to conduct more ‘rough-and-tumble’ play.
A significant difference between the biological and psychological explanations of gender development is that the biological approach supports the idea that the child is passive in their gender development and that it’s already been determined through the role of genes and hormones. The psychological explanation of gender development holds the belief that children play a much more active role in developing gender identity through their ‘active processing of information’.
However, it could be argued that both approaches are determinist; the biological approach doesn’t take into account any environmental factors and the gender schema theory is determinist because schemas influence what we pay attention to and what we remember, so our gender is determined by our schemas. To add to this, schemas consist of information we’re exposed to in our environment so gender is also, to an extent, going to be determined by our environment.
In regards to the nature/nurture debate, the biological explanation is in support of the nature side of the debate in that gender development is influenced by genes and hormones and the gender schema theory supports the nurture side of the debate which believes we learn our gender through what it is we pay attention to and remember. The biological approach seems to be more socially sensitive than the psychological explanation because the biological approach assumes that each individual’s gender development has already been determined and has implications such as people may feel like they have no control over their gender identity, for example, many mtf transsexuals often describe feels of a female gender identity in their childhood which they could not control.
