Kohlberg's Theory of Gender Development

Kohlberg (1966) proposed that children gradually develop the ability to think about gender, progressing through stages, as they become capable of more complex and abstract thought. This is a cognitive development approach.

Stage 1- gender labelling

Age 2-3. Children label themselves and others based on outward appearance (e.g. clothes, hair). Children change the labels as appearances change- he has long hair now so he must be a girl.

Stage 2- gender stability

Age 4-7. Children recognise that gender is stable over time but not over situations. They are still swayed by outward appearances.

Stage 3- gender constancy

Age 6. Children realise gender shows conservation across time and situations, and realise their gender will not change. At this stage of gender constancy, children start to learn gender-appropriate behaviour by paying attention to same-sex models.

Research evidence supports Kohlberg's theory

Slaby and Frey (1975) asked young children questions like: 'were you a little boy or a little girl when you were a baby?' Children didn't recognise gender stability until 3-4 years old- which is what Kohlberg predicted. Children who scored highly on stability and constancy showed greater interest in same-sex models.

Methodological issues of studies with young children

Bem (1989) argued that children use the cues that are most relevant in our society, such as clothes, and that may children didn't actually know what the opposite-gender genitals look like. Therefore, the results may not be valid because the children aren't acting truthfully.

The ages of the different stages may need adjusting

Slaby and Frey found gender constancy appeared as young as age 5. This may be because of the influence of media and its exposure to children. So the age bands may be younger. The theory needs to be updated because it obviously isnt universal.

Differences in development

Monroe et al (1984) found the same stages in a range of cultures, e.g. Kenya, Samoa, meaning the stages are universal. This suggests that the biological approach is more likley than the cognitive approach. However, Slaby and Frey found that boys tend to exhibit gender constancy before girls. This may be because children are more likely to identify with same-gender role models. This therefore shows the importance of the social approach as a way of learning gender behaviour.