kohlberg theory of gender development

• There is evidence to support Kohlberg’s theory of gender development, and particularly the differences in behaviours displayed by children in the different stages. For example, Slaby and Frey (1975) found that children in Kohlberg’s stage 2 of gender stability paid more attention and were more attracted to same sex-models who appeared on screens both at the same time, compared to children within the first stage of gender identity.
• This is in line with Kohlberg’s prediction that children, once they have identified their gender and developed an appreciation that it is constant, will seek evidence to reinforce their beliefs e.g. from same-sex models through social learning theory.
• + Kohlberg may have encountered systematic errors when conducting the interviews from which he would base his theory upon. For example, since gender is such a complex construct, the interviewed children who were as young as 2-3 years old may have lacked an adaquate understanding of gender to produce accurate and reliable results.
• Similarly, they may have lacked the appropriate vocabulary to express their views, which in turn could have created a false impression of their understanding of gender. This, alongside the problems of researcher bias due to Kohlberg conducting the interviews himself and having expectations (based upon his stages of intellectual development), means that the stages of gender development/identity are likely to be biased and lack ecological validity.
• Kohlberg’s stages of gender development and identity suffers from biological determinism as well as biological reductionism. This is because Kohlberg placed great emphasis on neurodevelopmental or maturational changes in the child, biological in origin, which were said to trigger transitions between the different stages.
• The theory also ignores the social influences, an example of determinism, which may affect the extent to which each child identifies with a specific gender e.g. parenting style, the parents’ own gender identity, media portrayals of gender ideals and the various psychological and personality aspects of gender. Therefore, Kohlberg’s theory may not be considered universal, as suggested by Munroe et al.
• Stage 1: Gender labeling (by age 3)

  In the gender labeling stage, children can say whether they are a girl or boy as well as the gender of other people. However, they do not understand that this is a characteristic that can't change over time, like the length of someone's hair or the clothes that they are wearing.
• Stage 2: Gender stability (by age 5)

  In the gender stability stage, children start to realize that boys will grow up to be dads and girls grow up to be moms, etc. However, they still don't understand that gender can't be changed by changes in appearance or choice of activities.
• Stage 3: Gender constancy (by age 7)

  By about age 6 or 7, children begin to understand that sex is permanent across situations and over time. Once they develop this understanding, they begin to act as members of their sex.
• Research supporting Kohlberg’s theory includes studies showing that children’s understanding of gender progresses in the stages he described. For instance, Slaby and Frey (1975) found that children who had reached gender constancy paid more attention to same-gender models, suggesting that cognitive understanding of gender influences behavior.
• Similarly, Ruble et al. (2007) found that children begin to stereotype gendered behaviors more rigidly after achieving gender constancy, reinforcing the idea that cognitive processes shape gendered attitudes and behaviors. These studies align with Kohlberg’s belief that gender constancy plays a key role in motivating children to conform to gender norms.
• However, Kohlberg’s theory has been critiqued for underestimating the role of social and environmental factors in gender development. Social learning theorists, such as Bandura, argue that gender behavior is learned through observation and imitation long before children reach gender constancy.
• Additionally, Bussey and Bandura (1999) found evidence that children show gender-typed behaviors and preferences well before they achieve gender constancy, suggesting that cognitive understanding is not the sole determinant of gendered behavior. While Kohlberg’s theory highlights the cognitive milestones in gender development, it may oversimplify the complex interplay of biological, cognitive, and social influences that shape gender identity and behavior.

  4o