AO3

• There is evidence for Gender labelling

  • Thompson found 2 y olds correct 76% of times in their identification of sex and 3 y olds were 90% correct. So going up in line with maturation.
• There is evidence that gender constancy may not be required to develop gender role behaviour.

  • Martin and Little (1990) found that preschool children had no gender stability but did have strong gender stereotypes for what males and females could do. This shows they had acquired information about gender roles before Kohlberg suggested it was possible, so supports gender schema.
• There is evidence to support Kohlberg’s theory of gender development. 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
• 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, which were said to trigger transitions between the different stages. The theory also ignores the social influences, which may affect the extent to which each child identifies with a specific gender e.g. parenting style, the parents’ own gender identity. Therefore, Kohlberg’s theory may not be considered universal, as suggested by Munroe et al.