Kohlberg's theory-cognitive

• Kohlberg’s theory in 1966 is an example of the cognitive developmental approach which emphasises role of thinking in development. This approach is not just used as an explanation of gender development but also used to explain moral development too. The most famous example of a cognitive-developmental theory is Piaget’s theory. Kohlberg’s theory draws on the Piagetian way we think changes as we get older because of physical changes in the brain. This means the changes in gender thinking are solely the outcome of age-related changes.
• The changes in gender thinking are the outcome of age-related changes. Consequence of this is that the development occurs in stages. A child naturally progresses from one stage to the next gradually. Stage 1 is gender labelling. This occurs between the age of 2 and 3. Children label themselves as a boy or girl. This is based on the outwards appearance, such as a hairstyle or their clothes. Towards the end of this stage, they can label themselves as well as others. A child’s way of thinking at this stage has been described (Piaget) as pre-operational (lacks internal logic).
• Stage 2 is gender stability. Around 4, children recognise gender is something that is consistent over time, eg boys grow into men. So, their gender concept is stable, but not consistent. They think males change to female if they participate in female activities. Children under 7 are still swayed by appearances- Piaget’s conservation. Children of this age believe a person must be a girl if they wear a dress. McConaghy found that when young children are shown drawings of a doll, male genitals were visible through the doll’s dress, children under 5 judged them to be female due to the appearance.
• Stage 3 is gender constancy. This is the final stage of gender development, around 6, children came to realise that gender is constant across situations. They have now developed full gender constancy. The key feature is that they start to learn gender appropriate behaviour. Up until this, its not relevant as their gender could change.

   
• An issue is the way children’s gender constancy is measured.

  Bem argued that the basic task is nonsense. When asked to solve a contradiction between genitals and clothing, children go for the cue that is most relevant in society which is clothes and hairstyles. Children who therefore identify gender on the basis of clothing are simply showing that they have learnt about the world.

  This criticism weaken the validity of the research findings into gender constancy.
• Slaby and Frey 1975 found that gender constancy appeared at a younger age than Kohlberg had suggested (5)

  This is not a direct challenge as it still supports the idea that thinking changes over time, but some adjustments may need to be made. In the time since Kohlberg released the theory, there has been many developments which can lead to children being exposed to different kinds of gender information through the media and therefore develop at a much younger age.

  Therefore, the evidence is still valid, but the ages may actually be younger than was originally proposed.
• Gender differences has been found through when gender constancy has been exhibited.

  It was found its relatively easy for girls to take part in masc type activities but boys are more likely to resist. SLT supports this; boys role models seem more powerful. So,they’re more likely to identify with them. Girl’s role models tend to be less powerful so, less likely to identify with role models. Also, boys are more likely to be punished for displaying ‘girls’ behaviour so they learn appropriate behaviour quicker.

  So, Kohlberg’s theory is incomplete as it doesn’t include other processes involved.
• Research doesn’t support Kohlberg’s claims that children don’t acquire info about gender-appropriate behaviour until they achieve gender constancy.

  For example, Martin and Little 1990 found that children under the age of 4 showed no signs of gender stability, let alone signs of constancy, but did display strong gender stereotypes.

  This shows that they have acquired info about gender roles before Kohlberg suggested.