Kohlberg's cognitive developmental theory

Kohlberg's cognitive developmental theory

1. Background

   • A01
     • K's theory draws on Piagetian idea that way we think changes as we get older because of physical changes in brain
       • Brain becomes capable of increasingly complicated + abstract thinking
         • Means changes in gender thinking are solely outcome of age-related changes in child's cognitive capabilities
           • Consequence of this is that development occurs in stages
             • Children naturally progress from 1 stage to the next as their way of thinking matures
               • Useful to recognise this progression through stages is gradual process rather than one of sudden transitions

2. Stage 1: gender labelling

   • A01
     • Ages 2 + 3
       • Children label themselves + others as a boy or a girl, a man or woman
         • Label based on outward appearance only, such as hairstyle or what a person is wearing
           • Children will change gender labels as appearances change
   • A02
     • Research support
       • Thompson
         • Found 2 year olds were 76% correct in identifying their sex, whereas 3 year olds were 90% correct
           • Shows increased ability to label themselves
           • Pre-operational stage
             • Lacks internal logic - kind of superficial logic but isn't internally consistent

3. Stage 2: gender stability

   • A01
     • Around 4
       • Children recognise gender is something consistent over time
         • Doesn't yet recognise consistency
           • Don't understand that gender is also constant across situations , believing instead M might change into F if they engage in F activities
     • Under age of 7 still swayed by outward appearences
       • Concept of conservation
         • Lack the ability to conserve
           • McConaghy
             • Found young children shown a line drawing of doll where M genitals were visible through dolls dress children under age of 5 judged doll to be F because of external appearance despite contrary evidence that it was a boy
   • A02
     • Research support
       • Slaby + Frey
         • Asked young children Qs such as: 'Were you a little boy or girl when you were a baby?' + 'When you grow up will you be a mummy or daddy?'
           • Answers given by children showed they didn't recognise that these traits were stable over time until 3 or 4 years old
     • Genital knowledge
       • Sandra Bem
         • Argues its GK rather than gender constancy that lies at root of gender development
         • Showed children a pic of a toddler in nude, asked them to identify its sex when dressed gender inappropriately + appropriately
           • Found 40% of 3-5 year olds capable of conserving gender
           • Tested children who didn't conserve gender + found 77% of these also failed a GK test
             • Simply didn't know what opposite sex genitalia looked like - couldn't conserve anything because they didn't know anything had changed
           • When children are asked to resolve a contradiction between genitals + clothing, child goes for cue which is most relevant in our society
             • Children who resolve this contradiction by identifying gender on basis of clothing are simply showing they have learned about our world

4. Stage 3: gender consistency

   • A01
     • Around 6
       • Children comes to realise gender is consistent across situations
         • Developed full gender constancy
     • Key feature is that they start to learn about gender-appropriate behaviour
       • Up until this stage of constancy such info is not really relevant because child believes his/her gender may change
   • A02
     • Research support
       • Slaby + Frey
         • Asked 'If you played football would you be a B or a G?' +'Could you be a B/G if you wanted to be'
           • Found children who scored high on both stability + consistency showed greatest interest in same-sex models
             • Suggests increasing sense of constancy leads children to pay more attention to gender-appropriate models
     • Age underestimtaed
       • Slaby + Frey
         • Gender consistency appeared at younger age - as young as 5
           • Not direct challenge but suggests adjustments are necessary to ages
     • Gender difference
       • Slaby + Frey
         • Found B tended to exhibit gender consistency before G
       • Huston
         • Points out relatively easy to get G to take on masculine-type activities but same cannot be said of B who generally resist
       • Difference explained in terms of SLT
         • Power = 1 factor that determines how likely a person is to identify w/ a role model
           • G less likely to identify w/ role models because, even though RM are gender appropriate they're less powerful
         • B = more likely to be punished for gender inappropriate behaviour than G
           • Therefore learn appropriate gender behaviour more rapdily
         • Theory = incomplete as SLT principles are also involved
     • Methodology
       • Bem
         • Criticised way children's gender constancy is measured
           • Claims that all being assessed is child's understanding of our social cues for indicating gender
       • Martin + Halverson
         • Analysed responses to Qs used by S + F
           • Judged children were adopting a 'pretend' mode - answering Qs based on this rather than what they really thought
     • IDA - Other approaches
       • Cognitive developmental approach makes no mention of hormones + genes
         • Suggests changing way people think can alter gender behaviours but evidence suggests while thinking may change, behaviour doesn't
           • Many couples theoretically agree to sharing domestic duties but practice doesn't happen
             • Perhaps because D of gender roles has bio rather than psych basis
               • Alternately, GR may be learned through reinforcement - social approach
       • CD approach emphasises active role of children in acquiring gender concepts
         • Social approach views gender development as more passive process, outcome of direct + indirect reinforcement from parents, peers + the media