PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF GENDER
DEVELOPMENT
To read up on psychological explanations of gender development, refer to pages 230–
244 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How does the development of our mental processes (cognition) explain
gender development?
 What is androgyny and how does this develop?
 Are the causes of gender dysphoria biological or psychological?
What you need to know
COGNITIVEDEVELOPMENTAL
THEORIES


Kohlberg’s theory
Gender-schema
theory
PSYCHOLOGICAL
ANDROGYNY


Definition of
androgyny
The androgyny
scale
GENDER DYSPHORIA


Biological
explanations
Family
constellations
Some useful terms
 Sex refers to the biology of being male or female.
 Gender refers to psychological characteristics of being male or female, in
other words to masculinity and femininity.
 Sexual identity is the identity given to the child based on biological factors;
it can usually be assessed from the genitals and is given at birth.
 Gender identity is a child’s awareness of being male or female and the
implications of this.
 Gender role is a set of expectations that prescribes how males and females
should act and feel.
 Gender stereotypes are beliefs about the differences between males and
females, based on gender roles.
COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES
Kohlberg
Any cognitive-developmental theory is based on the idea that children have to have
reached a certain level of cognitive development before they can appreciate certain
concepts, such as what it means to be a boy or a girl and the full implications of this.
Kohlberg proposes that children go through three stages in the development of full
gender identity:
1. Basic gender identity (age 2 to 3½ years): boys label themselves as boys, and
girls label themselves as girls. However, they believe it would be possible to
change sex.
2. Gender stability (3½ to 4½ years): there is an awareness that sex is stable
over time (e.g. boys will become men), but less awareness that sex remains
stable across different situations, such as wearing clothes normally worn by
members of the opposite sex. When a doll was dressed in transparent clothes
so there was a discrepancy between its clothing and its genitals, children in
this stage decided on its sex on the basis of clothing (McConaghy, 1979).
3. Gender constancy (4½ to 7 years upwards): children at this stage realise that
sex remains the same over time and over situations.
An essential element of Kohlberg’s theory is that children will not show sex-typed
behaviour until they have an understanding of gender, that is, until they have the
necessary mental structures to understand it. They need to have acquired gender
constancy before they can act in a fully sex-typed way. This means that they must
understand gender properly before they start to imitate their same-sex parent (and
other same-sex people) rather than the opposite-sex parent.
Once children have acquired the mental structures necessary to understand gender
differences, they develop schemas of what it means to be male or female (the clothes
you wear, hairstyles, personality characteristics). They then actively seek out samesex models and other information to learn how to act like a boy or girl, a process
known as self-socialisation (because they are socialising themselves).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Munroe, Shimmin, and Munroe (1984, see A2 Level Psychology page 233)
found children in several cultures went through the three stages proposed by
Kohlberg: basic gender identity, gender stability, gender constancy.
 Slaby and Frey (1975, see A2 Level Psychology page 233) showed that
children high in gender consistency showed a greater tendency to pay
attention to same-sex models than those low in gender consistency.
 Ruble, Balaban, and Cooper (1981, see A2 Level Psychology pages 233–234)
found that when preschoolers watched advertisements in which toys were
represented as being suitable for a particular sex, the children high in gender
consistency were more influenced than those low in gender consistency. This
is an important finding because it means that children do not passively
respond to stereotypes shown in the media. Rather the degree to which they
are influenced is affected by their own cognitions (mental structures).
EVALUATION
 Support for Kohlberg’s stages. Gender identity does seem to develop
through the three stages suggested by Kohlberg, as Munroe et al. (1984)
found across cultures.
 Support for active role of children in gender development. The notion
that gender development involves children actively interacting with the
world around them is valuable, as is the notion that how they interact with
the world depends on the extent to which they have developed a consistent
gender identity.



Sex typing is well under way before a child achieves gender constancy.
Much research has demonstrated that children prefer sex-appropriate toys
from at least as early as 2 years old and that they prefer same-sex playmates
from around 3 years of age, long before they begin to selectively attend to
same-sex models. In other words, gender role behaviour is shown by most
boys and girls by the time of their third birthday. This is several years before
they have reached gender consistency, and so it cannot be argued that all
gender role behaviour depends on gender consistency. It seems that only a
very basic understanding of gender is necessary before children learn sexrole stereotypes and measures of gender consistency tell us little about how
“sex-typed” children are (Lobel & Menashri, 1993).
Ignores external factors. Kohlberg’s theory tends to ignore external factors
such as reward and punishment from parents. However, this has been shown
to determine much early gender role behaviour.
Exaggerated the importance of cognitive factors. Huston (1985) pointed
out that Kohlberg’s theory leads to the prediction that there should be a close
relationship between beliefs about gender and gender-typed attitudes and
behaviour. In fact, the relationship is not very strong, and is weaker in girls
than in boys. This means that what you believe about gender roles is not
necessarily reflected in your actual behaviour. Since Kohlberg’s theory is
based on the fact that beliefs (cognitions) influence behaviour, these findings
cannot be explained by his theory.
Gender-Schema Theory
Bem (1981, see A2 Level Psychology page 234) and Martin and Halverson (1987, see
A2 Level Psychology page 234) advanced this theory. Their starting point is the same
as Kohlberg—that children develop gender schemas. Once these are formed, any
information children receive about gender roles is actively used to organise and
understand the world. These gender schemas determine:
 what information children attend to
 how they interpret the world
 what they remember of their experiences.
Martin, Wood, and Little (1990, see A2 Level Psychology page 235) suggest that these
schemas develop in three stages:
1. Children learn what type of things are associated with each sex, e.g. “boys
have short hair; girls wear dresses”.
2. Children begin to link gender items together and draw inferences based on
the culture’s view of sex-appropriate behaviour, e.g. if a person has long hair,
she is also likely to wear dresses, play with dolls, enjoy helping mummy with
the cooking. However, these inferences are mainly made only about their
own sex. This stage is around 4–6 years.
3. From about 8 years of age, children can make these inferences about the
opposite sex. So, a girl is now more likely to offer a boy a train set to play
with than a doll and may assume he’d rather do things with his father than
his mother.
The main difference with Kohlberg’s theory is that gender-schema theory states that
these schemas are formed as soon as the child acquires a basic gender identity (that
is, from around 2 years old).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Martin and Halverson (1983, see A2 Level Psychology page 235) showed 5and 6-year-old children pictures of schema-consistent activities (e.g. a boy
playing with a train) and schema-inconsistent activities (e.g. a girl sawing
wood). Schema-consistent pictures were much better remembered a week
later than sex-inconsistent pictures. The latter were often remembered
incorrectly by changing the sex of the person and therefore making them
schema-consistent.
 Bradbard et al. (1986, see A2 Level Psychology page 235) presented boys and
girls between the ages of 4 and 9 with gender-neutral objects such as burglar
alarms and pizza cutters. They were told that some of the objects were “boy”
objects, whereas others were described as “girl” objects. There were two key
findings. First, children spent much more time playing with objects that they
had been told were appropriate to their gender. Second, even a week later
the children remembered whether any given object was a “boy” or a “girl”
object.
 Masters et al. (1979, see A2 Level Psychology page 236) demonstrated that
young children of 4 and 5 were influenced in their choice of toy more by the
gender label attached to the toy (e.g. “It’s a girl’s toy”) than by the gender of
the model seen playing with the toy. Children’s behaviour seems to be
influenced more by the schema, “This is a boy’s toy” or “This is a girl’s toy”
than by a desire to imitate a same-sex model.
 Liben and Signorella (1993, see A2 Level Psychology page 236) demonstrated
that children show gender-related bias in recall, in other words, they
remember things relevant to their own sex more than those relevant to the
opposite sex. Pictures and words related to “feminine” items were better
remembered by girls than by boys and the converse was also true.
EVALUATION
 Has explanatory power. This theory helps to explain why children’s
gender-role beliefs and attitudes often change rather little after middle
childhood. The gender schemas that have been established tend to be
maintained because schema-consistent information is attended to and
remembered.
 Focuses on the child as being actively involved in making sense of the
world. There is much evidence that children are active in using knowledge to
make sense of the world.
 Over-emphasis on the role of the individual child in gender
development. It is likely that the importance of schemas and other cognitive
factors in determining behaviour are exaggerated within the theory.



De-emphasises the importance of social factors. As with Kohlberg’s
theory, there may not be enough emphasis on social factors such as parental
influence and the rewards and punishments the child receives for their
gendered behaviour.
Descriptive rather than explanatory. The theory does not really explain
why gender schemas develop and take the form they do.
Assumptions of theory not upheld. It is assumed within the theory that it
should be possible to change children’s behaviour by changing their schemas
or stereotypes. In fact it is very difficult to change behaviour even if certain
beliefs are held. This is reflected in the fact that many married couples have
relating to equality of the sexes and equal division of household chores, but
this rarely has much effect on their behaviour.
PSYCHOLOGICAL ANDROGYNY
Androgyny is a term used to describe people who have both masculine and feminine
qualities. Psychological androgyny involves having a combination of traits, some
that have traditionally been associated with femininity and some that have
traditionally been associated with masculinity.
The Androgyny Scale
Bem devised a way of measuring androgyny. She compiled a list of 60 personality
traits, which research had shown could be divided into 20 masculine, 20 feminine,
and 20 neutral. Feminine items included affectionate, cheerful, childlike, and
compassionate. Examples of masculine items were aggressive, analytical, dominant,
and authoritative. Neutral items included adaptable, concerted, conscientious, and
friendly. These 60 traits make up the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). Individuals
rate themselves on how much each trait applies to them (on a scale of 1–7) and then
receive a masculinity score and a femininity score. If the two scores are very
different then the individual is rated as sex-typed (either masculine or feminine). If
they are similar, the individual is said to be androgynous.
Bem believes that it is desirable to have a balance of feminine and masculine
characteristics, to be, for example, ambitious, self-sufficient, nurturant, and
compassionate. She maintains that this makes an individual better able to cope with
life’s challenges than being either extremely masculine or extremely feminine
because such individuals are not constrained by the demands of rigid gender roles.
On the other hand, those who are strongly sex-typed are limited in the range of
behaviours available to them.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Bem (1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 238) found that androgynous
individuals are better able to resist social pressure and generally are more
flexible in their approach to situations than are sex-typed individuals.
 Shaffer, Pegalis, and Cornell (1992) found that androgynous individuals are
better able to adjust their behaviour to the demands of the situation.




Allgood-Merton and Stockland (1991) and other studies have shown that
androgynous children and adolescents have higher self-esteem, are more
popular with their peers, and are better adjusted than sex-typed people of
the same age.
Spence (1993) found that androgynous men can still feel quite masculine and
androgynous women can still be feminine even though they are capable of
showing emotions and behaviour traditionally associated with the opposite
sex.
Norlander, Erixon, and Archer (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 238)
found that students who were androgynous on the BSRI scored higher on
creativity and, to a lesser extent, optimism than those who were more sexstereotyped. Orlofsky and O’Heron (1987, see A2 Level Psychology page 239),
however, demonstrated that traditionally masculine traits were associated
with better adjustment and higher self-esteem than androgyny. This may be
because masculine traits have been more highly valued than feminine ones in
most societies. Nevid and Rathus (2005) argue that the relationship between
psychological androgyny and self-esteem in both men and women is not
based on the combination of masculine and feminine traits, but on the
presence of masculine traits such as independence and assertiveness.
Woodhill and Samuels (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 239) propose that
it is useful to separate out positive and negative characteristics of androgyny.
Just as there are positive traits of masculinity and femininity (such as
assertiveness and nurturance, respectively) so there are negative ones
(dominance, submissiveness). Androgynous people who, by definition, have a
mixture of masculine and feminine traits, may not necessarily be
psychologically healthy if most of these traits are negative. Woodhill and
Samuels conducted research that separated out androgynous people into
positive and negative and they found that the positively androgynous people
scored higher on indicators of mental health and well being than negatively
androgynous or negatively stereotyped people. It is therefore essential to
differentiate between positive and negative androgyny when measuring
personality rather than simply have a global score.
GENDER DYSPHORIA
Gender dysphoria (also known as gender identity disorder) is a condition in which
people are uncomfortable with the gender to which they have been assigned
(dysphoria means unhappiness). In the extreme, this can lead to transsexualism, a
desire to change your gender. Most people are happy with the gender in which they
have been reared but in a few cases individuals do not feel that they have been
assigned the correct gender. Some girls feel as if they should be a boy and
conversely, some boys feel that they are a girl. This is more common in boys but
occurs in both sexes.
Explanations for Gender Dysphoria
1. The biological explanation: the influence of prenatal hormones. Girls have
sex chromosomes known as XX whilst boys have sex chromosomes known as XY.
One explanation of gender dysphoria is that it is caused by unusual development in
parts of the brain before birth. There are small areas of the brain that are different
in males and females. The theory is that in people experiencing gender dysphoria
one of these areas has developed in a way that corresponds to the opposite sex of
their other biological sex characteristics. It is possible that hormones can cause
parts of the brain to develop in a way that is not consistent with the genitalia and,
usually, with the chromosomes. This means that the brain has not developed in a
way that corresponds to the gender assigned to the child at birth.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Kruijiver et al. (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 241) point out that males
have around twice as many somatostatin neurons than do women. They
found that in both male-to-female transsexuals and female-to-male
transsexuals, the number of these neurons corresponded to their gender of
choice, not to their biological sex. They concluded that this clearly points to a
neurobiological basis of gender dysphoria.
 Zhou et al. (1995, see A2 Level Psychology page 241) studied one of the brain
structures that is different in men and women and found that in six male-tofemale transsexuals this followed a totally female pattern.
EVALUATION
 Support from research. The research evidence cited above supports the
biological explanation for gender dysphoria.
 Some research contradicts the theory. Rekers et al. (1979, see A2 Level
Psychology page 241) examined 70 “gender disturbed” boys and found no
evidence for prenatal hormone treatment of the mothers nor any history of
hormonal imbalance in them.
 Alternative theory. The biological theory underestimates the role of social
factors such as the family. The next theory offers an alternative view on the
cause of gender dysphoria.
2. Family constellations. Stoller (1968, see A2 Level Psychology page 241) points
out that certain family conditions are associated with gender dysphoria. For boys
who want to be girls, he suggests that there is an over-close relationship with the
mother and a distant father. For girls who want to be boys, he suggests that that
they have a depressed mother in the first few months of their life and a father who is
either not present or does not support the mother but leaves the child to try to
control the mother’s depression.
Rekers links gender dysphoria in boys to absence of a father figure, either physically
or psychologically.
Bleiberg, Jackson, and Ross (1986, see A2 Level Psychology page 241) have linked
the development of gender dysphoria with an inability to mourn a parent or an
important attachment figure in early life.
De Ceglie (2000) suggests that parents have a strong desire for a child of the
opposite sex and, not necessarily deliberately, reinforce gender-inappropriate
behaviour.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 De Ceglie (2000, see A2 Level Psychology pages 241–242) cites the case of
“James” who developed gender dysphoria after the death of his grandmother
who raised him. After long family therapy aimed at him talking about his
grandmother, his gender dysphoria gradually disappeared.
 Biller (1974) and Hamilton (1977, see A2 Level Psychology page 242) have
investigated boys with gender dysphoria and found that they often had
fathers who were absent either physically or psychologically.
 Rekers (1986, see A2 Level Psychology page 242) has conducted research on
“gender disturbed” boys who show cross-gender identity, a history of crossdressing and cross-gender role-play behaviour. He found that in a group of
36 such boys, there was no father figure in the homes of 75% of the most
disturbed and 21% of the least disturbed. This compared at the time with an
average rate of father absence of 12% in boys of a comparable group in the
USA. In those cases where the father or a father substitute was present, he
was described in 60% of cases as being psychologically distant.
 Rekers (1986, see A2 Level Psychology page 242) reports that in the families
of gender dysphoria boys he has studied, 80% of the mothers had psychiatric
problems and 45% of the fathers had a history of mental health problems
and/or psychiatric treatment. Although he acknowledges that these
percentages may be rather higher than in the total population of genderdysphoria boys because those parents who seek help for themselves are
more likely to seek help for their boys, it does still imply that the parents of
such boys show unusually high levels of psychological problems.
EVALUATION
 Support from research evidence. Research evidence cited above does
appear to link family structure with gender dysphoria, although most of the
research is concerned with boys. Some of the most convincing evidence is put
forward by Rekers, who associated father absence with gender disturbance
in boys. Although he acknowledges that these correlational studies do not
necessarily imply that the absence of a male role model in early life causes
gender disorder, he does believe that this is not an unreasonable conclusion
to draw.
 Alternative theory. This view underestimates the role of biological factors.
The research supporting the biological explanation can be used as a criticism
of this view.
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
It is unlikely that a mature understanding of gender roles can be achieved before the
child has reached a certain level of cognitive development. After that, children tend
to start acting in gender-stereotyped ways. Bem suggests that those people who can
act in both masculine and feminine ways are psychologically healthier than those
who act in very gender-stereotyped ways. Such individuals are said to be
androgynous. However, Woodhill and Samuels (2003) argue that it is only if
individuals show the positive characteristics of masculinity and femininity that they
are likely to have good psychological adjustment.
Some individuals are unhappy in their biological gender: they are said to be
suffering from a condition known as gender dysphoria. The causes of this are
unclear. There may be biological reasons for this condition, it may be due to an
unusual pattern of upbringing or, indeed, could be an interaction of the two. It is
also possible that there is no single explanation that can be applied to every
individual with the condition.
OVER TO YOU
1(a). Explain what is meant by gender dysphoria. (5 marks)
1(b). Outline and evaluate one or more explanations for gender dysphoria. (20
marks)