Development of Gender 1
Running head: DEVELOPMENT OF GENDER ROLE IDENTITY
Developmental Psychology Critiques B: Assignment 2
Nadeira Mia
University of Johannesburg
200501093
Development of Gender 2
Development of Gender Role Identity
In understanding gender role identity and its development there are many concepts
which need to be defined and understood. Fogel (2001) explains that at about 18 months of
age an infant can use gender labelling where the child identifies themselves or others as male
or female but it is only at about age 3 that they realise that these male and female
characteristics are enduring ones. But one wonders how this awareness develops, this essay
serves to answer this question, amongst others. First we will look at the concepts around
gender role identity, then an in depth explanation of the different theories of gender role
identity development will follow, and we will conclude by looking at the recent research
around gender role identity and later life.
Shaffer (2001) refers to many concepts that refer to gender and gender role
development which should be understood before we look at the different theories. Firstly
gender typing refers to the process in which the child becomes aware of his/her gender
(Shaffer, 2001, p. 456) and is similar to Fogel’s “gender labelling” discussed earlier. A gender
role standard refers to “is a value, motive, or a class of behaviour that is considered more
appropriate for members of one sex than the other.” (Shaffer, 2001, p. 456). For example
playing with dolls would be more appropriate and acceptable for girls than boys. We will now
look at gender stereotypes and the different roles that are taken on or are expected from men
and women.
Gender Role Stereotypes
In terms of gender role identity and its development there have been different theories
(which will be discussed later), however it is important to remember that to some extent
gender role identity is shaped by people and society. This is both beneficial and detrimental.
Sex role or gender role stereotypes “are culturally shared assumptions and expectations about
sex differences in abilities, personality traits, activities, and roles” (Weinrub, Clemens,
Sockloff, Ethridge, Graceley & Myers, 1984, p. 1493). This then refers to society and their
prescriptions in terms of what is expected of the respective genders and these take place early
in the child’s development. Shaffer (2001, p 465) explains that 2-3 year olds who have
already internalised their own gender and that of others, but they also have an understanding
of the gender stereotypes. For example female toddlers would prefer to play with their dolls
whereas male toddlers would play with cars or guns. Further gender segregation will occur
where Shaffer (2001) explains that children would choose same sex children as playmates (p.
467).
Development of Gender 3
One wonders then that of all this development of gender role identity occurs in early
childhood what happens later on in life? According to Shaffer (2001, p 464) explains that
although form about age 8 children can pursue cross sex roles they do not always choose to,
thus a process called gender intensification occurs where there is a magnification of sex
differences occurring in early adolescence due to the pressure from society to conform to
traditional gender roles. Keeping these concepts in mind, we will now look at the different
theories around gender role identity development.
Theories on Gender Role Identity Development
Different theories have been developed over the years to explain gender role identity
development and sex differences. We will be discussing six (6) of these theories.
Freud’s Psychoanalytical Theory
Freud’s classic theory on development can be seen as a starting point in looking at Freud’s
Psychoanalytic theory of gender role identity. Freud’s classic psychoanalytic theory explains
that children develop an attraction to the opposite sex parent and thus resent and are jealous of
the same sex parent. In order to resolve this conflict the child begins to identify with the same
sex parent and try to ‘imitate’ the same sex parent. Shaffer (2001) explains “one’s gender
identity and preference for a gender role emerge during the phallic stage as children begin to
emulate and to identify with the same sex parent” (p 476).
For the above mentioned reasons i.e. the conflict with the same sex parent due to the
attraction to the opposite sex parent, children begin developing their gender role identity. As
such children adopt the characteristics and qualities of the same sex parent (Bandura and
Bussey, 1999, p. 3). But Bandura and Bussey (1999) contend that females in particular begin
to identify with the same sex parent because they have penis envy or resentment because they
do not have visible genitalia but gender role development is more difficult for a girl because
like them, their mother lacks a penis. Boys in addition to being attracted to their mother,
develop gender role identity with the father due to fear of punishment according to Freud,
Ding and Littleton (2005).
Ding and Littleton (2005) explain that Freud’s theory on gender role development was
widely accepted at first but later was attacked by many who claimed that the theory had little
empirical support and had no testable hypothesis, thus the theory was often disregarded in
looking at gender identity development. We will now go on to look at the cognitive
developmental theory in terms of gender role identity development.
Development of Gender 4
Kohlberg’s Cognitive Development Theory
According to Shaffer (2001) “Kohlberg suggests that children first establish a stable
gender identity and then actively seek out same-sex models and other information to learn
how to act like a boy or a girl” (p. 478). This suggests then the fact that one is a specific
gender has to develop in the mind of the child before they can learn behaviour/s associated
with their own gender and this relies then on the child’s cognitive development in
understanding their gender. Ding & Littleton (2005) explain in this case then children’s
concept of themselves as male or female are imperative in encouraging children to identify
and accept gender roles (p. 158). To some extent it seems that the cognitive development
theory expects the child to internalise and process their gender before they can accept the
roles and expectations that come with them.
There are three (3) stages identified by Kohlberg in terms of cognitive development in
terms of gender role identity formation. They are Gender Identity or gender labeling, Gender
Stability and Gender consistency (Shaffer, 2005, p. 479). Gender Identity or gender labelling,
the first stage refers to when they children identify themselves as “boys or girls” (Ding &
Littleton, 2005, p. 159). Shaffer (2005) explains that gender identity develops at around age
three (3). Bandura and Bussey (1999) explains that the second stage: gender stability occurs
when children realise that gender is stable over time, meaning that a boy will always be a boy
and will grow into a man and vice versa for women. The third stage or gender consistency
occurs when “children have full appreciation of the permanence of gender over time and
across situations” (Ding & Littleton, 2005, p. 159). Explained directly by Kohlberg (1966)
gender constancy is the realization that one’s gender is permanent dependent on underlying
biological characteristics which does not change with physical appearance, this only develops
at about six (6) years of age.
Ding and Littleton (2005) thus explains that gender role development is self socialized
according to this theory because although society does play a role in socialisation, it is the
child who decides what they seek from the environment and behaves according to this. This
gives one the idea that the child has a choice as to how they would like to behave and how
they should not and one wonders how a child of about four (4) to six (6) years of age can
make sense of this and further gender constancy is a prerequisite to gender role development.
So one could question the theory’s credibility. The theory is accepted until one considers the
ages and stages and the prerequisites. This is because Kohlberg is suggesting that until the
child is mature enough to understand gender consistency they cannot develop gender identity
and this is in fact false. Shaffer (2001) suggests that two to three year olds can already decide
Development of Gender 5
what toys to tend to based on their gender even though they have not as yet developed gender
typing/labelling and/or gender constancy. There was very little evidence according to Bandura
and Bussey (1999) for the Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory. We will now go on to
discuss gender schema theory in understanding gender role identity development.
Gender Schema Theory
Gender Schema theory was developed by Carol Martin and Charles Halverson.
Gender Schema theory begins it explanation hat of Kohlberg’s developmental theory. Ding
and Littleton (2005) explains “where Kohlberg highlighted the relatively late-developing full
understanding of object constancy, the gender schema theorists argue that it is the early
cognitive processes underlying children’s ability to label themselves as girls or boys that play
the key role in gender development” (p .162). Gender Schema theory thus deviates from
Kohlbergs Conitive Development theory in many ways.
The central point of gender schema theory is the development of schemas, gender
schemas. A gender schema is an “organised set of beliefs and expectations about males and
females that guide information processing” (Shaffer, 2005, p. 480). The theory then suggest
that once these schemas are developed within the chid, it is elaborated on in terms of
activities, interests, personality and social attributes ( Bandura and Bussey ,1999, p. 5). As
such the gender schema helps one behave according to traditional gender roles, the child acts
in accordance with these roles because they want to be like and accepted my members of their
own sex, which is similar to Kohlberg’s gender labelling stage. These labels and schemas
guide the child’s thinking and thus their behaviour.
In addition to the gender schema, Shaffer (2005) explains that children also develop an
own-sex schema and an in-group/out-group schema. The in-group/out-group schema develops
first where child “classifies behaviour, roles, and objects for boys and for girls” (Shaffer,
2005, p. 480). For example girls wear the colour pink and play with dolls and boys wear the
colour blue and play with guns. Own-sex schemas refer to knowledge of one’s own gender
that allows one to act in accordance with gender specific activities and roles. For example it is
expected that because girls are supposed to play with dolls they will ignore any information
given to them regarding cars or guns because it is not in accordance with their own-sex
schema.
Interestingly enough the formation of a gender stereotype was seen as a way in which
information about genders was stored and processed in the mind of a child and as such was
seen as useful and the more well developed a child’s gender schema is the stronger their
gender linked preferences (Ding and Littleton, 2005, p. 162). Further the schemas are
Development of Gender 6
relatively stable across situations. Thus the more existing knowledge of a specific gender the
more informed decision the child can make regarding their preferences in terms of play and
roles etc. and this knowledge is carried through from situation to situation.
Bandura and Bussey (1999) explain that gender schema theory was seen as useful in its
approach because it explained the internal working model of the child but also notes that it is
flexible in terms of how much knowledge is stored and the associated preferences. Further it
is useful in understanding the cognitive processes underlying gender role development. We
will now look at social influences and social learning theory in terms of gender role identity
development.
Social influences on gender role identity development and Social Learning Theory
There are long standing theories which suggest that gender specific behaviour is learnt
via other people and the media, basically our society and the larger social context. Thus the
knowledge acquired is learnt from those around us. “This is consistent with the behaviourist
approach which had been dominant in Western psychology since the early twentieth century:
learning takes place through conditioning, rewards and punishment, and observation of
behaviours of others” (Ding & Littleton, 2005, p. 152). Thus it is suggested that for infants
and children their reality and their world is shaped by their parents/caregivers. Ding and
Littleton (2005) contend that the caregivers can shape the child’s perception of themselves
using colours and clothes, toys and activities. The interaction with the parents/caregivers is
central.
In terms of social learning theory we look at observational learning as well as
behaviour that is reinforced (or punished). The theory of observational learning was suggested
by Bandura (1989) as it was believed that children learn much of their gender specific
behaviour by observing and imitating others. “The assumption is that boys will see which
toys, activities and behaviour are for boys and girls will learn which activities and behaviours
are for girls by selectively attending to and imitating a variety of same-sex models, including
peers, teachers, older siblings, media personalities, and their mothers or fathers” (Shaffer,
2001, p. 477). Depending then on people children decide to shadow, their behaviours are
learnt.
Reinforcement or punishment for specific behaviour too plays an important role in
learning gender specific behaviours. Shaffer (2001) and Ding and Littleton (2005) agree that
parents are the main agents in reinforcing or punishing and thus fostering gender role specific
behaviour in children. Shaffer (2001) explains that parents who show the “clearest patterns of
differential reinforcement” have children who quickly know their gender identity and have
Development of Gender 7
toy and activity preferences, and understand gender stereotypes. So here even though the
main point is whether behaviour is reinforced or punished it still depends on the social, i.e.
people around the child.
The theory has been very well received over the years and a lot of what the theory
states in terms of positive and negative reinforcements as well as observational learning.
However the theory has been questioned because it seems that the child is merely accepting
all this and is completely passive in the process of gender role identity development (Shaffer,
2001, p. 479). We will now go on to look at the biological influences on gender role identity
development. Media also has been seen to play a role in social development of gender role
identity.
Biological Influences
In understanding the genetic influences on gender role identity we will look at genetic
influences, and evolutionary psychology.
Some evolutionary theories suggest that men are merely contributors in the formation of
offspring and women are the caretakers of the infant/child, thus men evolved into more
aggressive and females evolved into more nurturing being (Bandura and Bussey, 1999, p. 7).
Further Bandura and Bussey (1999) explain that because men are naturally bigger in anatomy
than women they are put in a superior position and therefore they evolved to be more
aggressive. “According to evolutionary psychology, many current gender differences, such as
number of sexual partners preferred and criteria for selecting sexual partners, aggression,
jealousy and roles they fulfilled originated from ancestral sex differentiated reproductive
strategies” (Bandura and Bussey ,1999, p. 7). This could mean then that the gender
differences occurring today may have come about by natural selection theories and were just
spilled over into other aspects of ones life.
Genetics has been seen to influence ones gender role development and gender identity
in terms of cognitive ability, personality and social behaviour. According to Shaffer (2001)
the “timing of puberty” effect can explain gender differences. The “timing of puberty effect”
suggests that people who reach puberty late perform better on spatial and visual tasks than
those who mature early (Shaffer, 2001, p. 472).
The evolutionary theory in psychology brings important points to the fore but it has
been criticised for ignoring the social aspect and its impact on gender role development
(Bandura and Bussey ,1999, p. 7). We will now take a look at Money and Ehrhardts biosocial
theory to gender role identity development.
Development of Gender 8
Money and Ehrhardt’s Biosocial Theory
According to Shaffer (2001) Money and Ehrdhardt (1972) looked at gender role
development and although they did agree that there is a biological basis for development of
gender role identity and gender differentiation, but biological theorists seem to ignore the
social aspect and its impact on the development of gender role identity. They explain that the
child’s gender is already decided on conception with the mixing of the x and y chromosomes,
following this, the male hormones, testosterone and mullerian inhibiting substance, will be
produced and male genitalia will form. If testosterone is absent then female genitalia will
form (Shaffer, 2001). Money and Ehrdhardt believe then that after conception the child is
exposed to social factors which then shape their gender role identity based on the gender that
was biologically determined, because parents and the like interact with the child based on
their gender (Shaffer, 2001). Shaffer (2001) also explains that culture to play a role but all of
this is related to the social aspect of gender role development, thus the interaction of
biological and social factors form the biosocial theory of gender role identity development.
Although not much was written about the validity of this theory there seems to now be an
integration of theories in understanding gender role identity development, where not only the
social and biological factors are considered but also the gender schemas and cognitive
developmental models. Regarding this it was said “the processes that different theories
emphasize seem to be especially important at different periods” (Shaffer, 2001, p. 481). We
will now go on to look at some interesting information on gender role identity development
and its effect on different areas in later life.
Gender Role Identity Development and Later Life
Gender role identity development and the formation of eating disorders
What was found with eating disorders is the common idea that eating disorders, such
as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are “female” disorders i.e. Disorders that occur
mostly in females and not so predominantly in males. The journal article that will be referred
to serves to question whether these disorders occur more in females than in males due to
gender role identity development factors or to other reasons. It is common knowledge that
females are more at risk to developing these disorders and the blame has especially been put
on the media who display unrealistic ideals of thinness for women. These ideals may cause
women to want to reach them and they may become preoccupied with their bodies and weight
loss, this preoccupation can become an obsession and ultimately an eating disorder. “However
as noted, clinical evidence suggests that syndromes of anorexia and bulimia do occur with
men with a similar symptom picture and course as in women” (Cantrell & Ellis, 1991, p. 54).
Development of Gender 9
The researchers explain that men are underrepresented in the literature regarding eating
disorders. The results of the study showed that the relationship between gender role identity
and eating disorder patterns did differ in men and women., and they attributed the high
number of females with eating disorders “not as a function of the inherent femaleness of the
disorders but of the complex transitions of the female role in our culture” (Cantrell & Ellis,
1991, p. 54). This suggests then that the female role and the way it is upheld in society is
mainly to blame for the amount of eating disorder cases in women and this specifically affects
women because they are targeting in adverts for diets etc. SO it is not ones gender that puts
one at risk for a make women more at risk. We will now\look at gender role identity and
relationship choices.
Gender role identity development and its effect on relationship choices
“A growing body of literature suggests that gender role identity plays an important
role both in friendships and romantic relationships.” (Waack, Gerrity, Taub & Baldo; 2001, p.
33). This was the starting point when the researchers decided to look at gender, gender role
identity, relationship types and the effect on relationship behaviours in college students.
The article suggests that gender role identity can be defined as “how an individual perceives
himself or herself as possessing masculine or feminine qualities” and it is found to be related
to how male friends one has, the relationship between intimacy and identity and ones
conceptions about friendship (Baldo et al., 2001, p. 35).Results of the study suggested that
gender role identity affected relationship behaviour in the following ways- feminine women
would display more feminine behaviour than would masculine women, and masculine men
would display more masculine behaviour than feminine men (Baldo et al., 2001, p. 40).
Results also showed that gender role identity affected the type of relationship and associated
relationship behaviours in the following ways: men displayed more masculine behaviours
than women irrespective of the type relationship and vice versa. The researchers then
questioned gender role identity and its effects on irrational beliefs in the relationship and no
significant differences were found.
After looking at the related journal articles and the different theories around gender
role identity development and think it is safe to say that the way the gender identity
development is dependent on social, biological, interpersonal and intrapersonal factors. Some
children may be more stimulated in term of activities by their parents and therefore may take
all their gender role information from them, others may use other people as models. However
as we have seen, gender role identity development cannot be based on just when theory but
rather a combination of them would make sense.
Development of Gender 10
References
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.
Cantrell, P. J., & Ellis, J. B. (1991). Gender role and risk patterns for eating disorders in men
and women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 53-57.
Ding, S., & Littleton, K. (2005). Children’s personal and social development. UK: Blackwell.
Fogel, A. (2001). Infancy: Infant, Family and Society (4th ed.). USA: Wadsworth.
Shaffer, R. D. (2001). Developmental psychology (6th ed.). USA: Wadsworth.
Waack, J. L., Gerrity, D. A., Taub, D. B., & Baldo, T. D. (2001). Gender, gender role identity,
and type of relationship as predictors of relationship behaviour and beliefs in college
students. Journal of College Counselling, 4, 32-48.
Weinraub, M., Clemens, L. P., Sockloff, A., Ethridge, T., Graceley, E., & Myers, B. (1984).
The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: Relationship to gender
lebelling, gender identity, sex-typed toy preference, and family characteristics. Child
Development, 55, 1493-1503.