Gender schema theory (GST), based on the work Piaget, involves organisation of related concepts regarding gender. GST suggests as we develop, our gender behaviour and awareness develops, as our gender schemas get stronger. According to Trautner gender schemas start to develop at 2 to 3 years old.
In group and out group schemas can be formed and influenced gender schemas. In group schemas are attitudes and behaviours expected of the childs own gender whereas out group schemas are attitudes expected of the opposite gender. Positive viewing of the in group motivates children to learn more about their own gender and can explain why children disregard information that is not consistent with their own in group schemas. This theory also predicts that gender schemas effect what behaviours are remembered.
Interaction with the environment through playing with toys and socialising with peers helps develop schemas, which can lead to stereotypes about what toys, clothing and behaviours are suitable for their gender. Adults and peers can also reinforce gender schemas through reward and punishments, for gender appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.
Martin and Little found children younger than 4 showed no signs of gender stability or constancy. Yet showed strong stereotypes in regards to gender roles. Therefore this provides support for gender schema and refutes Kohlberg's theory, as he suggested constancy must be achieved for gender role behaviour to develop, which is not the case. GST proposes that schemas start to form from around 2 years old, which is a more realistic prediction than Kohlberg's cognitive theory, allowing for individual difference of gender development and does not state everyone experiences the same development at the same age. Also providing overall support towards a more psychological explanation of gender development. It suggests schemas, no matter when they are they are developed, provide the starting point of further gender development placing emphasis onto the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate.
Eisenberg et al found that 3-4 year olds justified their choice of gender specific toy without referring to gender stereotypes, suggesting a possible evolutionary or biological basis rather than a cognitive one. This provides evidence towards nature rather than nurture. Methodological issues occur with this study as the research sets the agenda with the study, this is often that case within gender schema research, meaning such studies lack external validty and may not reflect behaviour in a real life setting. Also issues within observational studies occur as the children would have known they were being observed therefore may have shown demand characteristics and chosen the toys that they believed they were expected to choose. Therefore the study lacks internal validity as the children did not choose the toys because of their gender schema alone. The study highlights that biological influences may drive gendered behaviour to some extent but also socialisation provides an influence.
Ethical issues must also be considered in regards to child research. Harm and benefits of research must be carefully considered. Gender research is often based at a developmental level using children is therefore unavoidable. Informed consent must be gained from the child's parents. From research positive real world applications occur as if gender schema and roles can be influences socially, this suggests children can be taught to have non-sexist schemas. This would help towards achieving further gender equality.
Both Martin and Little, and Eisenberg's studies provide evidence towards both a psychological and biological basis from gender role development suggesting the complex interaction of nature and nurture that likely occurs in development. However, issues of such studies also include that are deterministic in suggesting that we have no choice in our behaviour and only act according to schemas. The role of free will is ignored. Findings are inconclusive and only provide evidence of schemas existing but cannot explain why these gender based attitudes would motivate behaviour. Therefore gender schema will unlikely be able to offer a complete explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment