Outline and evaluate Kohlberg's theory of gender development (8+16)

Kohlberg’s theory is based on the cognitive development approach of explaining gender development. This is based on Piaget’s theory. This details that the child is the active learner, and focuses on development, rather than addressing learning of information or specific behaviours. It also proposes development occurs in stage which is thought to be universal.

Stage 1 is gender labelling occurring between ages 1.5 to 3 years old. In this stage children can recognise they are male or female based on appearance. Helping them to form female and meal categories, but knowledge is incomplete. 

Stage 2 is gender stability which normally occurs between 3 to 5 years old. Children realise gender is consistent over time with boys growing into men and girls into women. They may not realise gender is consistent across all situations. 

Stage 3 is gender constancy and is generally thought to develop between 6 to 7 years old, although some argue this develops as late as adolescence, suggested that Kohlberg mistook a phase of gender assertion for full constancy, with children realising gender is permanent. Gender constancy is an understanding that gender is constant across all situations, even if there is a change in appearance, gender remains the same. 

Thompson found two year olds could recognise their own gender correctly 76% of the time. But, children aged 3 were correct 90% of the time supporting Kohlberg's theory of gender labelling as they had an increased ability to recognise own gender when older. Slaby et al's study provides further supporting evidence involving asking children questions to assess their understanding of gender i.e. will you be a mummy or a daddy when you grow up? Results found that children were not able to recognise gender was consistent over time until they reached the age of 3-4, in line with Kohlberg's theory, therefore providing support for it. However, research lacked mundane realism therefore lacks external validity. The children would have been aware they were being assessed therefore may have displayed demand characteristics giving answers they thought the research wanted. Therefore findings may not be representative of the children's true gender development. 

Munroe et al found the theory generalised across culture therefore providing evidence for the universality of the stages. In cross-cultural studies children from different cultures followed the 3 stages, suggesting there may be an evolutionary link in gender development. A criticism of Kohlberg's theory is it suggests gender typical behaviour only occurs once constancy had been achieved but gender schema theory suggests this happens as soon as schemas start to form which, according to Trautner, is around the age of 2-3 years old.

Thompson, Slaby and Munroe's research findings provide supporting evidence of Kohlberg's theory. These stages of development were consistent with findings and supports the idea of the stages being universal. However, from such research the theory may be suggested to be incomplete as not all research found these results. Slaby and Frey found gender consistent appeared younger than Kohlberg's theory predicted, as young as 5 years old. Even in early infancy boys and girls begin to show preferences for their gender related toys which creates doubt on Kohlberg's theory of universal stages of development.

Research into gender development often uses children therefore ethical issues must be considered in regards to child research. Harm and benefits must be carefully considered in deciding whether the research is justifiable. Gender research is often based at a developmental level therefore using children is unavoidable and informed consent from parents must be gained. 

Kohlberg's cognitive approach cannot explain differences in prenatal hormones and how this may affect development. Therefore the biological approach may help to provide a more complete view, taking into account changes before and after birth. Therefore the theory is reductionist as it determines stages and divides complex mental processes into simplified time-allocated phases. Individual differences are not accounted for therefore this does not provide a complete understanding of gender development.