Gender Schema cognitive explanation of gender

Question 1

what is a schema

Answer 1

• mental constructs that develop via experience and are used by our cognitive system to organise knowledge around topics like gender.
• a gender scheme is a generalised representation of everything we know in relation to gender and gender appropriate behaviour

Question 2

according to Martin & Halverson, when does a child begin to search the environment for info that encourages the development of gender schema

Answer 2

after establishing gender identity at the ages 2-3, different to Kohlberg’s age of 6+ and all 3 stages needed (Stability and Constancy)

Question 3

How does Martin and Little’s study support the gender schema theory

Answer 3

found children as young as 2-3 to demonstrate strongly sex-typed behaviour and attitudes supporting the prediction that only a gender identity is needed to develop a sense of gender, weakening Kohlberg’s theory

Question 4

what research did Martin & Halverson conduct to support schema theory

Answer 4

• showed 20 children ages 6 20 images: 10 gender consistent and 10 gender inconsistent
• a week later they were tested in their photographic recall of what they’d seen
• 15 recalled more gender consistent photos than gender inconsistent
• children tended to change the sex of the person with an inconsistent activity
• shows memory can be distorted to fit the existing gender schemas

Question 5

How did Martin and Halverson view children’s schema development

Answer 5

• children’s schema develops/expands as they are exposed to gender in their environment
• young children have schemas centred around stereotypes - eg boys play with trucks and girls with dolls
• they act as a framework to help direct experiences and children’s understanding of themselves, eg “i am a boy so i play with trucks”

Question 6

what’re ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’

Answer 6

• children have a much better understanding of their own gender-related schemas, viewing their own groups as the ‘in-group’ and the opposite as ‘out-group’
• in-group identity serves to increase the child’s level of self esteem
• boys pay close attention to boys toys, pay minimal attention to anything ‘girly’, and vice versa
• it is not until a little older (~8y) that they have more elaborate schemas for both genders

Question 7

what was Martin’s follow up study

Answer 7

• 91 children aged 4-5 years were shown unfamiliar toys varying in attractiveness that were given gender labels, or no labels
• with a different experimenter, avoiding demand characteristics, children rated their own and others’ liking of the toys.
• children used gender labels to guide their own preferences and their expectations for others.
• even with very attractive toys, children liked toys less it labelled as for the other sex, and expected other boys and girls to do the same

Question 8

how does Martin’s follow up study support Halverson’s gender schema theory

Answer 8

• supports the theory of focusing on same-sex toys, actively disregarding other different-sex toys (even if very attractive), and expecting others to do the same
• the difference in play only happened after labels, showing the effect of gender schema’s influence

Question 9

how are Kohlberg’s theory and Gender schema theory similar

Answer 9

• child is active, seeking info about gender
• starts with a concept (male/female) and then the child turns into an information processor

Question 10

how do Kohlberg’s theory and Gender Schema theory differ?

Answer 10

Kohlberg’s theory:
- gender development begins at constancy stage
- cannot explain differences between males/females

Gender Schema Theory:
- can explain differences in males/females
- development of gender role/taking notice of same-sex models as soon as the child has sex identity

Question 11

what’re 2 strengths of the cognitive gender schema theory

Answer 11

gender-appropriate focusing
less stereotypical

Question 12

how is gender-appropriate focusing a strength for the cognitive Gender Schema theory

Answer 12

• Martin & Halverson found that children <6y were more likely to recall gender-appropriate photo’s than gender-inappropriate ones when tested a week later.
• children tended to change the gender of the person carrying out the gender-inappropriate activity in the photo’s when recalling
• this supports GST which predicts that children <6y would do this, contradicting Kohlberg’s theory needing children that’re older

Question 13

how are less stereotypes a strength of the GST

Answer 13

• Cherry argues gender schema not only influences how people process info but also what counts as culturally-appropriate gender behaviour
• in societies where perceptions of gender have less rigid boundaries, children are more likely to acquire non-standard gender stereotypes
• GST can account for cultural differences. this contrasts with other gender development explanations, such as psychodynamic which suggests the drive to be unconscious biological urges

Question 14

what 2 limitations of GST are there

Answer 14

Exaggerated schema importance
Earlier labelling than GST says

Question 15

how is earlier labelling a weakness of GST

Answer 15

• Zoslous et al. analysed twice weekly reports from 82 mothers on their children’s language from 9-21 months and videotapes of the children at play.
• children labelled their gender identity at ~19 months - almost as soon as they begin to communicate.
• suggests that M&H maybe underestimated children’s ability to use gender labels for themselves

Question 16

how is schemas exaggerated importance a limitation of GST

Answer 16

• schema is likely exaggerated within the theory.
• as with Kohlberg’s theory, there may be insufficient attention paid to the role of social factors eg parental influence and the role of rewards and punishments the child receives for their gendered behaviour.
• the theory doesn’t explain why gender schemas develop to take the form they do
• GST is hard deterministic when explaining gender identity development, ignoring other possible social/psychological influences