A-Level Psychology: Gender Development

Understanding how gender identity—one’s personal sense of their own gender—develops is a central question in psychology that bridges biology, cognition, and society. This topic moves beyond the binary of biological sex to explore how individuals come to understand themselves as male, female, or another gender, and how they learn associated gender roles—the behaviors a culture considers appropriate for each gender. For your A-Level studies, you must critically evaluate competing explanations, appreciating that human development is rarely the result of a single cause.

Biological Explanations of Gender

Biological theories argue that gender has a innate, physiological basis. It begins with chromosomal sex, determined at conception: XX typically leads to female development, and XY to male. This genetic blueprint triggers the release of prenatal hormones, primarily testosterone and oestrogen, which direct the development of sex organs and are believed to influence brain development. For instance, higher prenatal testosterone is linked to more male-typical play behaviors in childhood, suggesting a biological underpinning for some behavioral differences.

A further biological concept is brain lateralisation, the idea that the two hemispheres of the brain develop differently in males and females. Some studies suggest male brains are more lateralised (i.e., functions are more specialised to one hemisphere), potentially explaining supposed advantages in spatial tasks, while female brains show more bilateral processing, possibly aiding verbal ability. However, these findings are often exaggerated, and observed differences are small with significant overlap between genders. The primary criticism of biological explanations is their determinism; they struggle to account for the vast cultural variation in gender roles or the experiences of transgender individuals, suggesting biology sets a broad potential, but does not write a fixed script.

Cognitive Developmental Theory (Kohlberg)

In stark contrast to biological determinism, cognitive theories focus on how a child’s active thinking shapes their gender development. Lawrence Kohlberg proposed a three-stage, universal model. First, around age 2-3, a child achieves gender identity: they can correctly label themselves as a boy or a girl. However, they believe gender can change (e.g., if a boy puts on a dress).

Next, around age 4, gender stability is grasped: children understand that gender is stable over time—a boy will grow up to be a man. Their understanding is still superficial, as they might think gender changes if activities or appearance change. Finally, by about age 6-7, children attain gender constancy: they realise gender is consistent across situations and is based on biological permanence, not superficial traits. Kohlberg argued that only after achieving constancy do children actively seek out same-gender role models to inform their behavior.

A key strength of this theory is its emphasis on the child’s active role. However, it has been challenged. Research shows children exhibit strong gender-typed preferences long before gender constancy, suggesting learning may precede full cognitive understanding. This weakness led to the development of gender schema theory.

Gender Schema Theory (Martin & Halverson)

Carol Martin and Charles Halverson’s theory addresses Kohlberg’s timing issue. A schema is a mental framework that organises information. According to this theory, once a child has established a basic gender identity (around age 2-3), they immediately begin to form gender schemas—mental packets of information about what is appropriate for their own gender.

These schemas act like filters for the world. The child pays more attention to, and better remembers, information relevant to their “in-group” (own-gender) schema. For example, a girl shown pictures of a male nurse and a female doctor is more likely to recall the female doctor. This theory explains why children become gender-typed so early and so rigidly: they simplify a complex world by categorizing everything as “for boys” or “for girls.” A strength is its power in explaining memory biases and rigid stereotypes in childhood. It also integrates cognitive processes with social learning, as schemas are built from observed social information.

Social Learning Theory and Cultural Influences

Social learning theory, rooted in behaviorism, posits that gender-role behavior is learned through observation and reinforcement. It occurs via vicarious reinforcement (observing others being rewarded or punished for gender-typed behavior) and direct reinforcement (being praised for “acting like a boy” or scolded for “behaving like a tomboy”). Children then imitate the behaviors of models, who are often same-sex parents, peers, or media figures. This theory effectively explains cultural and historical variations in gender roles, as what is reinforced differs across time and place.

The role of culture and media provides powerful evidence for social learning. Cross-cultural studies, such as Margaret Mead’s work in New Guinea, found tribes with reversed or minimal gender roles compared to the West, highlighting that biology cannot dictate specific behaviors like nurturing or aggression. Media acts as a pervasive model; consistent portrayals of gendered stereotypes (e.g., women as caregivers, men as assertive leaders) shape schemas and reinforce societal norms. While powerful, a limitation of social learning is its passive portrayal of the child; it underplays the active cognitive processing emphasized by schema theory.

Atypical Gender Development

The study of atypical gender development challenges and informs all the theories above. The key condition here is gender dysphoria (historically termed Gender Identity Disorder), where an individual’s biological sex and gender identity do not align, causing significant distress.

Biological explanations have explored brain structural similarities between transgender individuals and their identified gender, and potential genetic or prenatal hormonal influences. Cognitive theories might frame it as a mismatch between the gender schema one develops and their biological anatomy. Social learning theory would struggle to explain why a child assigned male at birth would persistently identify as female despite overwhelming social reinforcement to conform to male roles.

The David Reimer case study is a tragic natural experiment. After a botched circumcision, David was raised as a girl following medical advice. Despite direct reinforcement and being unaware of his history, he reported intense feelings of being male from childhood, eventually transitioning back. This case strongly challenges the idea that gender identity is solely socially constructed and points to a powerful biological or early psychological underpinning.

Common Pitfalls

1. Equating sex and gender. A fundamental error is using these terms interchangeably. Sex refers to biological and physiological characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, anatomy). Gender refers to the social, psychological, and cultural constructs of masculinity, femininity, and other identities. Always be precise in your terminology.
2. Presenting theories as mutually exclusive. A low-evaluation approach is to list theories without synthesis. Higher marks come from acknowledging interaction. For example, you might argue: “Biological predispositions (e.g., activity level) may influence the activities a child is drawn to, which are then shaped by social reinforcement and organized into cognitive schemas.”
3. Overgeneralising from case studies. While David Reimer’s case is insightful, it is a single, unique instance. Avoid presenting it as definitive proof for a biological theory. Instead, use it as a compelling piece of evidence that highlights the complexity of gender identity development and the potential limits of social learning.
4. Confusing Kohlberg’s stages. Students often mix up stability and constancy. Remember: Stability is over time (“Will I be a mummy when I grow up?”). Constancy is across situations (“Am I still a boy if I play with dolls?”). Constancy is the more sophisticated, final understanding.

Summary

• Gender development is best explained by an interactionist approach, considering biological, cognitive, and social factors.
• Biological explanations (chromosomes, hormones, brain structure) provide a foundational predisposition but cannot account for cultural diversity in gender roles.
• Kohlberg’s cognitive theory outlines a universal sequence of understanding (identity -> stability -> constancy), but children show gender-typed behavior earlier than it predicts.
• Gender schema theory improves on Kohlberg by showing how early gender identity triggers schemas that selectively guide attention, memory, and behavior.
• Social learning theory and cultural/media influences effectively explain how specific gender-role behaviors are transmitted and vary across societies.
• Atypical gender development, such as gender dysphoria, demonstrates the complexity of gender identity and suggests it is not easily overridden by socialization alone.