The contribution of cognitive perspectives (cognitive-developmental theory and gender schema theory) to a contemporary understanding of gender development is evaluated. Recent critiques of cognitive approaches are discussed and empirical evidence is presented to counter these critiques. Because of the centrality of early gender development to the cognitive perspective, the latest research is reviewed on how infants and toddlers discriminate the sexes and learn the attributes correlated with sex. The essence of cognitive approaches-emphasis on motivational consequences of gender concepts; the active, self-initiated view of development; and focus on developmental patterns-is highlighted and contrasted with social-cognitive views. The value of cognitive theories to the field is illustrated, and recommendations are made concerning how to construct comprehensive, integrative perspectives of gender development.How individuals develop a "gendered" self and gender-typed differentiation has intrigued researchers of human behavior for as long as social development has been a field of empirical study. Initially, observations of clear gender typing in children as young as 5 years old led researchers to examine how socialization processes in the home might contribute to this early acquisition of gender-linked behavior (e.g., Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957). In 1966, several important theories of gender development, including Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental approach and Mischel's social learning approach, were outlined in Maccoby's book on the development of sex differences. In the mid-1970s, a groundbreaking book by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) broadened the discussion about the etiology of sex differences and gender typing and questioned the significance of socialization processes, thereby invigorating the field and generating considerable controversy. In the 1980s, Huston (1983Huston ( , 1985 called for researchers to develop a more integrative, comprehensive approach to the study of gender development. This integration was to include consideration of the many facets of gender that needed investigation, such as concepts, identity, preferences, and behavior, as well as a wide variety of factors that influence the development of these facets, including biology, cognitions, and social influences. This idea resonated with gender researchers and has been a driving force in the field ever since, leading to an expansion of theoretical approaches and the inclusion of multiple measures in empirical studies.Recently, Bussey and Bandura (1999) presented a socialcognitive theory (SCT) of gender development and differentiation. This theory represents a particular view of how gender-related behavior is acquired and maintained, based on contemporary social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Because the theory has now integrated cognitive constructs and makes reference to biological underpinnings and sociostructural factors, Bussey and Bandura described their theory as comprehensive and integrative, consistent with Huston's (1983) proposal,...

To examine reasons for inconsistent findings in the development of sex-category constancy, children's constancy judgments and their accompanying explanations were studied over a 3-year period. Preschool, kindergarten, and 1st-grade children (N = 195) completed a sex-category constancy measure that elicited explanations and assessed constancy for the self and others across changes in gender-typed clothing, activities, and traits. Improvements in sex-category constancy performance were linked to explanations based on operational reasoning. Lower constancy scores were linked to explanations that emphasized gender role norms and external appearances. A separate analysis revealed that judgment-explanation relationships were stronger for questions about gender role changes in the self as opposed to others and for changes in gender-typed clothing as opposed to activities and traits. Findings suggest that the salience and personal relevance of gender role changes have important effects on children's sex-category constancy judgments and explanations.

Most of the critique in the A. Bandura and K. Bussey (see record 2004-18097-001) commentary is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the points made by C. L. Martin, D. N. Ruble, and J. Szkrybalo in their 2002 Psychological Bulletin article (see record 2002-18663-003). First, Martin et al. never intended to present a comprehensive theory; instead, it was a review of 2 different cognitive approaches to gender development. Second, there is no time line test that has been failed; instead, gender cognitions may occur earlier than initially believed. Third, Bandura and Bussey dismissed central gender cognitions-gender identity and gender stereotype knowledge-despite considerable evidence in their support. Fourth, Bandura and Bussey never addressed the gaps and ambiguities inherent in their theory that Martin et al. questioned in their earlier article. Finally, Bandura and Bussey's misunderstandings of cognitive theorists' views on socialization agents, sociocultural influences, agency, and motivation created theoretical rifts where none exist.

No abstract

No abstract