Gender Schema Theory

10 Key excerpts on "Gender Schema Theory"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media

  TWO-VOLUME SET

  • Jeffrey Jensen Arnett(Author)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  733 SCHEMA THEORY Schema theory states that the human mind is organized by a series of stable processing tools, known as schemas. A schema consists of generalized knowledge about a particular topic and the associa-tions among that topic and other relevant information. For example, a gender schema refers to the general knowledge that an individual has about the meaning of being male or female. Consider a person who believes that men are more commonly doctors, whereas women are nurses; men are aggressive, whereas women are nurturing; and men like to go hunting, whereas women like to go shopping. All of these pieces of information, along with their associations with various domains of life, create a general picture of what this individual thinks about men and women. This general picture forms what is known as a schema: a cognitive structure that serves as a frame-work for understanding all information that is relevant to gender. It is important to consider how the media influence the development of schemas, especially for children and adolescents. Schemas are thought to be formed by repeated exposure to consistent information. Applying this idea to media research, researchers have studied how media exposure affects the formation of schemas. Given the increasing amount of media exposure among children and adolescents, schema theory can play an important role in understanding the impact of media on youth. For example, individuals who view large amounts of television programming that contains frequent messages that are consistent with traditional gender stereotypes are more likely to form a gender schema that contains these stereotypes. Schemas serve as a shortcut during the processing of information.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social and Emotional Development in Infancy and Early Childhood

  • Janette B. Benson, Marshall M. Haith(Authors)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  things (e.g., what attributes are associated with, or are important to, making a girl a girl) while more sophisti-cated levels of understanding (e.g., gender stability) might be associated with motivation to adhere to gender norms. Thus, at each level of gender knowledge, children are socializing themselves in terms of gender and the out-come of this self-socialization may vary at different points of identity development. Gender schema theories Gender schema theories address the ways in which chil-dren represent and process gender-related knowledge. Schemas are viewed as dynamic knowledge structures that change in response to situations and age-related changes in person perception and that have content that varies with social experiences and other individual level and cultural level differences. As organizers of gender development, gender schemas are thought to pro-vide an important link between gender cognitions and gender-related behaviors. According to this perspective, once children identify themselves as girls or boys, they selectively attend to, and remember, own-sex relevant information and are motivated to use this information to shape their own behaviors and make gender-related inferences and judgments. Social categorization perspectives Researchers have recently become increasingly focused on the group context of gender development and the contextual variability of gender identity. While gender-category knowledge and gender-stereotype knowledge might be important prerequisites to stereotyped judg-ments and behaviors, it is also necessary to recognize-that stereotypes are activated within contexts that can make gender either more or less salient.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Gender Development

  • Judith E. Owen Blakemore, Sheri A. Berenbaum, Lynn S. Liben(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  gender schemata—their own attitudes and knowledge about gender—affect their interactions with, and processing of objects, people, or events in the world. Because gender schemata affect the child’s cognitive processes like perceiving, interpreting, or remembering gender-related material (i.e., gender-schematic processing), they have profound effects on developmental outcomes more generally. If, for example, gender-schematic processing leads a young girl to believe that all auto mechanics are men, she would then be unlikely, say, to engage in tool-related toy play or mechanical hobbies, unlikely to hang out with people in a workshop, unlikely to take certain courses in school. Ultimately she would not only have little chance of becoming an auto mechanic, but also of pursuing other educational and career opportunities that rely on tool use, mechanics, graphic diagrams, and so on. Thus, even though gender schemata themselves may seem to address relatively limited aspects of human behavior, their effects can be extremely far-reaching.

  Gender Schema Theory is part of a long tradition of constructive approaches to human behavior that have appeared not only in developmental psychology (e.g., Piagetian theory) but also in both social and cognitive psychology. In 1932, for example, Bartlett showed adults social stimuli (drawings of people or stories) and asked them repeatedly to draw or tell what they remembered after minutes, hours, weeks, and even months. When the drawings or stories depicted people and cultures that were strikingly unfamiliar to the participants, over successive attempts, the reproductions became less and less like the originals and more and more like people and stories that would normally be found in their own culture. These changes were thought to be due to the way in which new information is filtered through cognitive schemas. Bartlett showed that people had difficulty remembering materials that were culturally foreign, and that if they were able to remember the material at all, they were likely to distort the material so that it eventually became consistent with their own cultural knowledge and attitudes.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Women's Lives

  A Psychological Exploration, Fourth Edition

  • Claire A. Etaugh, Judith S. Bridges(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  EVALUATION. The concepts of cognitive developmental theory, like those of social learning theory, are clearly defined and easily measured and have generated considerable research. One key assumption of this perspective is that gender typing depends on an awareness of the unchangeability of gender. This assumption has received mixed support (Leaper & Farkas, 2014). Studies have shown that gender constancy precedes some, but not all, aspects of gender development (Bussey, 2013).

  A second assumption of cognitive developmental theory, that children value same-gender activities once they attain gender constancy, receives considerable support. Numerous studies show that children value their own gender more highly than they value the other gender (e.g., Martin et al., 2016).

  A major criticism of cognitive developmental theory is that it does not specify why children use gender as a classifying concept rather than other attributes such as race or eye color (Ryle, 2016).

  Gender Schema Theory

  Gender Schema Theory, proposed by Sandra Bem (1993), incorporates elements of cognitive developmental and social learning theories. Like the first, it proposes that children develop an interrelated set of ideas, or schema, about gender that guides their social perceptions and actions. However, unlike cognitive developmental theory, Gender Schema Theory postulates that the use of gender as an organizing principle does not naturally stem from the minds of children. Similar to social learning theory, it assumes that gender schema development stems from learning the gender norms and practices of society.

  The theory proposes that children form notions of the traits and roles associated with females and males on the basis of societal expectations. They then use this information to regulate their own behavior, and their self-esteem becomes contingent on their adherence to these gender schemas.

  A significant difference between gender schema and cognitive developmental theories lies in the basis for gender schema development. Whereas Kohlberg (1966) assumes that the development of cognitive conceptualizations about gender is a natural process, Bem contends that children use gender to process social information because societal norms and practices emphasize its importance. Thus, children do not organize the social environment on the basis of physical attributes, such as handedness or hair color, because society does not give these characteristics the same significance it applies to gender. Bem argues that children cannot avoid noticing that different toys, activities, jobs, and chores are deemed acceptable for girls and boys by their parents, peers, and teachers. Elementary school teachers do not line up children separately by race because they do not want to emphasize race as a distinguishing characteristic. They often, however, group children by sex, thus increasing its perceived importance as a distinguishing characteristic. Indeed when preschool teachers make gender salient by doing such things as lining up children by gender and using gender-specific language (e.g., “I need a girl to hand out the markers”), children show increased gender stereotypes and decreased play with other-sex peers (Hilliard & Liben, 2010).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Psychology of Gender

  • Gary Wood(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  3

  Gender stereotypes and sex differences

  The premise of ‘biological inevitability’ lends a sense of authenticity, naturalness or ‘realness’ to patterns of gender. We might even regard some people as ‘all man’ or ‘all woman’. Such idealized portraits are known as gender-role stereotypes – seemingly descriptive but often prescriptive. These ideals form the basis of many a best-selling, pop-psychology book on relationships. This chapter considers some of the psychological mechanisms (schema theory and attitudes) we employ to create and maintain gender-role stereotypes. These help to explain why black-and-white categories are so compelling. It goes on to examine research findings on psychological gender differences to ascertain whether we are worlds apart or all on the same page. Finally, the chapter sets the scene for discussing alternatives to the binary gender approach (later in the book) by considering the concept of androgyny.

  Making sense of the world

  Two overlapping psychological concepts help to understand how we organize our knowledge of ourselves, others and the world: schemata and attitudes. They can be thought of as a form of human computer software – key procedures in our brain’s operating system.

  Schema theory

  In a rapidly changing environment, it is impossible to process afresh every particle of information that impinges upon us every waking minute of every day. Our brains (and our heads) would need to be huge to accommodate the increased cognitive load. So how do our brains cope?

  We have a need to create an orderly world with governable rules. To achieve this, our pattern-seeking brain employs various routines and ‘rule-of-thumb’ (heuristic) shortcuts. Many situations, especially familiar ones, do not need sophisticated analysis, just automatic responses. A schema (plural schemata, sometimes schemas) is a mental structure of preconceived ideas representing some aspect of the world – a kind of ‘brain app’. As children, we actively construct a series of schemata based on social interactions, experiences and observations. These provide frameworks to organize existing knowledge and shape new experience. They focus our attention, filter our perceptions, shape memories and plug the gaps in our knowledge with their most-likely-default values. Schemata help us to forecast and predict likely events, assess threats, make decisions and regulate behaviour.1

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Gender

  Sociological Perspectives

  • Linda L. Lindsey(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Schemas tell children what they can and cannot do according to their gender. In malls they largely see girls and women, but not boys and men, in clothing and accessory aisles. On television they see female characters engaging in traditional family activities. They see sexualized girls who are pretty and popular. Even at the zoo, adults send socialization messages attributing masculinity and femininity to animals (Stone et al., 2015; Garner and Gender Development: The Socialization Process 107 Grazian, 2016; Drentea and Ballard, 2017). Gender Schema Theory suggests that limited and stereotyped images for girls may disallow them from thinking about different alternatives in life. Schemas affect children’s behavior and influence their self-esteem (self-compassion). A child’s sense of self is linked to how closely his or her behavior matches accepted gender schemas. Gender schemas can direct children’s behavior in ways that assure confidence, com-petence, and self-esteem (Yang and Merrill, 2016; Yarnell et al., 2019). When a girl learns that her culture prescriptions include being polite and kind, these behaviors are incorporated into her emerging gender schema, and she adjusts her behavior accordingly. Gender schemas are powerful influences in a child’s cognitive development. Cognitions processed via gender schemas direct children to use language according to gender role pre-scriptions. (Chapter 4). Gender schemas of parents influence how they behave toward their children and how children internalize these messages and act on them. The link between parent and child gender schemas is strong. Parents with traditional gender schemas are more likely to have children with gender-typed cognitions than are parents with nontraditional schemas. By 18 months, children can associate cultural symbols with gender—building blocks and football are associated with males; baby dolls and tea sets are associated with females.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 14 Apr |Learn more

  Sex and Gender

  A Biopsychological Approach

  • Heidi R. Riggio(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Research indicates that some people are indeed gender schematic; they habitually use gender schemas (stereotypes, roles, etc.) to process information. For example, boys tend to rely more on gender stereotypes than girls in play activities (Eisenberg, Murray, & Hite, 1982), friendships (Zucker et al., 1995), toy preference (Turner, Gervai, & Hinde, 1993), and choice of gender role (Edelbrook & Sugawara, 1978), suggesting greater schematicity. Gender schematicity in girls and boys is associated with gender-congruent toy preference (Carter & Levy, 1988). Gender schematic adults tend to see themselves as highly representative of their gender and they tend to be rather traditional in their gender stereotypes and roles (Bem & Lenney, 1976). Other people are relatively gender aschematic; that is, they do not pay much attention to gender and do not rely heavily on gender stereotypes and roles to understand other people. These people are likely to be more androgynous (showing a mixture of typically feminine and masculine traits) in their own behavior (Schmitt & Millard, 1988).

  It is important to point out the difference between cognitive development theory and Gender Schema Theory. Cognitive development theory is more concerned about how gender identity develops and how that is reflected in children’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Gender Schema Theory is more concerned with how gender schemas are used in processing social information, including one’s own gender identity. Schema theories explain that schematic processing is associated with automaticity, low effort. Schemas are easy to use and help process information very quickly, even instantly, according to a stereotype. An example is meeting a woman and instantly processing her in terms of gender stereotypes rather than other individuating information (e.g., she is Latina-American, she is a doctor, she is older; Signorella, Bigler, & Liben, 1993). As you recall from Chapter 5 , people use schemas when they are not motivated or able to process information carefully and thoroughly (Petty,

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Children's Understanding of Society

  • Martyn Barrett, Eithne Buchanan-Barrow(Authors)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  The Kohlberg (1966) account made a major contribution to the direction of gender role acquisition research by casting the fundamental question in a new light: not ``What do genes or society do to the child?'' but ``What does the child do with the information that society makes available?'' It also, as we have seen, inspired a large amount of fruitful empirical work that has enriched our understanding of the changes in the course of developing gender knowledge. However, one limitation of the account is that it attributes a great deal to the influence of gender constancy. Gender constancy is a relatively late achievement, and there is a lot of evidence that children behave in gender-specific ways from much earlier.

  This led Martin and Halverson (1981, 1987; Martin, 1991) to propose a new cognitive developmental theory, gender schematic processing theory. This theory accepts Kohlberg's emphasis on the organising of the child's active cognitive processing of gender information but maintains that the process begins much earlier, as soon as children discover their own gender identity. Once this is attained, children are motivated to learn more about what gender entails and they organise this information into gender schemas.

  Martin and Halverson distinguished two types of gender schemas: a superordinate structure, which contains broad information about the sexes, and an own-sex schema, which is more detailed. In common with other schema theories in cognitive psychology, the assumption is that the schemas operate to organise incoming data, to guide attention selectively, to underpin memory for relevant facts (as well as reject irrelevant or inconsistent data), and to bias behaviour and evaluations. For example, if one expects (has a gender schema that predicts) girls to play with dolls, then one tends to notice and recall instances of girls playing with dolls but occasional observations of girls playing with dragons or fire engines are not given much attention or are forgotten; also, if one is a girl, given a choice between dolls and dragons then the former is seen as the more natural option (that is, the gender schema guides behaviour).

  Martin and Halverson (1983) showed that 5- and 6-year-olds presented with sets of pictures of children performing either gender-consistent or gender-inconsistent activities subsequently recalled the pictures in line with gender stereotypes. Bradbard, Martin, Endsley, and Halverson (1986) found that 4- to 9-year-olds presented with sets of gender neutral toys that were labelled as ``for girls'' or ``for boys'' spent more time tactually exploring the toys labelled for their own sex and, 1 week later, remembered more detailed information about own-sex than other-sex objects. In an incidental exposure task, Cherney and Ryalls (1999) obtained superior memory for the identity and location of own-gender consistent objects among 3- and 6-year-olds. Levy (1999) found that children as young as 20 to 28 months showed preferential contact with own-sex toys.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Cognitive Processes

  • (Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Although children commonly use gender concepts to guide encoding and interpretation of information, some children demonstrate gender-typed behaviors (e.g., play preferences) before the acquisition of a gender concept. Although this point has been used to discount the validity of Gender Schema Theory and cognitive-developmental theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), cognitive-developmental and gender schema theorists do not consider this problematic because they acknowledge that no single process or factor accounts for every facet of gender development (Martin et al., 2002). Consistent with this idea, allowing for both automatic and deliberate cognitive processes helps to explain more fully how cognitions influence gender development.

  Automatic cognitive processes can result from priming, conditioned associations, and habits. First, when the salience of gender is primed in the environment, children are more likely to use gender stereotypes to interpret events (see Bigler & Liben, 2006). Second, when certain attributes (e.g., traits, activities, roles) are repeatedly paired with a particular gender, children form semantic associations linking gender with the attributes. Positive or negative associations may be made if these associations additionally coincide with social approval and personal enjoyment or with social sanctions and displeasure, respectively. Third, when children themselves repeat certain actions, they can become scripts (e.g., Levy & Fivush, 1993) or procedural memories that are automatically engaged when prompted.

  The influence of automatic processing is further implicated in studies illustrating ways that children's gender schemas can bias information processing. For example, studies find children tend to distort their memories of previously observed counter-stereotypical events by recalling them as stereotypical (e.g., Martin & Halverson, 1983).

  As explained earlier, people's explicit and implicit gender beliefs sometimes differ (see Greenwald et al., 2002). For example, a person may consciously express nonstereotypical views when explicit measures are used, but the same person may demonstrate evidence of automatic gender stereotyping when implicit measures are applied. In one study, when school-age children's explicit and implicit gender stereotypes about math ability were assessed, some children who explicitly viewed girls and boys as equal in math ability additionally demonstrated implicit gender stereotypes associating math more with boys than girls (Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011). These findings imply that some persons may unconsciously internalize cultural gender stereotypes through repeated exposure despite consciously rejecting them.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Dangerous Frames

  How Ideas about Race and Gender Shape Public Opinion

  • Nicholas J. G. Winter(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • University of Chicago Press

    (Publisher)

  33 This chapter turns to the nature of Americans’ race and gender schemas. In the prior chapter I argued that people can engage a schema in perceiv-ing and evaluating a political issue if the issue is framed in a way that makes it match the structure of the schema. The task of this chapter, therefore, is to specify the abstract structure of these two important schemas. These structures reflect the ways—often implicit—that Americans understand and think about race and gender. In other words, the race and gender schemas depend on popular ideologies of race and gender. 1 A long line of psychological research makes clear that humans have some basic cognitive machinery for making sense of social groups. Social identity theory argues that we develop our sense of self in terms of the groups to which we belong and in contrast to the groups to which we do not. The mere fact of categorization triggers a psychological process of diΩerentiation that leads people to identify with and feel warmly toward the in-group and perceive the out-group negatively (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Tajfel 1982). Muzafer Sherif demonstrated in his notorious “Robbers Cave” experi-ments that groups of boys placed in zero-sum competition very quickly and easily develop group identity and strong in-group/out-group eΩects (1988). Henri Tajfel documents a syndrome of in-group/out-group eΩects in which people systematically discriminate against an out-group, even at 3 American Race and Gender Schemas chapter 3 34 an absolute cost to their own group. Moreover, it takes surprisingly little to get these eΩects oΩ the ground: even random group assignment can do the trick (1981).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book