Part of our development is learning social roles. One of the most significant social roles that we learn is our gender role.  Our gender role is an important part of our identity. Social Cognitive theory argues that we develop our gender roles as a result of observational learning – by watching the behavior of same-sex models.  By observing their behavior, and the rewards and punishments that they receive when they engage in gender congruent and incongruent behaviours – children learn to adopt this social role. Although many different strategies have been used to study how gender roles develop, much of the research is problematic.

Fagot carried out a series of naturalistic observations of parent-child interactions. The families were observed by a team of researchers in their own homes using a behavioural checklist. The researchers noted the parents’ reactions when the children did something that was “gender-appropriate” vs when the behavior was “gender inappropriate.” The researchers found that parents gave unconscious negative feedback when the behavior was gender inappropriate, and positive feedback when it was appropriate. This plays a key role in children learning their social role.

This study was a naturalistic observation.  There are advantages to using such a method.  It is high in ecological validity, observing behavior in its natural context. In addition, the researchers used triangulation to make sure that the data from the checklists was reliable.  However, the study was a cross-sectional design.  This means that the researchers saw a snapshot of the family’s behavior and not their behavior over time. We do not get a sense of how frequently such feedback to children and we do not know whether the feedback will actually lead to clearly defined gender roles. Because naturalistic observations of this type are difficult to carry out, the sample size is also small, making it difficult to generalize the findings. Finally, the study is correlational, so no cause and effect can be established.

Smith and Lloyd (1978) carried out an experiment to see if the perceived gender of a child influences the behavior of the adults.  The researchers asked adults to interact with infants dressed in either a blue or pink snowsuit.  The adults were not told the sex of the child, but they played with the children according to what they believed was the gender of the child based on the colour of the snowsuit. The boys were encouraged to be more active than the girls.  Although there were gender-neutral toys available, toys were selected based on the perceived sex of the child.  It seems that the parents again behave in a way that reinforces gender role behavior.

This study was an experiment, so we can draw a conclusion that the perceived gender of the child had an effect on the adults’ behavior. However, in spite of its high level of internal validity, there are limitations to the study.  The situation is rather artificial – not knowing the sex of the child and being misled with a boy child dressed in a pink snowsuit. More significantly, the study is done in a single culture, so the results cannot be generalized to how children may learn their gender roles in another culture.  Finally, as in Fagot’s research, there is an assumption made that the parents’ behaviours will have an effect on the child’s gender role development. 

The media also plays an important role in the socialization of gender roles. Williams (1986) carried out a natural experiment to study the role of television on children’s gender roles development. He did this by assessing children’s gender stereotyping in towns where television had only been recently introduced - and then again two years later. He found that children had significantly more gender stereotypes after two years of exposure to television.

As the study was a natural experiment, the findings are correlational and have the limitation of bidirectional ambiguity; it is not clear if watching more television made children more gender-biased or whether children who were more gender-biased watched more television. The study also assumes that the television played a key role in the formation of gender role behavior, but the study has low internal validity – with no control over extraneous variables.  It is possible that other variables in the community over the two-year period may have changed children’s thoughts on gender roles.

There are many difficulties in studying the development of one’s social roles.  The process is lifelong – so there is no clear beginning and end of this process during one’s life.  One cannot say that gender roles are developed at age 16 and will not change.  In addition, it is impossible to isolate variables in a meaningful way.  As seen in the studies above, there is evidence that a range of factors may play a role, but it is not possible to know the extent of that role and how these factors may interact. Many of the claims that are made are based on assumptions.  For example, there is evidence that children learn behaviour through vicarious reinforcement. It is then assumed that complex behaviours – such as gender roles -may also be learned through this process.   However, the theory cannot explain why not all boys and girls conform to their society’s gender roles – and why gender roles have changed over time.  The studies in this essay do not address biological factors or the question of how societies change over time.

The study of gender role development has helped to change society’s thoughts on how we raise children and the effect that media can have on a child’s identity. It is important to recognize this, but at the same time, we need to understand the limitations of the research.