| Course | PS 323 Psychology of Gender |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Theories of gender development |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 323 Unit 2
Why Did He Put the Doll Down? Social Cognitive Theory and Gender Schema Theory Compared on What Each Predicts for One Composite Four-Year-Old
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 323: Psychology of Gender
Instructor Name
July 14, 2026
Why Did He Put the Doll Down? Social Cognitive Theory and Gender Schema Theory Compared on What Each Predicts for One Composite Four-Year-Old
Two Accounts of How Gender Develops
This paper compares two accounts of how children come to prefer activities and toys associated with their gender, and it does so on what each predicts. The first is social cognitive theory, set out for gender development by Bussey and Bandura (1999). The second is the family of cognitive accounts that includes gender schema theory, proposed by Martin and Halverson (1981) and reviewed by Martin et al. (2002). Each is credited to its originators, described with the kind of evidence it was built from, and then tested against a case where the two predictions diverge.
Social Cognitive Theory
Bussey and Bandura (1999) proposed that children learn gender-linked behavior through three main modes: observing models, direct experience of how others react to their behavior, and direct instruction. Over time, children come to regulate their own behavior through the outcomes they expect, approval or disapproval, and through the standards they adopt. The theory draws on decades of research on observational learning and on studies of how children respond to the reactions of parents and peers. Its central prediction is that gender-linked preferences follow the social consequences a child experiences or expects, so a change in those consequences should change behavior.
Gender Schema Theory
Martin and Halverson (1981) proposed that children form gender schemas, mental structures that organize information about what is for girls and what is for boys. Once a child identifies as a girl or a boy, the child attends more to information about the own-gender schema, approaches what is labeled as for their own gender and avoids what is labeled for the other, partly independent of reinforcement. Martin et al. (2002) reviewed the evidence for cognitive accounts and emphasized that children actively seek out and apply gender information once they understand gender categories, so knowledge and self-categorization, not only reinforcement, drive preferences. The central prediction is that a gender label attached to an object can change a child's interest in it even without any reward or punishment.
The Case
The case is a composite, built to show where the accounts diverge. Theo is four. His parents have deliberately given him a doll and a toy kitchen, and they smile and join in when he plays with them. For months he plays with the doll often. One day at preschool, a classmate tells him that dolls are for girls. Over the next week, Theo stops playing with the doll at home, though his parents continue to praise doll play, and tells his mother, "I'm a boy, so I don't play with that."
What Each Theory Predicts
The accounts agree that the preschool remark changed Theo's behavior. They disagree about how. Social cognitive theory explains the change through anticipated social consequences: peer judgment has become a more powerful outcome than parental approval. Gender schema theory explains it through categorization: the remark supplied a label, and Theo's own identity as a boy did the rest, regardless of the praise at home.
| Question | Social cognitive theory | Gender schema theory |
|---|---|---|
| Why did doll play stop? | Theo now expects disapproval from peers, which outweighs parental approval | Theo learned that dolls belong to the girls' category and he is a boy |
| What should reverse it? | Changing the consequences, such as peers' approval of doll play | Changing the category, such as learning that dolls are for everyone |
| Does parental praise matter? | Yes, as one source of outcome expectations among several | Less, once the label and self-categorization are in place |
| What does his statement show? | A self-standard learned from social feedback | The schema at work: a self-category guiding preference |
Testing the Divergence Against the Evidence
The case favors gender schema theory on one detail and is consistent with both on another. Theo stopped playing with the doll at home, where his parents continued to reward it and no peer was watching, and he justified the change by his identity rather than by fear of teasing. That fits the schema account's prediction that a label combined with self-categorization can override reinforcement. Martin et al. (2002) reviewed studies in which children showed more interest in unfamiliar objects labeled for their own gender, an effect that does not depend on reward.
But social cognitive theory can absorb the detail. Bussey and Bandura (1999) describe how children internalize standards and apply them even when no one is watching, so Theo's statement could reflect a standard learned from social feedback. The two accounts converge on a child who regulates his own behavior; they differ in whether the regulation rests mainly on expected consequences or mainly on category knowledge. A single case cannot settle that, and the authors on each side have debated it in print.
Are Older Frameworks Still Acceptable Sources?
Both accounts were first proposed decades ago and remain active. The 1981 schema proposal and the 1999 social cognitive statement are cited because they are the original statements of each theory; the 2002 review is cited because it summarizes later evidence. Older frameworks are acceptable sources when cited as what they are, statements of a theory, and paired with more recent evidence about how well their predictions have held.
Conclusion
The frameworks are less opposed than a summary of each would suggest. Both predict that children actively regulate gender-linked behavior; they differ on what does the regulating. Theo's case, with its change at home despite praise and its identity-based explanation, sits closer to the schema account, while remaining explainable by social cognitive theory's account of internalized standards. A comparison organized around such a case is more useful than two summaries because it shows exactly where the theories would give different advice about what might change a child's preferences. A social cognitive reading would look to Theo's peers and the reactions he expects from them; a schema reading would look to how he understands the category of dolls and who they are for. Both readings also caution against treating a four-year-old's statement about himself as fixed, since reviews describe gender-related rigidity peaking in early childhood and loosening afterward (Martin et al., 2002).
References
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F., Jr. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52(4), 1119-1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129498
Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 903-933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903
The Herzing PS 323 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 of PS 323 asks students to compare two or three accounts of how gender develops on what each predicts. Expect to credit each framework to its originators, describe the evidence it was built from, state its central prediction and then test the accounts against a case where they diverge. When the instructions leave the choice open, pick frameworks that genuinely disagree about something observable. Older frameworks remain acceptable sources when cited as statements of the theory and paired with later evidence about how well their predictions held. The case should be a composite rather than a child you know, since a real child's details do not belong in a graded paper.
How this PS 323 Unit 2 example is built
The paper begins by naming the two accounts and the plan to compare predictions. Social cognitive theory is set out from Bussey and Bandura, with its three modes of learning and its prediction that preferences follow expected consequences. Gender schema theory is set out from Martin and Halverson and the later review, with its prediction that a label can change interest without reward. The composite case follows, and a table compares the accounts on four questions. A testing section explains which detail favors the schema account and how the other account responds. A section on older sources and a conclusion about what each reading would look to close the paper. The case is built so that the two accounts predict different things, which is the only way a case can test them.
Where the points sit in the PS 323 Unit 2 rubric
The rubric for the theories of gender development unit generally rewards accurate attribution, faithful statements of each framework, explicit predictions, a case that separates the accounts and a balanced test, plus APA writing. Attribution earns credit when originators and dates are named. Faithful statements score when frameworks are described in their own terms. Explicit predictions are often heavily weighted, because a comparison without them is two summaries. The case earns points when it is built so the frameworks predict different things. A balanced test is credited when the writer shows where the evidence favors one account and how the other could respond, without overstating the result. A summary table setting predictions side by side is a common and effective device.
PS 323 Unit 2 help before you submit
Theory papers lose points when they summarize one framework, then the other, and never compare them. Another common weakness is choosing a case where both frameworks predict the same thing, which tests nothing. Students often present one framework as simply correct when the evidence supports parts of each. Some describe theories in loose textbook language rather than in their originators' terms. Others cite older frameworks without any later evidence. Using a real child you know adds privacy concerns without adding evidence. Ignoring that children's gender categories change with age is a quieter limitation worth naming. Writers also forget to say what kind of evidence each framework was originally built from. A case described at great length, with little analysis, uses space the comparison needs.
Get a PS 323 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 2 instructions with your PS 323 rubric and the frameworks your section assigns. We write a custom example that leads each account with its mechanism, derives predictions before the case, and reports what none of them explained. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 323 papers and psychology samples
- PS 323 Unit 1: Concepts and terminology paper
- PS 323 Unit 3: Cognitive and ability differences paper
- PS 323 Unit 4: Socialization paper
- PS 323 Unit 5: Gender and work paper
- PS 323 Unit 6: Gender and health paper
- PS 323 Unit 7: Intersectionality analysis
- PS 323 Unit 8: Applied or policy paper
- PS 105 Unit 2: Prenatal and infancy paper
- PS 130 Unit 2: Role research paper
- PS 210 Unit 2: Cognitive development paper
- PS 303 Unit 2: Attribution analysis
PS 323 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which framework should I pick if the instructions leave it open?
Pick the one your readings give you enough on to state its predictions precisely, because the comparison runs on predictions and an account you can only summarize will sit inert. It also helps to pair frameworks that disagree about something concrete rather than two that mostly agree, since a comparison between compatible accounts has very little to report.
Do older frameworks still count as acceptable sources?
Usually yes, and often they are required, because the later work was written in response to them. Cite the original where you are reporting what it claimed, and cite a recent review where you are reporting how the field now regards it. What loses points is presenting a decades-old account as current consensus with no indication of when it was written.
Can the case be someone I actually know?
A constructed case is the stronger choice here and most sections accept one. A real person cannot be edited to sit where the frameworks disagree, which is exactly what this comparison needs, and writing up a relative's childhood puts an identifiable person into a file they never agreed to appear in. Build the situation from published patterns and say in the opening that it is composite.
Where can I find a free PS 323 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full PS 323 Unit 2 theories paper free, including both frameworks, the prediction table, the composite case and margin notes. Comparing different frameworks? Tell us which pair, and a prediction-based comparison is drafted for you free.
Do older frameworks still count as sources in PS 323 Unit 2?
Yes, as statements of a theory. The sample cites the 1981 schema proposal and the 1999 social cognitive statement as originals and pairs them with a 2002 review of later evidence.