behaviors of the same-sex adult that you learned

Explain some of the behaviors of the same-sex adult that you learned as a child and now demonstrate. Based on social cognitive theory, explain how you might have acquired the behaviors. Be specific. Use proper APA format and citations.

Think about how social psychology and, specifically, Bandura’s social cognitive theory, explains how modeling affects cognitive development and behavior.
Consider your childhood and select a same-sex adult who influenced your personal development. The same-sex adult could include a primary caregiver, extended member of the family, or family friend with whom you were close as a child.

****I have attached an article I would like for you to use for this as a reference please.*****
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology 1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302

Copynghi I9S4 by the American Psychological Association. Inc

Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power on Sex-Linked Modeling

Kay Bussey Macquarie University

New South Wales, Australia

Albert Bandura Stanford University

Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop- mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex- role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power for boys.

Most theories of sex role development as- sign a major role to modeling as a basic mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura, 1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears, Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) have questioned whether social prac- tices or modeling processes are influential in the development of sex-linked roles. They point to findings that in laboratory situations children do not consistently pattern their

This research was supported by Research Grant No. M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University. We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Brent Sha- phren, Deborah Skriba, Erin Dignam, and Pamela Minet for serving as models. We are indebted to Marilyn Waterman for filming and editing the videotape modeling sequence, to Eileen Lynch and Sara Buxton, who acted as experimenters, and to Nancy Adams, who assisted in collecting the data. Finally, we also thank the staff and children from Bing Nursery School, Stanford University.

Requests for reprints should be sent to either Kay Bussey, School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie Uni- versity, North Ryde, Australia, 2113, or to Albert Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Building 420 Jordan Hall, Stanford, California 94305.

behavior after same-sex models. However, these studies typically include only one model of each sex. In a recent series of studies, Bussey and Perry (1982; Perry & Bussey, 1979) have used multiple modeling as more closely related to how modeling influences operate in everyday life. When exposed to multiple models the propensity of children to pattern their performances after same-sex models increases as the percentage of same- sex models displaying the same preferences increases.

The preceding research lends support to the view that same-sex modeling can promote same-sex differentiated patterns of behavior. It remains an open question, however, con- cerning the extent to which modeling plays an important role in the development of sex- typed behavior in younger children. Models may simply serve to activate the already developed sex-typedness of children.

Cognitive-developmental theory holds that sex typing is simply one outgrowth of chil- dren’s cognitive development. From this viewpoint, the most important consideration of the child’s sex role development is the



child’s cognitive capacity. According to Kohl- berg (1966), it is not until about age six that a child understands that a person’s gender remains constant regardless of appearance changes. Recognition of gender constancy is achieved during the same stage in which Piagetian conservation is attained. After chil- dren achieve a clear conception of themselves as a “boy” or “girl,” they automatically value and strive to behave in ways appropriate for their sex. Therefore, in this view, it is as a result of having attained the concept of gender constancy that children will seek behavior appropriate for their own sex. Furthermore, consistency between the child’s gender, self- categorization, and appropriate behaviors and values is thought to sustain the child’s self- esteem. Sex-typed behavior is considered to be motivated by the child’s desire to behave in a way consistent with his or her sexual label.

According to cognitive-developmental the- ory, children imitate same-sex models because they perceive them as similar to themselves. Such selective imitation fosters emotional ties to same-sex models. Children’s differentiation of gender roles and their perception of them- selves as more similar to same-sex models precedes, rather than follows, identification. That is, sex typing is not viewed as a product of identification, but rather as an antecedent of it.

One of the problems for Kohlberg’s (1966) theory has been that children show prefer- ences for sex-typed objects earlier than gender constancy normally develops (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Although stable gender identity is not attained until about 4 to 6 years of age, Thompson (1975) found that 24-month- olds did quite well when asked to sort pictures of feminine and masculine toys, articles of clothing, tools, and appliances in terms of their stereotypical sex relatedness.

Social learning theorists (Bandura, 1969; Mischel, 1966, 1970) view sex role develop- ment as promoted through a vast system of social influences. These involve differential gender labeling and the structuring of activi- ties in ways that teach the sex roles tradition- ally favored by the culture. Modeling serves as a major conveyor of sex role information (Bandura, in press). Children are continuously exposed to models of sex-typed behavior in

the home, in schools, and in televised repre- sentations of society. On the basis of these’ multiple sources of sex role information, young children learn the behaviors appropri- ate for their own sex. Social sanctions make outcomes partly dependent on the sex-appro- priateness of actions. Observed consequences to others also convey role knowledge. On the basis of direct and vicarious experiences, children learn to use sex-typing information as a guide for action. Other things being equal, children are, therefore, more inclined to pattern their behavior after a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model.

Kohlberg (1966) postulates attainment of gender constancy as a necessary prerequisite for children’s identification with same-sex models. Social learning theorists, however, view gender constancy as a product rather than an antecedent of the emulation of same- sex models. To explore these contrasting pre- dictions, we selected children for study on the basis of their level of gender constancy as measured by the procedure devised by Slaby and Frey (1975). This measure distinguishes between gender identity (knowledge of self and other’s gender), gender stability (knowl- edge that gender remains invariant across time), and gender consistency (knowledge that gender remains invariant across situations). Children at three levels of gender constancy were selected: low, medium, and high. Those in the low group had not achieved gender identity. The medium gender constancy group had attained gender identity, but neither gen- der stability nor consistency. Finally, the high group had attained both gender identity and gender stability and some displayed gender consistency as well. Children from these three levels of gender constancy were exposed to multiple male and female models exhibiting differential patterns of behavior, whereupon the children’s acquisition and spontaneous emulation of the modeled patterns was mea- sured.

Experiment 1

Method Subjects Subjects were 18 boys and 18 girls enrolled

in the Stanford University Nursery School. They ranged in age from 29 to 68 months, with mean age of 44.5 months. Models were three men and three women, all of


whom had prior acting experience. Two female experi- menters conducted the study.

Design. The subjects were assigned randomly to a modeling group and a control group of 18 subjects each. Within each group, equal numbers of boys and girls were selected as either low, medium, or high on the Slaby and Frey (1975) gender constancy interview.

Assessment of gender constancy The tester adminis- tered the gender constancy interview (Slaby & Frey, 1975) to each child individually. On the basis of the children’s responses, equal numbers of boys and girls were selected at the low, medium, and high levels of gender…