Sandra Bem’s (1974, 1977, 1981) theory is a good example of a theory that tries to overcome the difficulties posed by the other theories. According to Bem, children (and, for that matter, all of us) think according to schemas (SKI-muz), which are cognitive mech
anisms that organize our world. These schemas develop over time and are universal, like the stages in cognitive development theory; the difference lies in Bem’s assertion that the contents of schemas are determined by the culture. Schemas are like maps in our heads that direct our thought processes.
Bem suggests that one schema we all have is a gender schema, which organizes our thinking about gender. From the moment we are born, information about gender is continuously presented to us by our parents, relatives, teachers, peers, television, movies, advertising, and the like. We absorb the more obvious information about sexual anatomy, “male” and “female” types of work and activities, and gender-linked personality traits. But society also attributes gender to things as abstract as shapes (rounded, soft shapes are often described as “feminine,” and sharp, angular shapes as “masculine”) and even our drinks (champagne is seen as more feminine, whereas beer is seen as more masculine; Crawford et al., 2004).
Gender schemas are very powerful in our culture. When we first meet a man, we immediately use our masculine gender schema and begin our relationship with an already — established series of beliefs about him. For example, we may believe that men are funny or assertive. Our gender schema is more powerful than other schemas and is used more often, Bem argues, because our culture puts so much emphasis on gender and gender differences. This is where she parts company with cognitive development theorists, who argue that gender is important to children because of their naturally physicalistic ways of thinking.
The gender schema becomes so ingrained that we do not even realize its power. For example, some people so stereotype gender concepts that it would never occur to them to say, “My, how strong you are becoming!” to a little girl, whereas they say it easily to a little boy. We do not see girls on one end and boys on the other of a weak-to-strong continuum; rather, Bem argues, “strong” as a feminine trait does not exist in the female schema for many people, so they rarely invoke the term “strong” to refer to women.