Cross-cultural similarities appear within gender roles for example through division of labour. Food preparation and childcare is seen to be predominantly carried out by women while men would hunt and provide resources. In some some societies these 'female' roles will be shared, however have not be found to be predominantly carried out by males.
Murdoch and Provest found strong indications of consistent cross-cultural masculine and feminine activities. For example, smelting of ores, metal work and lumbering were 100% or nearly 100% predominantly masculine activities whereas laundering, cooking and fetching water were only carried out by 10% of males. This provides evidence towards an evolutionary approach as similar activities were seen across cultures suggesting an evolutionary basis. This study used a 'Standard Cross cultural sample' therefore the sample raises issues of reliability due to the relevance of each of the categories within a society. For example someone may be unmarried in one society due to lack of partners and in another due to choice. Such factors are ignored with this study making it reductionist therefore we cannot determine the extent to which findings can be generalised.
Williams and Best found a high degree of cross cultural agreement between masculine and feminine adjectives. Men were seen as dominant and aggressive and women as nurturing and submissive. This suggests that are universal stereotypes about male and female characteristics. Methodological strengths of the study include it was longitudinal, conducted over 30 years therefore provides the ability to determine a pattern overtime. This provides greater reliability in findings creating support linking towards an evolutionary explanation of gender role as similar gendered ideas were displayed. Methodological problems occur as participants may have shown demand characteristics and expected to attribute certain words to male or female and therefore doe not truly represent what the students thought themselves. Resulting in the study being potentially less reliable and less generalisable. However, a large sample was used of over 2800 students form 30 different countries. Therefore it could be argued that findings may have sufficient validity and reliability which could be used to justify the conclusions drawn. Overall supporting an evolutionary cause of gender roles rather than a cultural one.
A positive of cross-cultural research suggests it satisfies the demand to be both emic and etic. It is etic as it is able to understand cultures with that cultures own terms and is etic as researchers can leave their own cultural biases and view cultures objectively. However, as many studies were originally based in the US it could be argued they attempt to replicate findings in other countries involving an imposed etic. This assumes that all measures of gender stereotypes are the same across cultures, which is unlikely to be the case. Results gained therefore may lack internal validity and not be a measure of true gender role stereotypes in each culture.
Both Murdoch and Provost, and, Williams and Best studies suggest gendered characteristics and stereotypes are consistent across cultures and such studies take an evolutionary approach. This is retrospective and attempts to make generalised assumptions with little experimental evidence raising issues of reliability and validity. There is also an issue with such research in measuring exact gender role perceptions as they can change quickly. Therefore conclusions drawn at one period of time will not likely be valid in the future. Also feminists have criticised the evolutionary explanation as an attempt to give gender roles a biological basis to keep females in the traditional subordinate role and draw attention away from the male dominance and patriarchy. If this view continues to be accepted with will be reinforced in each generations further moving away from gender equality.
However, real world applications from research such as globalisation must be considered. This may cause less cultural differences with masculine and feminine differences being reduced through legislation and equal opportunities, suggesting social influence may be stronger than biological or evolutionary ones. Therefore refuting a biological basis for cultural variations in gender development.
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Sunday, 31 May 2015
Outline and evalute social influences of gender development (8+16)
Parents play a major role in social influence in the gender development of their child e.g. naming their child. For example shared gender names such as Alex may lead to less gender typed socialisation. Traditionally minded parents are likely to treat boys and girls differently due to gender. When the child shows gender appropriate behaviour they will likely be rewarded through praise and attention, therefore reinforcing behaviour. The child will also observe parents as being different in appearance and behaviour further influencing gender role development.
Later on peers also have an influence. Those of the same gender will likely have been raised in a similar way and will show behaviour consistent with the child's gender perceptions. Peers will often provide reinforcement for gender appropriate behaviour and punishment for gender inappropriate behaviour e.g. not including them in games.
Media provides another source of models through television, books, films and toys. Males are likely to be portrayed as independent with interests in e.g. sports, and women portrayed as submissive, in a homemakers roles. Individuals can learn from such behaviours through vicarious reinforcement, as they observe outcomes of different behaviours. This can result in similar behaviour if the possible reward outweighs the possible cost.
Langlois and Downs found father were more disapproving, than mother, of their sons' gender inappropriate behaviour e.g. playing with dolls. A similar pattern was found in peer reinforcement with boys reacting more negatively to gender inappropriate behaviour than girls, possibly due to social influences portraying male behaviour as more desirable. Also supporting that positive reinforcement may influence gendered behaviour. However, issues occur as research used methods of self-report requiring parents to report on their child's behaviour and gender development. Results may have suffered social desirability, with parents trying to portray their children in the best light, therefore results lack internal validity and reliability. Therefore may not represent the actual social influence parents have on gender roles.
Williams et al observed the introduction of TV into Canadian communities. Communities with the widest range of TV channel access has the strongest sex-typed stereotypes, while having less TV channels resulted in weaker stereotypes. This supports social influences for gender development as through vicarious learning and media exposure this influenced the children's gender views. However, methodological issues occur as questionnaires were used to measure stereotypes. Some questions may have used terms the children did not understand causing them to guess. Therefore do not represent the children's actual views. Also due to the lack of control of extraneous variables in research caused the results to have a lack of internal validity.
Both Langlois and Downs and William's studies highlight the importance of role models as in both studies it is seen social influences influence development. Whether they come from parents, peers of the media. Models should be positive and show a range of behaviour to help move away from sexist stereotypes. It is difficult to determine the extent of social influence as there is the issue of separating social, cultural and cognitive influences on development. However, research can lead to positive real world applications as if social influence plays a role, the media could be used to display men and women in roles normally associated to the opposite sex, this can help lead to greater equality among the sexes.
Social influence has be criticised for ignoring the role of biological factors in gender such as influence of prenatal hormone influences e.g. in rough and tumble play. Also this approach is deterministic to suggest children have no choice but to respond to the social influences they receive. Social learning theory provides an alternative to the strict determinism of operant conditioning but could still be seen as not allowing enough room for free will. Therefore due to this a biosocial approach may be more accepted as this takes into consideration social and biological factors in gender development.
Later on peers also have an influence. Those of the same gender will likely have been raised in a similar way and will show behaviour consistent with the child's gender perceptions. Peers will often provide reinforcement for gender appropriate behaviour and punishment for gender inappropriate behaviour e.g. not including them in games.
Media provides another source of models through television, books, films and toys. Males are likely to be portrayed as independent with interests in e.g. sports, and women portrayed as submissive, in a homemakers roles. Individuals can learn from such behaviours through vicarious reinforcement, as they observe outcomes of different behaviours. This can result in similar behaviour if the possible reward outweighs the possible cost.
Langlois and Downs found father were more disapproving, than mother, of their sons' gender inappropriate behaviour e.g. playing with dolls. A similar pattern was found in peer reinforcement with boys reacting more negatively to gender inappropriate behaviour than girls, possibly due to social influences portraying male behaviour as more desirable. Also supporting that positive reinforcement may influence gendered behaviour. However, issues occur as research used methods of self-report requiring parents to report on their child's behaviour and gender development. Results may have suffered social desirability, with parents trying to portray their children in the best light, therefore results lack internal validity and reliability. Therefore may not represent the actual social influence parents have on gender roles.
Williams et al observed the introduction of TV into Canadian communities. Communities with the widest range of TV channel access has the strongest sex-typed stereotypes, while having less TV channels resulted in weaker stereotypes. This supports social influences for gender development as through vicarious learning and media exposure this influenced the children's gender views. However, methodological issues occur as questionnaires were used to measure stereotypes. Some questions may have used terms the children did not understand causing them to guess. Therefore do not represent the children's actual views. Also due to the lack of control of extraneous variables in research caused the results to have a lack of internal validity.
Both Langlois and Downs and William's studies highlight the importance of role models as in both studies it is seen social influences influence development. Whether they come from parents, peers of the media. Models should be positive and show a range of behaviour to help move away from sexist stereotypes. It is difficult to determine the extent of social influence as there is the issue of separating social, cultural and cognitive influences on development. However, research can lead to positive real world applications as if social influence plays a role, the media could be used to display men and women in roles normally associated to the opposite sex, this can help lead to greater equality among the sexes.
Social influence has be criticised for ignoring the role of biological factors in gender such as influence of prenatal hormone influences e.g. in rough and tumble play. Also this approach is deterministic to suggest children have no choice but to respond to the social influences they receive. Social learning theory provides an alternative to the strict determinism of operant conditioning but could still be seen as not allowing enough room for free will. Therefore due to this a biosocial approach may be more accepted as this takes into consideration social and biological factors in gender development.
Outline and evaluate gender schema theory (8+16)
Gender schema theory (GST), based on the work Piaget, involves organisation of related concepts regarding gender. GST suggests as we develop, our gender behaviour and awareness develops, as our gender schemas get stronger. According to Trautner gender schemas start to develop at 2 to 3 years old.
In group and out group schemas can be formed and influenced gender schemas. In group schemas are attitudes and behaviours expected of the childs own gender whereas out group schemas are attitudes expected of the opposite gender. Positive viewing of the in group motivates children to learn more about their own gender and can explain why children disregard information that is not consistent with their own in group schemas. This theory also predicts that gender schemas effect what behaviours are remembered.
Interaction with the environment through playing with toys and socialising with peers helps develop schemas, which can lead to stereotypes about what toys, clothing and behaviours are suitable for their gender. Adults and peers can also reinforce gender schemas through reward and punishments, for gender appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.
Martin and Little found children younger than 4 showed no signs of gender stability or constancy. Yet showed strong stereotypes in regards to gender roles. Therefore this provides support for gender schema and refutes Kohlberg's theory, as he suggested constancy must be achieved for gender role behaviour to develop, which is not the case. GST proposes that schemas start to form from around 2 years old, which is a more realistic prediction than Kohlberg's cognitive theory, allowing for individual difference of gender development and does not state everyone experiences the same development at the same age. Also providing overall support towards a more psychological explanation of gender development. It suggests schemas, no matter when they are they are developed, provide the starting point of further gender development placing emphasis onto the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate.
Eisenberg et al found that 3-4 year olds justified their choice of gender specific toy without referring to gender stereotypes, suggesting a possible evolutionary or biological basis rather than a cognitive one. This provides evidence towards nature rather than nurture. Methodological issues occur with this study as the research sets the agenda with the study, this is often that case within gender schema research, meaning such studies lack external validty and may not reflect behaviour in a real life setting. Also issues within observational studies occur as the children would have known they were being observed therefore may have shown demand characteristics and chosen the toys that they believed they were expected to choose. Therefore the study lacks internal validity as the children did not choose the toys because of their gender schema alone. The study highlights that biological influences may drive gendered behaviour to some extent but also socialisation provides an influence.
Ethical issues must also be considered in regards to child research. Harm and benefits of research must be carefully considered. Gender research is often based at a developmental level using children is therefore unavoidable. Informed consent must be gained from the child's parents. From research positive real world applications occur as if gender schema and roles can be influences socially, this suggests children can be taught to have non-sexist schemas. This would help towards achieving further gender equality.
Both Martin and Little, and Eisenberg's studies provide evidence towards both a psychological and biological basis from gender role development suggesting the complex interaction of nature and nurture that likely occurs in development. However, issues of such studies also include that are deterministic in suggesting that we have no choice in our behaviour and only act according to schemas. The role of free will is ignored. Findings are inconclusive and only provide evidence of schemas existing but cannot explain why these gender based attitudes would motivate behaviour. Therefore gender schema will unlikely be able to offer a complete explanation.
In group and out group schemas can be formed and influenced gender schemas. In group schemas are attitudes and behaviours expected of the childs own gender whereas out group schemas are attitudes expected of the opposite gender. Positive viewing of the in group motivates children to learn more about their own gender and can explain why children disregard information that is not consistent with their own in group schemas. This theory also predicts that gender schemas effect what behaviours are remembered.
Interaction with the environment through playing with toys and socialising with peers helps develop schemas, which can lead to stereotypes about what toys, clothing and behaviours are suitable for their gender. Adults and peers can also reinforce gender schemas through reward and punishments, for gender appropriate or inappropriate behaviour.
Martin and Little found children younger than 4 showed no signs of gender stability or constancy. Yet showed strong stereotypes in regards to gender roles. Therefore this provides support for gender schema and refutes Kohlberg's theory, as he suggested constancy must be achieved for gender role behaviour to develop, which is not the case. GST proposes that schemas start to form from around 2 years old, which is a more realistic prediction than Kohlberg's cognitive theory, allowing for individual difference of gender development and does not state everyone experiences the same development at the same age. Also providing overall support towards a more psychological explanation of gender development. It suggests schemas, no matter when they are they are developed, provide the starting point of further gender development placing emphasis onto the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate.
Eisenberg et al found that 3-4 year olds justified their choice of gender specific toy without referring to gender stereotypes, suggesting a possible evolutionary or biological basis rather than a cognitive one. This provides evidence towards nature rather than nurture. Methodological issues occur with this study as the research sets the agenda with the study, this is often that case within gender schema research, meaning such studies lack external validty and may not reflect behaviour in a real life setting. Also issues within observational studies occur as the children would have known they were being observed therefore may have shown demand characteristics and chosen the toys that they believed they were expected to choose. Therefore the study lacks internal validity as the children did not choose the toys because of their gender schema alone. The study highlights that biological influences may drive gendered behaviour to some extent but also socialisation provides an influence.
Ethical issues must also be considered in regards to child research. Harm and benefits of research must be carefully considered. Gender research is often based at a developmental level using children is therefore unavoidable. Informed consent must be gained from the child's parents. From research positive real world applications occur as if gender schema and roles can be influences socially, this suggests children can be taught to have non-sexist schemas. This would help towards achieving further gender equality.
Both Martin and Little, and Eisenberg's studies provide evidence towards both a psychological and biological basis from gender role development suggesting the complex interaction of nature and nurture that likely occurs in development. However, issues of such studies also include that are deterministic in suggesting that we have no choice in our behaviour and only act according to schemas. The role of free will is ignored. Findings are inconclusive and only provide evidence of schemas existing but cannot explain why these gender based attitudes would motivate behaviour. Therefore gender schema will unlikely be able to offer a complete explanation.
Outline and evaluate Kohlberg's theory of gender development (8+16)
Kohlberg’s theory is based on the cognitive
development approach of explaining gender development. This is based on
Piaget’s theory. This details that the child is the active learner, and focuses
on development, rather than addressing learning of information or specific
behaviours. It also proposes development occurs in stage which is thought to be
universal.
Stage 1 is gender labelling occurring between
ages 1.5 to 3 years old. In this stage children can recognise they are male or
female based on appearance. Helping them to form female and meal categories,
but knowledge is incomplete.
Stage 2 is gender stability which normally
occurs between 3 to 5 years old. Children realise gender is consistent over
time with boys growing into men and girls into women. They may not realise
gender is consistent across all situations.
Stage 3 is gender constancy and is generally
thought to develop between 6 to 7 years old, although some argue this develops
as late as adolescence, suggested that Kohlberg mistook a phase of gender
assertion for full constancy, with children realising gender is permanent.
Gender constancy is an understanding that gender is constant across all situations,
even if there is a change in appearance, gender remains the same.
Thompson found two year olds could recognise
their own gender correctly 76% of the time. But, children aged 3 were correct
90% of the time supporting Kohlberg's theory of gender labelling as they had an
increased ability to recognise own gender when older. Slaby et al's study
provides further supporting evidence involving asking children questions to assess
their understanding of gender i.e. will you be a mummy or a daddy when you grow
up? Results found that children were not able to recognise gender was
consistent over time until they reached the age of 3-4, in line with Kohlberg's
theory, therefore providing support for it. However, research lacked mundane
realism therefore lacks external validity. The children would have been aware
they were being assessed therefore may have displayed demand characteristics
giving answers they thought the research wanted. Therefore findings may not be
representative of the children's true gender development.
Munroe et al found the theory generalised across
culture therefore providing evidence for the universality of the stages. In
cross-cultural studies children from different cultures followed the 3 stages,
suggesting there may be an evolutionary link in gender development. A criticism
of Kohlberg's theory is it suggests gender typical behaviour only occurs once constancy
had been achieved but gender schema theory suggests this happens as soon as
schemas start to form which, according to Trautner, is around the age of 2-3
years old.
Thompson, Slaby and Munroe's research findings
provide supporting evidence of Kohlberg's theory. These stages of development
were consistent with findings and supports the idea of the stages being
universal. However, from such research the theory may be suggested to be incomplete
as not all research found these results. Slaby and Frey found gender consistent
appeared younger than Kohlberg's theory predicted, as young as 5 years old.
Even in early infancy boys and girls begin to show preferences for their gender
related toys which creates doubt on Kohlberg's theory of universal stages of
development.
Research into gender development often uses
children therefore ethical issues must be considered in regards to child
research. Harm and benefits must be carefully considered in deciding whether
the research is justifiable. Gender research is often based at a developmental
level therefore using children is unavoidable and informed consent from parents
must be gained.
Kohlberg's cognitive approach cannot explain
differences in prenatal hormones and how this may affect development. Therefore
the biological approach may help to provide a more complete view, taking into
account changes before and after birth. Therefore the theory is reductionist as
it determines stages and divides complex mental processes into simplified
time-allocated phases. Individual differences are not accounted for therefore
this does not provide a complete understanding of gender development.
Outline and evaluate research into gender dysphoria (8+16)
The DMS-5 classifies gender dysphoria as people whose gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with. This diagnosis is a revising of the DSM-IV which previously classified the disorder as Gender Identity Disorder.
A biological explanation is that dysphoria has an origin in prenatal hormonal abnormalities. This is argued to lead to lower than typical activity levels in boys and high activity levels in girls. A biosocial element is added to the explanation as, it is suggested that less than usually active boys and more than usually active girls will not fit in with peers and their gender group leading to dysphoria.
Another biological approach suggests a mismatch between hormones and genetic sex on individuals. Androgen Insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) may result in intersex individuals due to prenatal surges in hormones causing external genitalia not to match the genetic sex. Resulting in them being mislabelled as the wrong gender. This may then display as gender dysphoria in individual during later life as their biological identity conflicts with their socially assigned gender.
Brain-sex theory proposes transsexual brains may not match their genetic gender. The BSTc in heterosexual men is twice as big as in heterosexual women, containing double the neurons. Zhou et al found male to female transsexuals had the same number of neurons in the BSTc as females. Also the number of neurons in the BSTc of female to male transsexuals was similar to the male range, suggesting a correlational link. Therefore suggesting a biological cause for gender dysphoria. However, correlational results do not indicate cause and effect. It cannot be concluded whether the BSTc caused the dysphoria or was a symptom of it.
Chung et al noted differences in the BSTc between males and females only developed in adulthood. However, feelings of dysphoria often appeared in early childhood, discrediting brain-sex theory as the BSTc may not be a cause but is a symptom of gender dysphoria. Therefore weakening the argument for a purely biological explanation for gender dysphoria suggesting biological links may be symptoms and not causes.
A psychological explanation could also suggest how dysphoria may develop. It is suggested parents that give their children more attention when behaving in non-gender typical ways, which encourages such behaviour to continue through the processes of operant conditioning. However, such psychosocial approaches have little supporting them as with research it is difficult to isolate a cause. Therefore research lacks reliability and validity. Therefore conclusive supporting evidence cannot be drawn regarding its influence on the development of gender dysphoria. Biological explanations suffer similar issues as the is no clear biological determinant causing the dysphoria. Therefore a biosocial approach may be more appropriate in drawing a more conclusive conclusion to the cause of gender dysphoria.
Theories into gender dysphoria are reductionist and oversimplify a complex disorder being explained through biological or psychological factors. Such explanations cannot explain why individuals with similar traits may not experience the disorder. Therefore a biosocial approach in principle may have an advantage of a purely biological or psychological explanation as it appears that dysphoria is caused by an interaction between the two. However, the extent to which these two factors work together is difficult to determine therefore such an approach has been criticised.
Socially sensitive issues are raised in research due to possible social implications. If the cause is biological it may help society to be more accepting as it is seen as due to genes and not by choice. If evidence suggests a psychological cause, such individuals may face further discrimination as they are seen to 'choose' this behaviour and deviating from what is socially acceptable. Psychological explanations may also result in those with dysphoria being treated as 'sick' which raises severe ethical issues as gender identity cannot be forced upon individuals. However, through research we can gain wider knowledge of what 'gender' really means.
A biological explanation is that dysphoria has an origin in prenatal hormonal abnormalities. This is argued to lead to lower than typical activity levels in boys and high activity levels in girls. A biosocial element is added to the explanation as, it is suggested that less than usually active boys and more than usually active girls will not fit in with peers and their gender group leading to dysphoria.
Another biological approach suggests a mismatch between hormones and genetic sex on individuals. Androgen Insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) may result in intersex individuals due to prenatal surges in hormones causing external genitalia not to match the genetic sex. Resulting in them being mislabelled as the wrong gender. This may then display as gender dysphoria in individual during later life as their biological identity conflicts with their socially assigned gender.
Brain-sex theory proposes transsexual brains may not match their genetic gender. The BSTc in heterosexual men is twice as big as in heterosexual women, containing double the neurons. Zhou et al found male to female transsexuals had the same number of neurons in the BSTc as females. Also the number of neurons in the BSTc of female to male transsexuals was similar to the male range, suggesting a correlational link. Therefore suggesting a biological cause for gender dysphoria. However, correlational results do not indicate cause and effect. It cannot be concluded whether the BSTc caused the dysphoria or was a symptom of it.
Chung et al noted differences in the BSTc between males and females only developed in adulthood. However, feelings of dysphoria often appeared in early childhood, discrediting brain-sex theory as the BSTc may not be a cause but is a symptom of gender dysphoria. Therefore weakening the argument for a purely biological explanation for gender dysphoria suggesting biological links may be symptoms and not causes.
A psychological explanation could also suggest how dysphoria may develop. It is suggested parents that give their children more attention when behaving in non-gender typical ways, which encourages such behaviour to continue through the processes of operant conditioning. However, such psychosocial approaches have little supporting them as with research it is difficult to isolate a cause. Therefore research lacks reliability and validity. Therefore conclusive supporting evidence cannot be drawn regarding its influence on the development of gender dysphoria. Biological explanations suffer similar issues as the is no clear biological determinant causing the dysphoria. Therefore a biosocial approach may be more appropriate in drawing a more conclusive conclusion to the cause of gender dysphoria.
Theories into gender dysphoria are reductionist and oversimplify a complex disorder being explained through biological or psychological factors. Such explanations cannot explain why individuals with similar traits may not experience the disorder. Therefore a biosocial approach in principle may have an advantage of a purely biological or psychological explanation as it appears that dysphoria is caused by an interaction between the two. However, the extent to which these two factors work together is difficult to determine therefore such an approach has been criticised.
Socially sensitive issues are raised in research due to possible social implications. If the cause is biological it may help society to be more accepting as it is seen as due to genes and not by choice. If evidence suggests a psychological cause, such individuals may face further discrimination as they are seen to 'choose' this behaviour and deviating from what is socially acceptable. Psychological explanations may also result in those with dysphoria being treated as 'sick' which raises severe ethical issues as gender identity cannot be forced upon individuals. However, through research we can gain wider knowledge of what 'gender' really means.
Oultine and evaluate the biosocial aproach to gender development (8+16)
The biosocial approach considers an interaction between biological and social factors. For example Money et al proposed that after a biological male or female is born, and labelled as such, gender identity is shaped through social influence. If labelled male they are treated by society in a masculine way, if female treated in a feminising way. Overall, it is suggested that environmental and social factors can override biological sex at birth.
It is proposed that if intersex individuals were mislabelled at birth that child would take on the labelled gender as long as this occurred before the age of 3. For example if a biological female was labelled and treated as a boy, they would label themselves as a boy regardless of biological sex. Therefore the label an individual is given at birth is the most important element, as the theory suggests they will assume that gender identity.
Wood et al proposed that the biological differences between males and females cause psychological differences to develop as they are brought up in that respective gender role. This leads to gender role assignment e.g. men are stronger therefore viewed as the hunter and women give birth therefore suited to child care. Therefore supporting the biosocial approach as the respective gender roles are supported by biological differences throughout life.
Money et al's theory has been criticised with evidence from the case study of David Reimer, who after having his penis removed in a botched circumcision, was unsuccessfully raise as a girl. David became deeply depressed and when told the truth reverted back to his biological male gender. This study suggests biological factors override psychological ones. However, this is a single case study and we cannot generalise findings and assume everyone would behave the same. Other confounding variables, such as his identical twin brother, may have shaped his gender development. Therefore the extent to which biological and social factors influence gender development is not entirely clear.
Imperato-McGinley's study of the Batista family reported four biologically male children, born with AIS, being raised as female due to their external genitalia appearing female. During puberty when testosterone release increased, this caused their male genitalia to appear. All the children accepted this change without difficulty, weakening the biosocial approach as findings suggest biological factors override social ones. It is also argued this change was readily accepted as the 'girls' never truly identified with the female role and were expecting to become male, as AIS had been seen in relatives. Providing further support for a biological approach.
Both Money and Imperato-McGinley's studies highlight that the biosocial approach is unable to explain each individuals' gender development. With these studies often it was overriding factors that had appeared to be the main influence. However, the biosocial approach highlights that nature and nurture likely interact, biological sex causes physical differences, which then lead to psychological difference based on they way they are treated in their gender role. But, this is not supported by all . Those of radical social constructivism reject the biosocial approach believing biology in itself is a social construct.
Research has led to real world application of helping towards gender equality. The evolutionary approach is seen as a force against this suggesting sex differences are innate and cannot be changed through altering social context. Whereas if a social approach is taken this suggest that social roles can be changed leading to changes in psychological differences between men and women and greater equality.
The biosocial approach may provide an 'answer' to the nature nurture debate as both are considered in this explanation. However, research may prove one factor overrides another for example social factors are due to our biology and how others perceive us, therefore may take on an overriding role. Also within the studies of David Reimer and the Batista family biology clearly played a strong role with gender identity, therefore weakens a biosocial approach and suggests biology ultimately plays an overriding role.
It is proposed that if intersex individuals were mislabelled at birth that child would take on the labelled gender as long as this occurred before the age of 3. For example if a biological female was labelled and treated as a boy, they would label themselves as a boy regardless of biological sex. Therefore the label an individual is given at birth is the most important element, as the theory suggests they will assume that gender identity.
Wood et al proposed that the biological differences between males and females cause psychological differences to develop as they are brought up in that respective gender role. This leads to gender role assignment e.g. men are stronger therefore viewed as the hunter and women give birth therefore suited to child care. Therefore supporting the biosocial approach as the respective gender roles are supported by biological differences throughout life.
Money et al's theory has been criticised with evidence from the case study of David Reimer, who after having his penis removed in a botched circumcision, was unsuccessfully raise as a girl. David became deeply depressed and when told the truth reverted back to his biological male gender. This study suggests biological factors override psychological ones. However, this is a single case study and we cannot generalise findings and assume everyone would behave the same. Other confounding variables, such as his identical twin brother, may have shaped his gender development. Therefore the extent to which biological and social factors influence gender development is not entirely clear.
Imperato-McGinley's study of the Batista family reported four biologically male children, born with AIS, being raised as female due to their external genitalia appearing female. During puberty when testosterone release increased, this caused their male genitalia to appear. All the children accepted this change without difficulty, weakening the biosocial approach as findings suggest biological factors override social ones. It is also argued this change was readily accepted as the 'girls' never truly identified with the female role and were expecting to become male, as AIS had been seen in relatives. Providing further support for a biological approach.
Both Money and Imperato-McGinley's studies highlight that the biosocial approach is unable to explain each individuals' gender development. With these studies often it was overriding factors that had appeared to be the main influence. However, the biosocial approach highlights that nature and nurture likely interact, biological sex causes physical differences, which then lead to psychological difference based on they way they are treated in their gender role. But, this is not supported by all . Those of radical social constructivism reject the biosocial approach believing biology in itself is a social construct.
Research has led to real world application of helping towards gender equality. The evolutionary approach is seen as a force against this suggesting sex differences are innate and cannot be changed through altering social context. Whereas if a social approach is taken this suggest that social roles can be changed leading to changes in psychological differences between men and women and greater equality.
The biosocial approach may provide an 'answer' to the nature nurture debate as both are considered in this explanation. However, research may prove one factor overrides another for example social factors are due to our biology and how others perceive us, therefore may take on an overriding role. Also within the studies of David Reimer and the Batista family biology clearly played a strong role with gender identity, therefore weakens a biosocial approach and suggests biology ultimately plays an overriding role.
Outline and evaluate evolutionary explanations of gender development (8+16)
Evolutionary explanations explain gender roles as forming due to different selective pressures of males and females that provide an adaptive advantage to aid survival and reproduction. This explanation see males as hunters and females as domestic gathers.
Short-term mating strategies suggest males will compete for the most fertile mates therefore develop their physical strength and aggression in order to do this. They look for youth and physical attractiveness among females as a sign of fertility. Women normally look for long term mates due to their high parental investment. When using short-term mating strategies males have low parental investment as they can impregnate several women is a short period of time with little effort. Women have high parental investment as they have to carry the child for 9 months and raise it, therefore they choose mates with large resources and low risk of abandonment.
The 'meat sharing' strategy is used to explain why long-term mating strategies developed, and also the male hunter role and the female nurturer/gatherer role. Females have to spend time gestating and nurturing the child therefore cannot hunt. Therefore stay at home and look after a man's children and home. In return he finds food and shares it over an extended period of time.
Buss found women tended to make mate choices based on status and availability of resources and men based choice on youthfulness and good looks. From this it could be concluded that gender differences and preferences are rooted in evolutionary mate selection. Buss suggested these preferences are due to parental investment which differs for each gender. This study used a large sample, 37 cultures were surveyed, followed by an analysis of over 10,000 questionnaire responses. This helped to increase the reliability of findings. However, within methods of self-report demand characterises may have influenced answers. Answers may have be based on their personal life, and the respondents may have also interpreted the questions in their own cultural terms. Therefore the study may lack internal validity in measuring purely evolutionary gender views due to the many extraneous variables that would have likely influenced questionnaire responses. Therefore this study cannot conclusively provide evidence for gender roles being purely evolutionary.
Clark and Hatfield found males were more likely to respond positive to offers that involved sex, supporting the theory males are more likely to use short-term mating strategies supporting an evolutionary explanation for gendered behaviour. However, this study was conducted using a small sample of university students therefore results can only generalise to this age group, providing low external validity. Therefore cannot be used as conclusive support towards an evolutionary explanation of gender development.
Both Buss and Clark and Hatfields' studies found characteristics of male and female gendered behaviour. These characteristics could be argued to provide support towards evolutionary explanations. However, issues occur such as research relies solely on comparative studies providing correctional data. Therefore raises the question of why we should support an evolutionary approach when assumptions cannot be experimentally tested. Such an approach is reductionist as it ignore the role of environmental, cognitive and psychological influences which other research has found to have an influence on us acquiring gender roles.
This approach may also be argues to be deterministic ignoring the role of free will. However, evolutionary psychologists tend to argue free will is adaptive e.g. people have a strong will to mate but choose who to mate with. This has adaptive advantage as we can choose to mate with those with the best possible genes. Further determinism could be argued as the role of social and cultural factors is ignored. Personality may dictate a large part of who we form relationships with, this is not considered, and suggests gender roles are inevitable. Therefore research into this area is socially sensitive as some may view research as further reinforcing evolutionary male sexual aggression and female subservience role.
Short-term mating strategies suggest males will compete for the most fertile mates therefore develop their physical strength and aggression in order to do this. They look for youth and physical attractiveness among females as a sign of fertility. Women normally look for long term mates due to their high parental investment. When using short-term mating strategies males have low parental investment as they can impregnate several women is a short period of time with little effort. Women have high parental investment as they have to carry the child for 9 months and raise it, therefore they choose mates with large resources and low risk of abandonment.
The 'meat sharing' strategy is used to explain why long-term mating strategies developed, and also the male hunter role and the female nurturer/gatherer role. Females have to spend time gestating and nurturing the child therefore cannot hunt. Therefore stay at home and look after a man's children and home. In return he finds food and shares it over an extended period of time.
Buss found women tended to make mate choices based on status and availability of resources and men based choice on youthfulness and good looks. From this it could be concluded that gender differences and preferences are rooted in evolutionary mate selection. Buss suggested these preferences are due to parental investment which differs for each gender. This study used a large sample, 37 cultures were surveyed, followed by an analysis of over 10,000 questionnaire responses. This helped to increase the reliability of findings. However, within methods of self-report demand characterises may have influenced answers. Answers may have be based on their personal life, and the respondents may have also interpreted the questions in their own cultural terms. Therefore the study may lack internal validity in measuring purely evolutionary gender views due to the many extraneous variables that would have likely influenced questionnaire responses. Therefore this study cannot conclusively provide evidence for gender roles being purely evolutionary.
Clark and Hatfield found males were more likely to respond positive to offers that involved sex, supporting the theory males are more likely to use short-term mating strategies supporting an evolutionary explanation for gendered behaviour. However, this study was conducted using a small sample of university students therefore results can only generalise to this age group, providing low external validity. Therefore cannot be used as conclusive support towards an evolutionary explanation of gender development.
Both Buss and Clark and Hatfields' studies found characteristics of male and female gendered behaviour. These characteristics could be argued to provide support towards evolutionary explanations. However, issues occur such as research relies solely on comparative studies providing correctional data. Therefore raises the question of why we should support an evolutionary approach when assumptions cannot be experimentally tested. Such an approach is reductionist as it ignore the role of environmental, cognitive and psychological influences which other research has found to have an influence on us acquiring gender roles.
This approach may also be argues to be deterministic ignoring the role of free will. However, evolutionary psychologists tend to argue free will is adaptive e.g. people have a strong will to mate but choose who to mate with. This has adaptive advantage as we can choose to mate with those with the best possible genes. Further determinism could be argued as the role of social and cultural factors is ignored. Personality may dictate a large part of who we form relationships with, this is not considered, and suggests gender roles are inevitable. Therefore research into this area is socially sensitive as some may view research as further reinforcing evolutionary male sexual aggression and female subservience role.
Outline and evaluate the role of genes and hormones in gender devleopment (8+16)
Each cell of the body contains 23 chromosomes that carry genes containing genetic instructions on an individuals physical and behavioural traits. The sex chromosome pair is responsible for determining the sex of the child. For example the female pair is XX and males is XY.
During early prenatal development there is no viable genitalia. At 3 months, if the foetus is to develop as male the testes produce testosterone causing male genitalia to develop. However, if male embryos are exposed to too little testosterone, or females exposed to high levels of testosterone this can result in the child being born intersex. Therefore genes and biological factors explain how individuals view their own gender.
Hormones influence brain development and genitalia which may influence gendered behaviour. Male and female hormones influence both genders in different ways. Male hormones 'masculinalise' the brain, female hormones led to better social skills and empathy. If female and prenatally exposed to high levels of male hormones this can explain why some girls develop 'tomboyish' behaviour. Hormones continue to have a role throughout life e.g. increases during puberty.
Young et al conducted an animal study injecting female monkeys with male hormones, producing female monkeys with male characteristics. Including engaging in more rough and tumble play and were more aggressive. It is suggested this is similar as to how human male hormones affect male brain development making them masculine. Within animal research we are able to gain some understanding of how genes and hormones may affect gendered behaviour, as testing this in humans would be unethical. But, we cannot assume for certain that genes and hormones affect humans in the same way. Ethical issues also arise as some may argue exposing animals to such tests with hormones exposure is cruel and morally wrong. However, such research strengthens a biological cause for development of gendered behaviour.
David Reimer provided support for a biological cause as he was unable to adjust to his newly assigned female gender. Money assumed environmental factors could override biological ones, this proved to be untrue. This case study demonstrates how strong biological factors can override environmental factors in gender development. Additionally, Reimer ended his life through suicide, which is far from typical, which may suggest that the trauma of being raised in his non-biological gender may have caused long-lasting psychological damage. However, this is a single case study therefore findings cannot be generalised and we cannot assume biological factors will always override psychological ones.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) occurs when XX females are exposed to prenatally high levels of male hormones which can result in varying formations of male genitalia causing some to be raised male and some female. Research suggests that gender assigned at birth is accepted by some but not others. Therefore it is reductionist to assume that hormones or genes alone can explain gender development as this is not the case.
Understanding gender development has real world application, seen in the Olympics. Originally genetic sex was the determining factor whether an athlete completed as male or female. But, through further understanding of gender a ruling was put in place meaning genetics was no longer a decisive factor. Individuals, such as genetic males, were only excluded from female event if obviously physically male, leading to greater equality.
Young' research and the case study of David Reimer linked gender to be largely determined by biological causes such as genes and hormones, suggesting gender identification is largely caused by these factors. However, from CAH studies we see whether the assigned gender is accepted or not varies between individuals making it difficult to determine the main influencing factor. A purely genetic and hormonal approach ignores the role of free will and is deterministic as individuals have the choice of their gender which they may change later on. Therefore highlight that a complex interaction of both nature and nurture would best describe gender development and that a purely biological explanation is too simplistic.
During early prenatal development there is no viable genitalia. At 3 months, if the foetus is to develop as male the testes produce testosterone causing male genitalia to develop. However, if male embryos are exposed to too little testosterone, or females exposed to high levels of testosterone this can result in the child being born intersex. Therefore genes and biological factors explain how individuals view their own gender.
Hormones influence brain development and genitalia which may influence gendered behaviour. Male and female hormones influence both genders in different ways. Male hormones 'masculinalise' the brain, female hormones led to better social skills and empathy. If female and prenatally exposed to high levels of male hormones this can explain why some girls develop 'tomboyish' behaviour. Hormones continue to have a role throughout life e.g. increases during puberty.
Young et al conducted an animal study injecting female monkeys with male hormones, producing female monkeys with male characteristics. Including engaging in more rough and tumble play and were more aggressive. It is suggested this is similar as to how human male hormones affect male brain development making them masculine. Within animal research we are able to gain some understanding of how genes and hormones may affect gendered behaviour, as testing this in humans would be unethical. But, we cannot assume for certain that genes and hormones affect humans in the same way. Ethical issues also arise as some may argue exposing animals to such tests with hormones exposure is cruel and morally wrong. However, such research strengthens a biological cause for development of gendered behaviour.
David Reimer provided support for a biological cause as he was unable to adjust to his newly assigned female gender. Money assumed environmental factors could override biological ones, this proved to be untrue. This case study demonstrates how strong biological factors can override environmental factors in gender development. Additionally, Reimer ended his life through suicide, which is far from typical, which may suggest that the trauma of being raised in his non-biological gender may have caused long-lasting psychological damage. However, this is a single case study therefore findings cannot be generalised and we cannot assume biological factors will always override psychological ones.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) occurs when XX females are exposed to prenatally high levels of male hormones which can result in varying formations of male genitalia causing some to be raised male and some female. Research suggests that gender assigned at birth is accepted by some but not others. Therefore it is reductionist to assume that hormones or genes alone can explain gender development as this is not the case.
Understanding gender development has real world application, seen in the Olympics. Originally genetic sex was the determining factor whether an athlete completed as male or female. But, through further understanding of gender a ruling was put in place meaning genetics was no longer a decisive factor. Individuals, such as genetic males, were only excluded from female event if obviously physically male, leading to greater equality.
Young' research and the case study of David Reimer linked gender to be largely determined by biological causes such as genes and hormones, suggesting gender identification is largely caused by these factors. However, from CAH studies we see whether the assigned gender is accepted or not varies between individuals making it difficult to determine the main influencing factor. A purely genetic and hormonal approach ignores the role of free will and is deterministic as individuals have the choice of their gender which they may change later on. Therefore highlight that a complex interaction of both nature and nurture would best describe gender development and that a purely biological explanation is too simplistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)