Gender

sex

bio differences between males XY and females XX due to chromosomes

gender

psych distinction between masc and fem personality traits may not match bio sex

sex role stereotypes

culturally shared set of expectations of correct m and f behaviour, learnt by socialisation

androgyny

having a balanced mix of both masc and fem personality traits

Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) Bem 1974

a measure of androgyny, ppts rate themselves on 7 point scale on 60 characteristics (20m 20f 20a)

BSRI strengths

piloting w 1000 students showed it reflected their gender identiy (valid). High test retest reliability in followup study. Quantitative (Spence qualitative = better?)

BSRI weaknesses

lacks temporal validity. culturally biased (American). lacking insight to own gender identity self assessment. Overlapping scale. subjective.

Androgyny and well being

Bem argued androgynous ppl more psychologically healthy. Western cultures - more masc/ higher value (Adams and Sherer 1985).

role of chromosomes

23rdchromosomes pair determines bio sex . Testes develop due to area on Y chromo (sex determining region), testes produces androgens (m sex hormones) results in other sex differences

role of hormones

influence bio development before birth , at puberty secondary sexual characteristics. Bio effects caused by hormones may influences gender identity/beh

testosterones

high conc in males. starts development of male genitals before birth due to SRY gene on Y chromo. Leads to changes in hypothalamus and other brain changes. aggression

oestrogen

high conc in females. produces f secondary sexual characteristics and regulates menstruation . Irritability and caringness

oxytocin

stress reducing ‘love hormone’ produced during sex/ breast feeding promotes bonding

role of testosterone strength TIETS

Wang et al (2000) 2227 hypogonal men testosterone therapy for 180days. Improved sexual function, libido, mood, muscle strength

role of testosterone weakness TICounterETS

O’ Connor et al (2004) didnt significantly increase freq of sex or libido. Additional testosterone in ‘normal’ men = no effects

role of chromos/hormones limitations

Hofstede et al (2010) gender roles social factors > bio in shaping gender attitudes/behs (eg masculinity in individualist cultures). Reduces gender to chromos/hormones: cog/ psychodynamic explanations?

atypical sex chromosomes patterns

variations in 23rd pair of chromos from the typical XY and XXpattern

Klinefelter’s M

XXY lack facial hair, tall, long limbs, small testes, breast tissue, soft body contours, passive, poor language/reading

Turner’s F

X0 no menstrual cycle - sterile, flat shield chest, webbed neck, short, small hip:waist, good reading, low spatial, visual, memory, maths, socially immature

nature-nurture

S: differences in psychology / beh result of abnormal chromos. innate ‘nature’ influences have powerful effect on psychology/ beh. W: social influences eg socially immaturity/ passivity - treated differently.

K and T strengths and weaknesses

S: Herlihy et al (2011) 87 ppl with K identified when young benefitted in terms of managing their condition. Awareness / real world app. W: most severe symptoms recorded - exaggerated. Boada et al (2009) majority of K don’t have cog/psy problems

cognitive explanation

children’s understanding of gender actively develops due to intellectual development

Kohlberg’s theory 1966

cognitive - childs THINKING about gender emphasised. developmental - theory concerned w changes in thinking overtime. 3 stages related to Piaget’s ideas

Stage 1 Gender Identity 2-3yrs

aware of own gender, identify other gender but not aware of permanence

stage 2 gender stability 4-5yrs

aware if own gender fixed overtime. confused by non-normative appearance / roles

stage 3 gender consistency 5+yrs

recognises everyones gender constant overtime despite unusual contexts

TIETS TIETCounterS Kohlberg

Damon 1977: ‘George likes to play w dolls’ =. 4yos ‘yes’ 6yos ‘no’ - gender stereotyping. Bussey and Bandura 1999: as young as 4 ‘feeling good’ about gender appropriate toys (bad ab opposite) - contradicts Kohlberg’s theory, children absorb gender appropriate info at gender identity stage.

Kohlberg strength and weakness

Munroe et al (1984) - cross cultural research (Kenya, Somoa, Nepal) universal? generalisable?. Methodological issues - Kohlberg interviewed young children = lack of self expression, untrue

Gender schema theory Martin and Halverson' 1981 (GST)

Gender schemas are mental representations of what sex is and what is stereotypically m and f behs. Informs our own beh and what is expected. also cognitive-developmental. contrasts to SLT (passive observe and imitate)

Gender schema acquired w gender identity 2-3yrs

child establishes gender identity and begins to look around for further info to develop their schema.

Gender stereotypes develop (GST)

expand to include range of behs and personality traits based in streotypes (eg toys). Schema directs child’s beh (I’m a boy so I play w cars). By 6, M+H suggest stereotypical idea about gender appropriateness is fixed.

Ingroups and outgroups

pay more attention to and better understanding of schema appropriate to own gender. Bolsters self-esteem, tendancy to judge ingroups +vely. 8yrs - schema for both genders

TIETS GST Martin and Halverson 1983

children under 6 more likely to recall gender appropriate photos when tested a week later. Changed gender of gender-inappropriate activity. (contrast to Kohlberg - older children)

strength of GST - explains many aspects of children’s ideas ab gender

young children hold fixed attitudes towards rigid gender. Conflicting info (eg inappropriate gender role) ignored and discounted. In group bias.

limitations of GST - overemphasis on individual

social factors ignored, insufficient attention on social factors (eg response to gendered beh like scolding boys for playing w dolls)

limitation of GST - key assumption unsupported

‘should be possible to change child’s beh by changing their schemas or stereotypes’ - very difficult to do so. Kane and Sanchez: married couples believe in equality but little effect on home beh

SLT applied to gender development (observation and imitation of role models)

draws attention to environmental influences (Nurture): parents, peers, media, teachers

Reinforcement: direct and indirect (Vicarious)

D: praised for gender appropriate beh more likely to immitate this / punished for opposite. I: imitation of praised gender beh of another / avoidance of punished beh

differential reinforcement

the way in which boys and girls are encouraged to show distinct gender appropriate beh. How they learn what gender they are

Identification and modelling

I: child attaches themself to person (role model) with rewarding qualities seen/ want to be like them. Same sex, higher status. M: demonstration of beh imitated by observer by role model or copier of model

mediational processes ARRM

Attention (to beh from role model?), Retention (remembering skills), Reproduction, Motivation (self efficacy to repeat beh)

TIETS SLT - Smith and Lloyd 1978

4-6mo babies irrespective of sex dressed half time in boys/girls clothes. Gender appropriate beh reinforced (‘boys’ given hammers, girls = dolls)

SLT limitation - not a developmental theory

does not provide an explanation of how learning processes change w age. eg motor reproduction X if child not intellectually/physically capable (yet) Dubin (1992) recognition of same-sex models now, selection and imitation of beh later

comparison to bio/ psyD approach

little emphasis on role of hormones/chromos eg David Reimer (impossible to override bio influence). Biosocial theory>>. Freud: ‘importance of unconscious forces’, critical of overeliance on conscious mediational processes.

culture and gender roles

nature-nurture debate: consistent cross cultural may suggest innate traits. Culturally specific findings = shared norms and socialisation (SLT)

Margaret Mead 1935 tribal groups in New Guinea

Arapesh - gentle and responsive (UK fem) Mundugumor - aggressive, hostile (UK masc) Tchambuli women - dominant, organised, men - passive, ‘decorative’. X bio relationship between sex + gender - roles culturally determined

cultural similarities - Buss 1995

consistent patterns in mate preferences in 37 countries (women sought wealthy and resource-filled men, men sought youth and attractiveness)

media and gender - role models

rigid stereotypes Bussey and Bandura 1999: men are ambitious, independent, advice givers / women opposite. Furnham and Farragher 2000 TV adverts men in autonomous roles women in domestics

media and gender - info giving

McGhee and Frueh 1980: kids w more exposure to popular forms of media display more gender stereotypical views. Info in terms of likely success/ adopting these behs. helps w self -efficacy to do these behs

Criticism of Mead’s research

observer bias, short period of study. Freeman 1983 followup study of Samoans - Meads findings = flawed, misled by some participants, preconceptions influenced reading of events. Shankman 1996 challanged Freeman for supporting his OWN viewpoint

imposed etic (culture and gender)

Berry et al 2002: imposed etic = idea that ‘Western’ ways of doing research are assumed to be universal, meaningless when transferred to other cultures. Advocates inclusion of at least 1 member of local pop in research team (Buss did this)

Nature or nurture unsolved

impossible to separate the 2 influences on gender. difficult to determine when nature stops and nurture begins. Most likely complex and constant interaction between both.

media and gender limitation: correlation /= causation

difficult to establish cause and effect. does media reflect social norms or cause them? impossible control groups of kids not exposed to media

counter stereotypes in media

changes overtimes (Less sexist adverts/movies eg Brave). Pingree 1978 gender stereotypes reduced in kids shown women in non stereotypical advert roles. Pre-adolescent boys stereotypes stronger following non stereotypical roles (boys desire to maintain view)

Gender dysphoria GD/ GID (gender identity disorder) / transgenderism

characterised by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort w one’s own sex. May dress/ use mannerisms of opposite sex/ gender reassignment surgery. DSM- 5 excludes atypical gender conditions

Brain sex theory - GD caused by brain structures incompatible with person’s bio sex

Zhou et al 1995 Post mortem of 6 m-to-f bed nucleus of stria terminalis similar to f brain. Confirmed by Kruijver 2000 - similar no of neurons to f brain

genetic basis = twin studies of GD

Coolidge et al 2002 studies 157 twin pairs, 62% accounted for by genetic variance. Heylens et al 2012, 9 (39%) of sample of MZ were concordant, 0 DZs. Low concordance, difficult to separate nature and nurture, ungeneralisable

psychoanalytic theory on GD

Oversey and Person 1973 GD caused by separation anxiety before gender identity. Fantasises ab symbiotic fusion w mother to relieve anxiety - becomes the mother adopts f identity. Stoller 1973 GD in bio males describe close mother-son relationship. F-to-m? absence of father (Rekers 1986)

cognitive explanation of GD - dual pathway theory

Liben and Bigler 2002 - extentsion of GST emphasising individual differences in gender identity. 1st path: development of gender schema, then gender appropriate behs. 2nd personal path: own interests influence, development of non-sex typed schema…opposite gender identity. descriptive not explanatory: little explanation of why non-sex type schemas occur / this causes GD.

Contradictory evidence for BSTc (supposedly fully formed at 5)

Hulshoff Pol et al 2006 transgender hormone did effect size of BSTc (not due to GD). Chung et al 2002 pre-natal influences not triggered til adulthood.

biological explanations oversimplify a complex concept

reductionist, ignores other (social) factors,interactionist (Biosocial) approach is best