Note
Studied by 4 people
Gender
Sex: Biological fact of chromosomally being a man or a woman - the biological differences between males and females.
Gender: The psychological and cultural difference between males and females in attitudes, behaviours, and roles. A person in terms of their degree of masculinity and femininity. A social construct.
Introduction
Gender Role: Culturally determined male and female behaviours.
Gender Schema: A means of understanding gender knowledge that changes with environmental experience.
Gender Identity: Personal conception of oneself as male or female.
Gender Dsyphoria: When an individual feels they belong to the wrong gender or are confused about their gender.
Sex (Gender) Role Stereotypes
These are shared expectations and perceptions that a society or a culture hold about what is acceptable for males and females. The ideas are shared between lots of people so are seen as “proper and expected”. This leads to stereotypes as to how each gender should behave. For example, one stereotype is that women should stay at home to look after the children whilst men should be the ‘breadwinners’.
This results in a ‘justification’ for discriminatory practices on the basis of sex, such as denying women higher-paid work opportunities in the fear that they will not be able to manage.
Sex | Gender |
Biological - Nature It is innate - chromosome, hormones, anatomy, and reproductive organs. No environmental influence at all. | Psychological - Nurture. Influenced at least in part by environmental factors such as norms, culture. |
Cannot be changed Sex is fixed from birth even for those who go through sex changes. These changes are called ‘gender assignment surgery’ which is generally considered to be the more appropriate term. | Can be changed More fluid. Generally seen as a spectrum now. Different social contexts could influence it. |
Simple Binary - biological male or female. | Complex Influenced by many different factors. |
Batista Boys
Imperato-McGinely et al (1974) studied a unique family family in the Dominican Republic. Four of the children were identified as girls at birth and raised as such until puberty, when they changed into males - each of the children’s vaginas closed over, testicles appeared and they grew normal-sized penises.
The four children were affected by a very rare genetic disorder, which meant their male genitalia were not external at birth but were instead concealed. During prenatal development, a crucial chemical step was missed, which would normally externalise the male genitalia. As should their biological sex was male, they had the external appearance of girls at birth.
Due to the onset of hormonal changes at puberty, the chemical dihydrotestosterone (absent in the womb) was produced and the boys’ true biological sex was revealed.
It was found that, in each four children, the boys abandoned their female gender identity with very few problems of adjustment, and quickly adapted to their new ‘roles’ as boys. This suggests that gender identity may be flexible rather than fixed.
Madhura Ingalhalikar et al (2004)
The widely held belief that women are better at multi-tasking than men has been supported in a recent study of the differences in neurological activity between men and women.
The study scanned the brains of 949 young men and women using diffusion MRI imaging. This mapped the connections between the different paths of the brain.
The researchers discovered that women’s brains have far better connections between the right and left hemispheres, while men’s brains display more intense activity within the brain’s individual parts (especially the cerebellum which controls motor skills).
In conclusion, the female brain is hard-wired to cope better with several tasks at once whereas the male brain prefers to focus on a single complex task.
Case Study of Sasha
Laxton and her partner Cooper took the decision not to reveal their baby Sasha’s gender to the world so they would not be influenced by society’s prejudices and stereotypes. They referred to their child as ‘the infant’ and only allowed Sasha to play with gender-neutral toys in their tv-free home.
For the first 5 years of Sasha’s life, Sasha alternated between girls’ and boys’ outfits, leaving friends, playmates, and relatives guessing. The couple finally decided to reveal their sex in 2012 after Sasha started primary school.
Laxton, describing gender stereotyping as ‘fundamental stupid’ said “I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?" Gender affects what children wear and what they can play with, and that shapes the kind of person they become.”
Rubin et al (1977)
Aiming to find out if new parents stereotype their babies, the study asked parents to describe their new born baby within 24 hours of birth.
It was found that parents of baby boys described their babies as being alert and strong, whereas parents of baby girls described their babies as soft and delicate.
Parents stereotype their children from an early stage despite no stereotypical behaviour being shown. For a lot of parents, this stereotyping behaviour starts before the baby is born if the sex if known. (Blue nursery for boys and pink for girls).
Seavey et al (1975)
To see whether the gender label attached to a baby affected adult behaviour, the researchers had adults interact with a 3 month old dressed in yellow.
The third told the gender was female were more likely to use the doll when playing with the child. The third told the baby was male more frequently used the plastic ring to play with. The final third were the baby had not gender label, the female participants interacted with the baby more than the males did. In the no-label condition, almost all participants spontaneously decided on the sex of the baby often justified in terms of how the baby was perceived physically.
In conclusion, adults will interact differently with infants depending on whether they believe they are male or female.
Androgyny
Androgyny: In psychological terms, it is used to describe a flexible gender role - displaying a balance of both masculine and feminine traits, attitudes, and behaviours.
Bem wanted to challenge traditional 1970’s gender stereotypes. She suggested there are perhaps more than just two gender types, so she added androgynous to the identities.
Bem Sex-Role Inventory (1974)
Bem devised an inventory for measuring gender, the BSRI. This was the first systematic attempt to measure androgyny using a rating scale of 60 traits. 20 ‘masculine’, 20 ‘feminine’, and 20 neutral traits to produce scores across two dimensions:
masculinity-femininity
androgynous-undifferentiated
The BSRI was piloted with over 1000 students and the results broadly corresponded with the participants’ own perception of their gender identities.
Bem found that more people were androgynous than at the extremes. She also found that highly androgynous people were more likely to be psychologically healthy. Bem felt it was best to be androgynous as one could be more adaptable to the demands of modern life and take the opportunities that are open to both boys and girls.
Androgyny: Evaluation
Correlational
Bem and subsequent studies (Prakash et al, 2010) have suggested that androgyny makes people more mentally healthy, partly because they can deal with a wider range of things.
For example, having androgynous traits may reduce stress for males when taking care of children, a stereotypically feminine role.
However, this is only correlational, it does not show cause-and-effect.
For example, it cannot be certain whether androgyny causes psychological health or whether being psychologically healthy causes androgynous traits.
Bem’s research does not help to explain the causes of androgyny, the BSRI only tests whether someone has androgynous traits.
Generalisability
Bem and subsequent studies (Prakash et al, 2010) have suggested that androgyny makes people more mentally healthy, partly because they can deal with a wider range of things.
For example, having androgynous traits may reduce stress for males when taking care of children, a stereotypically feminine role.
However, Adams and Sherer (1985) argued that western societies value male traits more, so being more masculine would make you better suited to western societies.
This viewpoint is ethnocentric.
The traits that the BSRI includes are based on American, western ideologies, therefore the results cannot be generalised to cultures outside of the west.
Furthermore, a limitation of the study is the lack of temporal validity.
Gender constructs have not remained constant since the 1970s, nor have they remained constant between generations.
The traits identified as masculine, feminine, and androgynous lack temporal validity as gender roles have changed in modern society.
For example, the role of women has changed, today women are more ambitious - a characteristic that was considered traditionally male.
Validity
Bem used a quantitative measure of androgyny through the BSRI reducing gender down to a single score.
However, Golombok and Fivush argued that having a single score to denote gender identity is ridiculous.
Gender is far more complicated than a single score, there are more idiosyncratic information that is needed to understand someone’s gender.
For example, personality, interests, self-perception etc is needed to judge gender identity.
Furthermore, the study is limited by its lack of strong validity.
The study relied on self-report which is a subjective method based on interpretation.
Participants may answer the index with social desirability bias - answering based on what the most desirable traits are and not necessarily based on themselves.
However, self-report is the best way to judge personality.
Self-report is the best way to reflect on individual idiosyncrasies and perceptions of gender and self-identity.
General
A strength of the study was that it had high test-retest reliability, suggesting the traits were
When replicated on the same group of students a month later, it was found that the participants had similar scores.
Furthermore, in 1981 Bem found a 0.76 to 0.94 test-retest correlation over four weeks.
Chromosomes and Hormones
Sex is biological and unchangeable, but gender is not necessarily determined by the same unchangeable factors. Gender is influenced by biological factors.
In the womb, all foetuses start out as female, it is through a complex interaction of chromosomes and hormones which determine whether the organism develops fully into a boy or a girl.
Chromosomes: Found in the nucleus of living cells, carrying information in the form of genes.
Hormones: Chemicals circulated in the blood that regulate activity of certain cells and organs. For example, Testosterone, Oestrogen, and Oxytocin.
The biological approach argues that it is the physical differences in sex, which cause gendered behaviour. Men and women act masculinely and femininely because their genes and hormones tell them to do so.
Chromosomes
Chromosomes are made from DNA, genes are short strands of DNA that determine the characteristics of a living thing.
There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in the human body, the final pair determines the sex of an individual (XX = female, XY = male). A normal egg carries an X chromosome whereas a normal sperm carries either an X or a Y chromosome.
The Y chromosome carries a gene called the “sex-determing region’ (SRY). The SRY causes the development of testes, which produce androgens. These androgens cause the embryo to develop as a male, without these the embryo develops as a female.
Hormones
Chromosome initially determine a person’s sex but most gender development actually comes about through the influence of hormones.
In the womb, hormones influence brain development and causes the development of reproductive organs. During puberty there is another wave of hormonal activity which causes the development of secondary sexual characteristics (pubic hair). Males and females produce many of the same hormones, the main difference is in the concentrations.
Testosterone
Testosterone is an androgen, it controls the development of male sex organs from about 8 weeks after conception. There has been a lot of research which has found a link between testosterone and aggression; Van de Poll et al (1988) showed that female rats who had been injected with testosterone became more physically and sexually aggressive.
Oestrogen
Oestrogen is a hormone that determines female sexual characteristics and menstruation. It is also responsible for emotional changes during the menstrual cycle including Post Menstrual Syndrome (formally Stress and Tension).
PMS has been successfully used as a defence in a shoplifting case and even in a murder case. However, other researchers dispute the existence of PMS at all.
Oxytocin
The Love Hormone
Women produce oxytocin in much larger amounts than men. It reduces cortisol (a hormone linked with stress) and facilitates bonding.
Oxytocin is produced in massive quantities during labour and after childbirth. It also stimulates lactation, making breastfeeding possible. In the past, this has been used to explain why men are less interested in closeness and intimacy. However, research suggests that men and women produce similar amounts of oxytocin during acts of intimacy.
Chromosomes and Hormones: Evaluation
Diamond and Sigmundson (1997)
Reviewed the case of 8 month old baby Bruce who accidentally lost his penis during a circumcision in the 1960s.
From the advice of John Money (a psychologist) his parents decided to reassign his gender, he had a vagina constructed and was then socialised as a girl named Brenda.
Initially appeared to adapt well, behaving in a feminine way.
However, as she reached puberty she began to lose interest in feminine activities and developed a masculine gender identity.
In her teens, she discovered she had been born male, and from then on began to live her life as a man.
Eventually, they had their penis reconstructed,
He named himself David.
Bruce —> Brenda —> David
The effects of nature outweighed attempts to nurture the male into the female gender role.
David had struggled with severe psychological and emotional problems throughout his life and unfortunately committed suicide in 2004.
The case of David Reimer supports the biological explanation of gender development.
Despite extensive attempts to socialise David (formally Bruce) as a female, named Brenda, David felt more comfortable as their biological gender.
The effects of nature outweighed attempts of nurturing gender roles.
However, this research is only based on one case.
This lacks population validity thus cannot be generalised to the wider population.
It is only correlational, cause-and-effect cannot be determined.
However, David Reimer did have an identical twin brother who was socialised as male.
Twin studies allow nature and nurture to be better isolated.
The boys had identical genetics, the only difference was how David was socialised as a female - wearing feminine clothes, played with dolls, etc.
Yet, since David was more masculine, this provides support for the biological explanation of gender development.
Research Evidence
There is evidence supporting the influence of hormones on gender identity.
Dabbs et al (1995) found that prison inmates with highest levels of testosterone committed the most violent crimes.
Van Goozen et al (1995) found that female hormone treatment made men with high levels of testosterone less aggressive.
However, some studies dispute these ideas.
Tricker et al (1996) found in a double-blind trail that testosterone injections did not lead to more aggression.
Slabbekoorn et al (1999) showed that sex hormones had no effect on gender-related behaviour.
Limitation
The approach overemphasises the biological side of gender development.
Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) found that there is far more difference in behaviour within the sexes (ie more difference within females) than between the sexes.
The biological approach oversimplifies a complex issue. There are obviously so many other influences on gender.
Social norms can explain cross cultural differences.
In Western societies, males and females are becoming more androgynous potentially due to changing social norms, such as the increase in promotion of women in higher roles.
Atypical Chromosomes
Any sex chromosome pattern that deviates from the usual XX/XY formation is referred to as atypical.
Psychologists are interested in studying atypical chromosomal patterns as this contributed to the understanding of how gender develops. This can be done by comparing people with typical sex chromosomal patterns to people with atypical patterns. Inferences may then be made as to whether or not differences in gender may be biological/chromosomal which helps to develop the argument about whether gender is a result of nature or nurture.
Turner’s Syndrome (females) - XO
Occurs due to an atypical sex chromosomal pattern which affects the development of females who have all or part of an X chromosome missing.
Only one X chromosome on the 23rd pair.
There is an absence of an X chromosome resulting in 45 chromosomes instead of the typical 46.
Affects 1 in 5000 births.
Sex identity is female.
Physical Characteristics
No Ovaries - no menstruation, are sterile
Do not develop breasts
Unusually short with low ears
Psychological Characteristics
Difficulties relating to peers
Socially immature
Lower than average spatial ability
Visual memory and mathematical skills
Higher than average reading ability
Klinefelter’s Syndrome (males) - XXY
Occurs due to an atypical sex chromosomal pattern which affects the development of males who have an extra X chromosome.
An additional X chromosome on the 23rd pair.
Affects approximately 1 in 1000 births
Sex Identity - Male
Physical Characteristics
Undescended testes
Undersized penises
Some breast development at puberty
Little body hair
Clumsiness and lack of coordination
Psychological Characteristics
Lack of interest in sexual activity
Poor language skills/reading ability
Handle stress badly
Higher than normal gender-identity confusion.
Atypical: Evaluation
Correlation
Studies of people with atypical chromosomal patterns can be helpful to understand the nature/nurture debate.
Differences between typical and atypical patterns may show the role of the biological perspective
However, this may not be the correct conclusion.
Cause-and-effect cannot be established.
It is not certain that other factors such as social or environmental factors that have caused the difference.
For example, social immaturity seen in females with Turner’s syndrome may arise from the fact they are treated ‘immaturely’ by people around them.
People around them may react to the prepubescent appearance in a way that encourages immature behaviour and this may have an indirect impact upon their performance at school.
It would be wrong to assume that psychological and behavioural differences in people with atypical sex chromosomal patterns are due to nature.
Real World Application
Studies of atypical chromosomal patterns may help support people experiencing these atypicalities.
Herlihy et al (2011) found that individuals with Klinefelter’s who had been identified and treated from a very young age experienced significant benefits in terms of managing their syndrome compared to those who had been diagnosed in adulthood.
However, this study has limited generalisability because of the unusual and unrepresentative sample.
For these types of studies, a large number of individuals with the disorder need to be identified and a database needs to be built. The database should represent the full range of characteristics, mild to severe.
In general, only those with the most severe symptoms are identified, therefore the picture of typical symptoms for the syndromes may be distorted.
On the other hand, in a prospective sample (sample of people with the same condition) it was found that people grew up normally.
Boada et al (2009) found that most XXY males (with Klinefelter’s) did not experience significant cognitive or psychological problems, and many are highly successful academically in their personal lives and careers.
This suggest that the typical picture of Klinefelter’s (and Turner’s syndrome) may be exaggerated.
Kohlberg’s Theory
The Cognitive approach to gender considers the development of thought patterns and cognitions. It argues that a child’s perception of gender behaviour, including their own gender, is crucial for their acquisition of gender.
There are a series of developmental steps that a child goes through before their perception of gender is fully developed. Gender development occurs alongside intellectual development and becomes more sophisticated with age.
Kohlberg’s Gender Constancy Theory
Young children cannot understand that certain things will remain the same despite change of appearance, they cannot conserve concepts.
Young children’s inability to conserve concepts will hold them back in their understanding of gender. Once a child learns to conserve (at around 6-7), they can move forward with their understanding of gender.
Kohlberg suggested that there are a series of developmental stages that a child goes through before their understanding of gender is fully developed. Children cannot distinguish between appearance and reality. Kohlberg argued that changes in gender thinking come about because of the natural stages of a child’s cognitive development.
Gender Identity
2-3.5 years
Labels and identifies gender but only based on appearance.
Gender Stability
3.5-4.5 years
Gender is constant over time but not across situations. Appearance is still a factor.
EXAMPLE: The child can recognise they were one gender since birth, but a ken doll is a boy but with a skirt is a girl.
Gender Constancy
6 years
Gender is constant across time and situations. Gender appropriate (gender stereotyped) behaviour.
Once a child has established an understanding of gender, once they acquired gender constancy, this causes them to pay more attention to same-sex models, and consequently copy them. Copying same-sex model happens independently to gaining rewards from parents, this is referred to as self-socialisation.
Kohlberg’s Theory: Evaluation
Slaby and Frey (1975)
Aim: To understand whether children with higher levels of gender constancy show more attention to same sex models.
Method
To investigate this, 55 children were questioned to assess their level of gender understanding, testing their gender identity. For example, they were asked “which one are you?”
Then, to test their gender stability, the children were asked about their gender across time. For example, “were you a little boy or little girl when you were a baby?” “Will you be a mummy or a daddy when you grow up?”
Finally, to test their gender constancy, the children were asked about their gender if their appearance changed. For example, “if you wore a dress, would you be a girl?”
2 weeks later, the children were shown a clip with a woman on one side and a man on the other.
They found children who had scored higher on gender constancy watched the same gender models for longer.
For example, a boy with high gender constancy watched the male for 61 seconds compared to a boy with a low score who watched the male for 47 seconds.
This supports Kohlberg’s theory as it demonstrates how a child will identify the most with their own gender once constancy is established.
Ages and Stages
Counterpoint
There is no disagreement about the order of stages but there is disagreement about the ages at which the stages do occur.
Martin criticised the methodology used to test Kohlberg’s theory, concluding that these methods could overestimate a child’s level of understanding.
Most research asks about the sex change of a doll or a cartoon drawing.
When Martin used photographs of real boys dressed in gender inconsistent clothing, 5 year olds were unable to understand he was still a boy.
Suggesting children grasp gender constancy at a much older age than Kohlberg suggested.
This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory is not entirely accurate, weakening the validity of the theory of gender development.
Limitations
Another problem with Kohlberg’s gender constancy theory is highlighted by the research of Martin and Little (1990).
They found that preschool children (7-8) with limited understanding of gender still showed strong gender stereotypical behaviour and same-gender preferences.
This suggest that children do not need gender constancy before they start showing gendered behaviours. Weakening the theory.
Research often uses unsatisfactory methods to assess gender constancy.
Bem (1989) criticised typical tests which asks children if gender stays the same despite the changes in appearance.
She argued that this confuses children, as society defines gender by appearance and not biological traits.
40% of children, 3-5, understood gender constancy when showed a naked photo, suggesting they base judgements on biological differences.
However, McConaghy (1979) found children still judge on external appearances.
When showed a line drawing of a doll with visible male genitals through a dress, children under 5 judged the doll to be female because of the external appearance.
Reductionism
Kohlberg’s theory suggest that cognitive changes alone explain gender identity, this ignores the role of biology.
The case of David Reimer suggests that biological factors have a strong influence on gender development.
David, born Bruce with XY chromosomes, was brought up as female named Brenda due to a botched circumcision.
Despite extensive attempts to socialise David (f as a female, David felt more comfortable as their biological gender.
The effects of nature outweighed attempts of nurturing gender roles.
This suggests that chromosomes have strong influence on gender constancy and gender development, thus reduces the validity of Kohlberg’s theory.
Gender Schema Theory
There are many different approaches to look at the development of gender. The cognitive approach focusses on how cognitive processes affect it, this started with Kohlberg’s theory then Martin and Halverson proposed Gender Schema Theory.
Kohlberg’s and Martin and Halverson’s theories are specifically cognitive-developmental explanations as they share the view that a child’s mental concept of gender becomes more sophisticated with age.
GST
Martin and Halverson agreed with Kohlberg that the child’s thinking is at the basis of their development of gender role behaviours. They suggested that children’s understanding of gender increases with age. They also share the view that children develop their understanding of gender by actively structuring their own learning, rather than passively observing and imitating role models.
However, M&H argue that the process starts much earlier than Kohlberg suggested. They proposed that children learn pre-programmed gender schemata between the ages of 2 and 3.
Schema
A schema is an organised cluster of information. It is a mental blueprint of information, a cognitive framework which helps to organise and interpret information. They focus on things which help people to confirm pre-existing ideas, beliefs, and often contribute to stereotypes.
Gender Schemata
A gender schema is a generalised representation of everything one knowns about gender and gender-appropriate behaviour.
According to Martin and Halverson, once a child has established gender identity, they will begin to search the environment for information that encourages the development of gender schemata. The schema helps the child to make sense of the world.
EXAMPLE: Children form stereotypes of the ways that they think males and females behave.
Children will then develop scripts of activities and/or actions that males and females perform, these are influenced by looking at other children. This helps to explain why some people have very strong gender stereotypes, or expectations, and others don’t.
Children monitor their environment for information and behaviours that are consistent with their ideas of appropriate male and female behaviour, with this they assimilate (add) this information to their thinking.
If a behaviour is inconsistent, the child may simply ignore it so that their stereotypes or schemata do not need to be altered.
In-groups: Groups one can identify with.
Out-groups: Groups one does not identify with.
Once a child has identified with a group, this leads them to positively evaluate their in-group. This happens as they have a better understanding of it, and in turn, this evaluation gives them higher self-esteem. The children will then avoid behaviours of the out-group when looking at the environmental behaviour options. Children will focus on the in-group schemata before ‘gender constancy’ and by 8 they should be able to build more elaborate schemata for both genders.
Rigidity and Resilience
Martin and Halverson proposed that Gender beliefs lead children to hold very fixed schemata of gender because they ignore any information that they encounter which is inconsistent with the group.
Therefore, gender schemata are essential in determining what is remembered, allowing the rigidity of a child’s belief.
Comparison with GC
Gender Constancy | Gender Schemata Theory |
Age: 6/7 | As soon as the child has some awareness of which group they belong to. Gender Identity |
Concerned with motivation. | Concerned with organisation, linked with memory. |
Gender Schema Theory: Evaluation
Compromise
Stangor and Ruble (1989)
Stangor and Ruble argued that the two approaches should be unified. They argued that the two theories represent two different mental processes.
They tested children aged 4 to 10, and found:
Memory and organisation for gender-consistent pictures increased with age.
Support GST.
The preference for same-sex toys increased with gender constancy.
Support for Gender Constancy
Although there appear to be contradictions between gender schema theory and Kohlberg’s theory, Stangor and Ruble have suggested that the two theories perhaps describe different processes.
Gender Schema is concerned with how organisation of information affects memory.
This explains why gender-inconsistent information is misremembered or forgotten.
Gender Constancy is more linked to motivation.
Once children have a firmly established concept of what it means to be a boy or a girl. they are motivated to find out more about this role and engage in gender-appropriate activities.
Issues and Debates
Nature/Nurture
Cognitive development theory and gender schema theory ignore the role of genes and hormones in gender development.
According to the biological approach it is genes and hormones which determine one’s genetic sex, and also influence one’s sense of ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness.’
The cognitive explanations focus on how children learn gender roles from their environment thus takes a nurture stance.
An interactionist approach would suggest that humans are born with an innate predisposition for gender identification (originating from biology) but it is through experiences and social interactions that gender development is solidified.
This reduces the reliability and validity of GST.
It overlooks biological factors and this could reduce consistency of gender development.
It ignores biology so the complexity of the process isn’t fully captured.
Determinism/Free Will
There is the problem of inflexibility of gender schemas as the children have little choice of what gender they will end up as, with them being strongly influenced by socialisation that is out of their control.
The theory emphasises the point that the process is active - through socialisation the child actively structures their own learning of gender.
This suggests the theory supports free will.
Children have the choice of what information they organise into their schemata.
However, children do not choose what their environment that surrounds them.
Environmental determinism ???
Real World Application
Gender schemata and stereotypes are not necessarily applicable today with the changing role of men and women.
As more women are going to work instead of conforming to an old-school traditional house-wife roles.
Temporal Validity
Traditional gender stereotypes are no longer relevant today therefore it is impossible to divide ingroups and outgroups in a traditional male/female way.
Children that come from single parent families might choose to develop their schemas differently.
This is seen in Hoffman’s study.
Some children will reject their in-group schemas.
Not everyone will choose to behave in a way this is consistent with their gender schemas.
It ignores the role of the individual choice and individual differences.
Schemas do not always dictate the way we behave.
Origin
Gender schema theory emphasise how schemas develop but not where they originate.
Cognitive aspects tend to overlook the impact of parents, friends, school, and the media on the development of gender schemas.
It explains why children are frequently highly sexist despite the best efforts of parents.
Children do sometimes insist on playing with barbie dolls and toy guns because of their rigidity of gender schemas.
Strengths and Limitations
Research Evidence
Martin and Halverson (1983) found that children under the age of 6 were more likely to remember gender-consistent information than they were gender-inconsistent.
Children were shown pictures of people carrying out activities (eg a girl playing with a doll).
Sometimes these pictures were schema-consistent and others were inconsistent.
Findings showed that the recall of schema-consistent pictures were generally good.
However, when schema-inconsistent pictures were recalled, they were often distorted so that the expected sex was remembered as carrying out the activity.
Little and Martin (1990) found that children under 4 who showed no signs of gender stability or constancy nevertheless demonstrated strongly stereotyped behaviours and attitudes.
Campbell and Poulin-Dubois et al have shown that children pay attention to same-sex role models much earlier than Kohlberg thought.
Young children turn to gender roles before they can speak.
This contradicts Kohlberg’s theory but is consistent with the predictions of gender schema theory.
Limitations
There is an overemphasis on the role of the individual in gender development.
GST does not pay enough attention to the role of social factors such as parental influence, surrounding culture (including school and media).
It also ignores the role of reward and punishment.
Rewards and punishments shape behaviour and are likely to encourage gender-stereotyped behaviours in children.
Psychodynamic Approach
There are many different approaches to look at the development of gender. The psychodynamic approach focusses on the importance of early childhood experiences in developing gender, and particularly unconscious processes.
Key Assumptions
The approach emphasises the importance of early childhood experiences.
It states that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.
Events that occur in childhood can remain in the unconscious, and cause problems as adults.
Freud proposed that all children go through the same 5 stages of development.
Psychosexual development
Freud suggested the children move through age-related stages of development encountering different conflicts along the way.
These conflicts must be resolved at each stage to ensure healthy psychological development. This includes gender identity which should occur at approximately age 5.
Failure to successfully pass through a stage’s particular conflict is known as fixation.
Oral Stage
0 to 1 years
Anal Stage
1 to 3 years
Phallic Stage
3 to 6 years
This is the key stage for gender, when gender development occurs and they are bisexual. It is in this stage that pleasure is gained from the genitals and that the Oedipus and Electra complexes occur.
Latency Stage
6 to 12 years
The development of other activities means less concentration on sexual areas.
Genital Stage
Puberty onwards
Pleasure gained through heterosexual relationships.
Bisexual: Meaning they have neither gender.
Gender Development
Before the age of three, gender identity is flexible, and there is no clear difference between boys and girls. Up until this point, children have no real sense of being masculine or feminine so they are bisexual (neither gender). When children move into the phallic stage, their understanding of gender begins to change, even though this is still unconscious.
Phallic Stage
From 3 to 5/6 years old
The child seeks pleasure from playing with his or her own genitals.
They begin to pay attention to other people’s genitals and so begin to understand the physical differences between males and females.
This is the start of children developing their gender identity.
Oedipus Complex
A boy’s libido (life energy) creates an attraction for their mother, and they begin to think their father would become angry if he found out.
The boy doesn’t realise this, as it is all unconscious, it is repressed feelings.
The boy believes that the father will castrate him and thus develops castration anxiety. Once the boy identifies with his father and rids his anxieties, the boy will introject (unconsciously adopt) his father’s personality and develop male traits.
Electra Complex
Proposed by Carl Jung (Freud’s contemporary), a girl’s libido creates an attraction for her father and begin to think they will lose their mother’s love if she found out.
The girl doesn’t realise this, as it is all unconscious, it is repressed feelings.
The girl realises the mother has no penis, develops penis envy after she realises she too has no penis, and that her and her mother are in competition for her father. Furthermore, she feels like she’s already been castrated, (probably by her mother). When the penis envy subsides as the will to have children grows, the girl will introject her mother’s personality and develop female traits.
Single-parent families are unable to experience these complexes. Without, the child does not resolve the conflicts necessary to develop a healthy gender identity. Boys, with single-parent mothers, would become homosexual with no father figure to identify with.
Identification, Internalisation, and Development
Gender develops as result of the unconscious identification of the same sex parent.
Resolving the conflict involves the children taking on the gender identity of their same sex parent: internalisation of the parent’s behaviour.
Much of the ‘evidence’ for this comes from Little Hans (Freud, 1908) who showed displacement of his fear of horses to a fear of his father.
Psychodynamic Approach: Evaluation
Strength
A strength of the psychodynamic approach is that it is the first attempt to offer an explanation for the development of gender.
There is some evidence to support the Oedipus Complex impacting gendered behaviour.
Stevenson and Black (1988) found that boys, whose father are absent during the age of 5, show less sex-typed behaviour than boys whose were present throughout.
Lack of Research
There is no evidence that boys fear castration anxiety or that girls wish they had a penis.
Freud argued that gender identification was dependent on fear.
However, Mussen and Rutherford found that boys with warm and supportive fathers identify better than those with overbearing and threatening fathers.
The theory ignores the impact of the opposite-sex parent and siblings on gender development.
Gender and Cultural Bias
Freud wrote extensively about the Oedipus complex and admitted that women were a mystery to him.
Much of the work theorising on girls’ parallel development was undertaken by Carl Jung, one of Freud’s contemporaries.
His notion of penis envy has been criticised as reflecting the patriarchal and repressive Victorian society in which he lived.
Critics of Freudian theory argue that it is culturally specific.
Penis envy is a cultural concept rather than an innate trait, they challenge the idea that female gender development is founded on a desire to want to be like men.
This is an androcentric assumption.
Non-Nuclear Families
Freud’s theory relies on having two parents of different genders (a nuclear family unit).
Two parents are able to manage the Oedipus and Electra complexes effectively.
Being raised in a non-nuclear family will have an adverse effect on a child’s gender development.
EXAMPLE: Boys with single mothers will become homosexual because of the lack of a father figure.
However, evidence does not support this assumption.
Research shows that children from single-parent families go on to develop normal gender identities.
Green (1978) studied a sample of 37 children raised by gay or transgender parents.
It was discovered that only one had gender identity that was described as non-typical.
Lack of Scientific Rigour
The greatest criticism of the psychodynamic approach is that it is unscientific in its analysis of human behaviour.
Many of the concepts of Freud’s theories are subjective and impossible to scientifically test.
In this respect the psychodynamic perspective is unfalsifiable as its theories cannot be empirically investigated.
It is not possible to deliver any evidence that the unconscious mind does or does not exist.
The defence mechanisms that occur in gender development all take place in the unconscious.
The child is unaware that they are feeling sexual attraction towards the opposite-sex parent.
These are also resolved in the unconscious so one is unable to provide evidence that they are actually happening.
Other Approaches
The phallic stage is from 3 to 5/6 years old.
Freud suggests that at the end of this stage is when the child’s gender becomes fixed.
They are no longer ‘bisexual’ but have masculine or feminine behaviour through the process of identification with the same-sex parent.
Kohlberg suggested that children acquire gender identity at around 2 this is earlier than Freud would suggest.
At this stage, children will label themselves as male or female.
At age 4, they achieve gender stability where they know they will be a ‘mummy’ or a ‘daddy’ when they grow up.
At age 6, they will reach gender constancy and realise they would remain the same sex through life despite any superficial changes, such as appearance.
This suggests that they are not bisexual before 6.
According to Kohlberg, children have an understanding of gender before Freud suggests they would.
Social Learning Theory
Social Learning Theory proposed that gender is developed through socialisation and observation, and its influence on the child.
The theory suggests that the source of information is social. Gender information, feminine and masculine behaviour, is learned by observation and imitation of same-sex role models.
Gender information is social and what is learnt → including the role of cognition.
This approach draws attention to the influence of the environment. At birth, boys and girls are psychologically the same according to SLT. Gender differences are learnt through the differences in the ways boys and girls are treated.
Main Principles
SLT proposes that behaviour is learned through observation, watching, and internalising the consequences of other people’s actions.
Children look to models for guidance as to how they should act and then imitate the behaviour observed.
Gender related behaviour is learnt when individuals receive vicarious reinforcement for their behaviour.
Conditioning
Gendered behaviour is learned from direct learning (operant conditioning) when the child themselves receives positive or negative reinforcement.
Positive Reinforcement
Anything that strengthens behaviour
It is rewarding to the learner/
EXAMPLE: Girl receiving praise when dressed as a princess.
Punishment
Gender-inappropriate behaviour is weakened as something is punished.
Negative punishment → taking the toy away
EXAMPLE: Telling a boy he should not be pushing a buggy with a dolly, because that’s for girls.
Gendered behaviour is learned from indirect learning (vicarious reinforcement) when the child sees a role-model has a negative experience.
There needs to be belief that the person is capable of imitating the behaviour and that they identify with the role model. → Self-efficacy.
Models
Gender is developed by identifying with people who model gender behaviour.
Identification is the process whereby a child attaches themselves to a person who is seen as:
Like me
I want to be
Not all behaviour is imitated.
There needs to be some quality in the role model that a person wants to imitate. → Self-efficacy
Individuals tend to identify with same-sex role models (Bussey and Bandura, 1984).
Model → explains the person being imitated → explains the learning from the observer’s perspective.
From the role model’s perspective
The precise demonstration of a behaviour that may be imitated by an observer.
EXAMPLE: A mother may stereotypically model feminine behaviour when tidying up the house or preparing dinner.
From the learner’s perspective
EXAMPLE: A little girl copies her mother setting the table, or attempts to feed her dolly. → She is modelling the behaviour she has witnessed.
Self-Efficacy: The person doing the imitating needs to believe that they are capable of reproducing the behaviour.
Reinforcement: If the behaviour was discouraged, then the person is less likely to repeat it.
Sources/Agents of Social Influence: Media and Toys
Mediational Processes
Social Learning Theorists have suggested four cognitive processes that are central to the learning of gender behaviour (ARRM)
Attention
Acquisition of behaviour
The behaviour needs to be modelled by someone that one wants to imitate, so the child pays attention to the same-sex parent.
Retention
Acquisition of behaviour
The modelled behaviour needs to be remembered, so the child must retain it.
Reproduction
Performing of behaviour
The behaviour is tried out, the child needs to believe that they are capable of copying the behaviour.
Motivation
Performing of behaviour
There needs to be a reason to repeat the behaviour, either because it is someone that they admire or because the modelled behaviour was rewarded in some way.
This can be internal (satisfaction from what is done), external (reinforcing of gender-appropriate behaviour), and vicarious, reinforcement (observing someone else getting a reward).
Gender Identity is a mixture of all the modelled behaviour than an individual has been exposed to, and that have been imitated and reinforced. SLT views social learning as an on-going process.
Experience changes the behaviour that an individual chooses to display.
Therefore, SLT views gender as a social construct.
One is not born with gender
It not learnt once and stuck to
It modifies our behaviour depending on age, social situation.
This explains why, the acceptable gender roles within society have changed alongside changes in society.
EXAMPLE: Women are becoming more assertive, men are becoming more caring/nurturing.
Social Learning Theory: Evaluation
Research Evidence
There is research supporting SLT
Fagot and Leinbach (1995) found that 4 year olds displayed more gender role stereotyping, and used gender labels earlier in ‘traditional’ families (where the father worked outside the home, and the mother stayed home) compared with in less traditional families.
This suggests that parents act as gender role models for their children.
Quiery (1998) used questionnaires and naturalistic observation and found that fathers interacted more with sons, while mothers attended equally to sons and daughters.
This suggests that fathers reinforce gender roles more than mothers.
Similarly, Idle et al (1993) found that fathers want their sons to play with masculine toys, mothers do not worry about it so much.
Smith and Lloyd (1978)
4-6 month old babies who were dressed half the time in boys’ clothes and half the time in girls’ clothes, regardless of their actual sex.
The boys’ (those dressed in boy clothes) were given boy-appropriate toys and encouraged to be active and adventurous.
The same babies dressed as girls were given girl-appropriate toys and were told they were pretty, they were also reinforced for being passive.
This suggests that gender-appropriate behaviour is stamped in at an early age, through differential reinforcement, supporting SLT.
However, vicarious reinforcement may bot be the cause of gender development.
Adults, during interactions with their own children, may simply be responding to innate gender differences.
EXAMPLE: The observation that boys are encouraged to be more active during play may be a consequence of the fact that they are naturally more active due to hormonal differences.
This suggests that it is likely that SLT is only part of the explanation of how children acquire gender-related behaviours.
Changes in Western Society
A strength of the theory is that it helps explain changing gender roles especially in Western Society.
Views on gender roles are ever changing.
There has been a shift in social expectations and cultural norms over the years.
This means that new forms of acceptable gender behaviour has been reinforced.
The shift in social expectations and cultural norms over the years has meant that new forms of gender behaviour are now unlikely to be punished and may be reinforced.
This shows that SLT is one approach that can explain cultural changes in gender behaviour.
Non-Developmental
One limitation of SLT is that it does not provide an adequate explanation of how learning processes change with age.
The general implication is that modelling of gender-appropriate behaviour can occur at any age.
There are some age limitations within the theory.
EXAMPLE: motor reproduction as a mediational process suggest that children may struggle to perform behaviours if they are not physically or intellectually capable.
However, it seems illogical that children who are 2 years old learn in the same way as children who are 9 years old.
This conflicts with Kohlberg’s theory that children do not become active in their gender development until they reach gender constancy.
This suggest that influence of age and maturation on learning gender concepts is not a factor considered by SLT, therefore this may be a limitation of the theory.
Culture and Media Influences
A key way that gender may be developed considers the effect that surroundings has on an individual. Two essential areas are the influence of the media and the influence of one’s culture.
Media
Media: Communication channels such as TV, film, and books through which news, entertainment, education, and data are made available.
The media provide role models with whom children may identify with and want to imitate.
Males are more represented in most TV programmes, including children’s programmes and in most children’s books.
Children who watch a lot of TV, play video games, or spend a lot of time on social media may develop more stereotypical ideas of gender roles.
Rigid Stereotypes
The media play a role in reinforcing stereotypes concerning male and female behaviour. There is clear evidence that the media provide very clear gender stereotypes.
EXAMPLE: men are depicted as independent, ambitious.
EXAMPLE: women are depicted as dependent, unambitious.
A study of TV adverts by Furnham and Farragher (2000) found that men were more likely to be shown in autonomous roles within professional contexts whereas women were often seen occupying familial roles within domestic settings.
This suggests that the media may play a role in reinforcing widespread social stereotypes concerning gender-appropriate behaviour.
Gradual changes are taking place with more representation of other genders (non-binary, transgender, and agender) in the media.
But these constitute a tiny minority of media representation of gender.
Self-efficacy
The media does more than confirm gender-typical behaviour, it may also give information to men and women in terms of the likely success, or otherwise, of adopting these behaviours. Seeing people perform gender-appropriate behaviours increases a child’s belief that they are capable of carrying out such behaviours in the future.
One study (Mitra et al, 2019) analysed the attitudes of people in India who had watched a programme designed to challenge deep-rooted gender stereotypes.
The programmes was a detective drama that ran for 78 episodes.
Girls who watched the programme were more likely to see themselves as capable of working outside the home than non-viewers.
This suggests their self-efficacy had changed as a result of media influence.
Culture
Cross-cultural research is noted for its vulnerable contribution to the nature-nurture debate in gender. For instance, if a particular gender-role behaviour appears to be consistent across different cultures, it might be concluded that this represents an innate, biological difference. Conversely, if a gender-role behaviour is culturally specific it can be assumed that it is the influence of shared social norms and socialisation is decisive.
One of the earliest cross-cultural studies of gender roles was conducted out by Margaret Mead (1935).
The study was of cultural groups in Papua New Guinea.
The Arapesh (both male and female) were gentle and responsive similar to the stereotype of femininity in industrialised societies.
They both were very expressive, caring, and co-operative.
Both the male and female took to bed when the female was pregnant - they were both said to bear a child.
The Mundugumor were aggressive and hostile similar to the stereotype of masculinity in industrialised societies.
Both didn’t like childcare so much the baby was put out of the way in a dark place.
The Tchambuli women were dominant and they organised villiage life, men were passive and considered to be ‘decorative.’ This was the reverse of the stereotypes in industrialised societies.
This suggests that there may not be a direct biological relationship between sex and gender. Suggesting that gender roles may be culturally determined.
Mead conceded that she had underestimated the universal nature of many gender-typical behaviours.
However, she went on to argue that the extent to which innate behaviours are expressed is largely the result of cultural norms.
It is also the case that there are many cross-cultural similarities in gender roles.
Buss (1995) found consistent patterns in mate preference in 37 countries across all continents.
In all cultures, women sought men who could offer wealth and resources whilst men looked for youth and physical attractiveness in a potential partner.
A study by Munroe and Munroe (1975) revealed that in most societies, divison of labour is organised along gender lines.
With men typically the breadwinners and women often the nurturers.
Three studies demonstrate how culture shapes the contents of gender stereotypes, such that men are perceives as possessing more of whatever traits are culturally valued.
Study 1
Americans rated men as less interdependent than women (men are more independent).
Korean men showed the opposite pattern, rating men as more interdependent than women, deviating from the ‘universal’ gender stereotype.
Study 2
Bi-cultural Korean-American participants rates men as less interdependent if they completed the survey in English, but as more interdependent if they completed it in Korean,
Demonstrating that cultural frames influence the contents of gender stereotypes.
Study 3
American college students rated a male student as higher on whichever trait (ambitiousness or sociability) they were told was the important cultural value at their university, establishing that cultural values casually impact the contents of gender stereotypes.
Culture and Media Influences: Evaluation
Research Support
There is research supporting the effects of culture and media on gender roles → this supports SLT
SLT suggests that gender roles are learnt by observation of role models that are copied and imitated.
Especially if vicarious reinforcement occurs
The media provides role models to imitate.
Often males and females are portrayed in gender-stereotypical ways.
Steinke et al (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 14 popular TV science programmes, and found that 58% of scientists shown were male, and male scientists were portrayed with the masculine qualities of independence and dominance.
If there are cultural differences in gender roles, gender development can be developed through socialisation and experience, which is how SLT suggests how gender roles are acquired.
Furnham and Farragher (2000)
Investigated the use of sex-role stereotypes in advertising.
Men tended to be used in power positions and women in familial roles within domestic settings.