PSYA3 - Gender

36,426 views

Published on

Psychological explanations of gender development: Cognitive development theory, inc. Kohlberg and Gender schema theory.

Biological influences on gender, including hormones, evolutionary, and biosocial approach to gender dysphoria

Social influences on gender, including parents, peers, and cultural influences on gender role

2 Comments
26 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
36,426
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
188
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
402
Comments
2
Likes
26
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PSYA3 - Gender

  1. 1. PSYA3 - Gender
  2. 2. Introduction…
  3. 3. Sex or gender?• Sex – your physical anatomy• Gender – your emotionsand beliefs e.g.feminine/masculine
  4. 4. Brief history of gender…1959 – Barbie introduced1961 – Oral contraception introduced for married womenin UK1967 – Abortion legalised up to 28 weeks, homosexualityis decriminalised, gay pride movement1973 – Homosexuality removed from DSM1978 – Louise Brown, first IVF baby born1990 – Abortion limited up to 24 weeks2003 – Paternity leave introduced (2 weeks)2005 – Same sex marriages legal in UK
  5. 5. Division 1 – Psychologicalexplanations of gender development-Cognitive developmentaltheory, including Kohlberg- Gender schema theory
  6. 6. Kohlberg’s theory:1. Gender Identity (2-3 years)- able to label their own sex- judge other’s sex on external feats.- don’t understand gender is fixed2. Gender Stability (3-7 years)- realise gender is a fixed trait- ‘Will you be a mummy or daddywhen you’re older?’3. Gender Consistency (7-12 years)- external feats. Such as a bloke in adress may confused the childKohlberg (1966) proposed that a child’s development of gender develops overtime through exploration of the world, in three stages:
  7. 7. Critique of Kohlberg:- Gender typing is well under way beforethe child acquires a mature genderidentity (Martin & Halverson, 1981)- E.g. 2-3 year old boys prefer playingwith masculine toys, and other boysrather than girly things- Bem (1989) also states that 3-4 yearolds who have seen members of theopposite sex naked may display gender-consistency- Only a rudimentary understanding ofgender permits gender stereotypes
  8. 8. Support for Kohlberg:Slaby and Frey (1975)- 55 children between 2 and 5 ½ years- Interviewed to test 3 stages of genderidentity- From the interview, they found that:97% had achieved gender identity75% had achieved gender stability50% had achieved gender consistency- Study shows that stages are sequential likeKohlberg said- HOWEVER, findings also show genderconsistency may be acquired earlier thanKohlberg thought
  9. 9. Schema theory - Martin andHalverson (1981):2 key factors that differ from Kohlberg1. They believe that the process ofunderstanding gender occurs before genderconsistency is achieved.2. Martin and Halverson also suggest thatstereotypes affect later behaviour.
  10. 10. Schema Theory (cognitive):Schema = A hypothetical mental construct thatcontains your knowledge about a specifictopic. E.g. gender. <- learn thatSo basically… A collection of ideas that helpsyou to define specific things? <- that’s there tohelp you understand.Schema’s are resilient and don’t often change.
  11. 11. Schema theory – Martin andHalverson (1981):Gender schemas – Organised sets of beliefsand expectations about males and femalesthat guide information processingIn-group/out-group– One’s generalknowledge of themannerisms, roles, activities, andbehaviours that characterise males andfemalesOwn-sex schema – Detailed knowledge orplans of action that enable a person toperform gender-consistent activities and toenact his/her gender role.
  12. 12. More Martin and Halverson (1987):Argue that self-socialisation begins as soon asthe child acquires a basic gender identity at ages2 and ½ to 3And is well under way by ages 6 and 7, whengender consistency is achieved.
  13. 13. Martin and Halverson – GenderSchema Theory (still):They believe that individuals focus onINGROUP SCHEMAS prior to GenderConsistency.Ingroup– Groups in which a personidentifies, for example: being a girl, andbeing chums because you like the sameboy band.Outgroup– People outside of theingroup, which is negatively evaluated bythe ingroup.Individuals in the ingroup settle, they thenpositively evaluate their group andnegatively evaluate the outgroup.
  14. 14. Martin et al(probs Halverson, let’s face it…) (1995)- 4 to 5 year olds were shown unfamiliar genderneutral toys- And were told whether they were ‘for boys’ or‘for girls’- Boys preferred boys objects, and girls preferredgirls.- However, in another experiment, the same toyswere used, but were labelled oppositely, and theyfound that the matched-gender toys werepreferred
  15. 15. Evaluating Gender Schema Theory:• Lab studies – improved reliability ifrepeated to get consistent results• Lab studies – objective, and gatherquantitative data, which is also morereliable, and easily analysed.• Unfalsifiable (good and bad) – it can’tbe proved or disproved.• Cultural relativism – Differentcultures have very different attitudes• Historical validity – Martin &Halverson was 1981… Views changeover time e.g. homosexuality• Reductionist – Thought processesonly, doesn’t account for biological orsocial factors• Subjective – Opinion based• Longitudinal studies (2-6 weeks fromSlaby and Frey) may suffer fromattrition rates.
  16. 16. Question time!Discuss one or more psychologicaltheory of gender (8+16 marks)
  17. 17. Division 2 – Biological influenceson gender-The role of hormones in genderdevelopment-Evolutionary explanations of gender-The biosocial approach to genderdevelopment, inc. gender dysphoria
  18. 18. Biological
  19. 19. Biological sexual development:• Sex of a baby is determined at conception, beingeither XX (girl) or XY (male)• At 6 weeks:- male Wolffiansystem, males develop seminalducts- female Mullerian system, uterus/fallopian tubes• Swabb and Fliers (1985) identified the sexuallydimorphic nucleus in the hypothalamus, which is2.5x larger in MALES, than in FEMALES
  20. 20. Case study: Colapinto (2000) – TheCase of Bruce and Brian Reimer- Identical twins born in Canada, 1965- At 6 months, they had a circumcision. Bruce’s wenthorribly wrong, ending with his penis being burnt off- The parents sought advice from Money andErhardt, who suggested his penis & testes wereremoved. Bruce was renamed Brenda and raised as agirl- Money claimed the surgery was a success- Brenda reached puberty, and was given femalehormones to encourage breasts but she was depressed- Her parents told her what had happened- Brenda reverted back to male and had a penisconstructed and renamed himself David- He got married, and had 3 step-children. But theydivorced in 2002 and David killed himself
  21. 21. Evaluation:• Argues that sex is moreimportant than gender• Case study – thereforeit may not begeneralisable• It also can never berepeated due toEXTREME ethical issues
  22. 22. Gorskiet al (1985) influence ofhormones (rats):• Female rats injected withtestosterone prior to birth• Rats developed ambiguousgenitals (enlarged clitoris), andparts of brains looked likemales• Behaviour was ‘masculinised’– Female rats tried to mateother female rats…
  23. 23. Young et al (1964) – Influence ofhormones (monkeys)• Researched femalemonkeys, who were exposed tomale hormones during prenatalperiod• Found that these monkeyswere more likely to engage in‘rough-and-tumble’ than thefemale monkeys who had notbeen exposed.
  24. 24. Evaluation of Young et al and Gorskietal:• Objective – looking ateffects of hormones• Comparative study –research on animalsmay not begeneralisable tohumans
  25. 25. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (1995):• Conducted an MRI on men and women doinga language task• Men only used their left hemisphere• Women used left and rightMay show that womenare better at multitasking?
  26. 26. Evaluating Shaywitz and Shaywitz:• Objective – reliable, asit’s based onneuropsychology• Lab study – morecontrol over thevariables• Demandcharacteristics? As it’s ina lab study… May havefelt pressured• Lowered ecologicalvalidity• Not consideringindividual differences
  27. 27. Case study: Imperato-McGinley et al(1979)- Batista Family born in Dominican Rep.- Four children born with externalfemale genitalia raised as girls- When they hit puberty, large amountsof testosterone was released and theydeveloped male genitalia- Relabelled as boys, then they werefine.
  28. 28. Evaluation:• Argues that your genderis more important thanyour sex• Case study – thereforeit may not begeneralisable• It also can never berepeated due toEXTREME ethical issues
  29. 29. Evolutionary
  30. 30. ES Theory – Baron-Cohen (2002):Research has shown that women arebetter at EMPATHISINGWhereas men are supposedly better atSYSTEMATISINGBaron-Cohen (uncle of BORATnonetheless!) (2002) calls this the ‘E-Stheory’Shows woman look after baby, but man have evolutionaryadvantage for hunting & stuff. I like to make sexy time.
  31. 31. Parental Investment Theory – Trivers(1972):Women invest a lot intochildren, as they givebirth, and have tospend monthsbreastfeeding also.Men however, have anabundance ofsperm, which they canfire willy-nilly, and don’thave to worry aboutpotentially carryingsomething in theirbelly’s for 9 months.This suggests that males should be more competitive between one another andfemales will be more ‘choosy’ because of the amount of investment, searching for themale with best fitness and good genes to pass onto her offspring (Trivers 1972).
  32. 32. Mate Choice Theory – Buss (1989):Women tend to look forguys who haveresources:- Wealth- Power- ShowyGuys tend to look forwomen withreproductive traits:- Big ‘childbearing’ hips- Big boobs- Smooth skin- Healthy- Youthful
  33. 33. Mate Choice research: Waynforth andDunbar (1995)• Researchers used personalads to find what men andwomen wanted.• 44% MEN sought physicallyattractive females comparedto only 22% of WOMENseeking looks.• 50% women offeredattractiveness as aquality, whereas only 34% ofmales did.
  34. 34. Division of labour – Kuhn and Stiner(2006):• Men are hunters• Women are gatherers andchildbearers.If that wasn’t the way, then therewould be less chance of reproductivesuccess as the woman carries thechild AND gives birth.Kuhn and Stiner (2006) suggest this iswhy Humans survived andNeanderthals didn’t.
  35. 35. Question time!Evolutionary theories can explaingender role differences. Discuss.(8+16 marks)
  36. 36. BiosocialLooks at how your biology effectshow people in society act towardsyou
  37. 37. Biosocial – Intro:Moss (1967) found that at 3weeks old, boys were moreirritable and harder to pacify(calm down) than girls.
  38. 38. Wood and Eagly (2002):• Physical differences between men and womencause psychological differences• Men are taller, larger, and faster – they areviewed as more effective hunters• Women are able to give birth and feed children –seen as caring for offspring• Each sex develops characteristics for the taskstheir sex typically performs
  39. 39. Support for Wood &Eagly (2002) =Cross cultural research:• Biosocial theory shows us that althoughgender is constrained by physicalattributes, there is flexibility depending oncultural influence.• Clear division between men and women.• However, women now have more choice, forexample the introduction of contraception hasgiven them a choice.
  40. 40. Money and Erhardt (1972):• Anatomy at birth determineshow infant is socialised• Money &Erhardt claim there is aperiod where a child’s gender isstill flexible before the age of 3This is contradictory to the Caseof David Reimer(Bruce/Brenda/David) (1965)who was only 6 months when hisgender was reassigned –who, Money and Erhardt wereinvolved with… AWKWARD.
  41. 41. Support for Money and Erhardt – Casestudy of Mr. Blackwell:• Boy, raised to have a malegender identity• At puberty, he became ahermaphrodite when hedeveloped female genitaliaand breasts• His brain was not fullymasculinised, howeverelected to remain male.Supports biosocial approach.
  42. 42. Biosocial – evaluation:• Holistic – although notentirely. It’s more ‘lessreductionist’ as is looks atboth biological and socialfactors• Nature v.s. Nurture – Itlooks at both, lessreductionist.• Cultural relativism –Considered in Wood andEagly’s research
  43. 43. Question!Discuss biosocial theories of gender(8+16 marks)
  44. 44. Gender DysphoriaGender dysphoria is a condition inwhich a person feels there is a mis-match between their biological sex andtheir gender identity.
  45. 45. Definitions!Word DefinitionGender Mentality – masculine/feminineSex Physical anatomyCognitive Development How your personality develops overtime (e.g. Kohlberg)Gender Roles Stereotypical views of men andwomenBiosocial Combination of biological andsocial factors. i.e. How society viewyou because of your anatomy
  46. 46. More definitions!Word DefinitionHistorical validity Whether or not it’s generalisablethroughout historyAndrogens Male hormonesHermaphrodites Born with both female and malegenitaliaSchema An individual’s collection of beliefsLateralisation of function Different parts of your brain havingdifferent functionsNeuropsychology Psychologically relating to the brainGender dysphoria Feeling a mismatch betweenanatomy and gender
  47. 47. Gender Dysphoria• It has a prevalence of 1/4000 people• Within this topic, we look atboth biologicalexplanations: Brain-sextheory, pesticides, prenatal influences• And Psychological explanations: Psychosexualapproaches, Coates, Stoller, Oedipus andelectra complexes
  48. 48. Biological explanations - Brain-sextheory:• Male and female brainsare different, transsexualsmay not match geneticsex• The BSTc (striaterminalis)is TWICE as large inheterosexual men withTWICE as many neuronescompared with women.
  49. 49. Brain sex theory – Zhou et al (1995)and Kruijveret al (2000):• Found that the number of neurones in MtF(male to female) transsexuals was similar tothat of females.• The same was true of FtM (female to male)transsexuals.Based on biology = objective = reliableMay not be generalisable due to individ diff.
  50. 50. Biological – Pesticides & environment:• DDT (pesticide) contains oestrogen (femalehormone)• If males are exposed, they could develop GID(Gender identity disorder)
  51. 51. Biological – Prenatal influences:• Affected by geneticconditions• Mis-match betweenhormones and genetic sexfor example…AIS (androgen insensitivesyndrome) andCAH (congenital adrenalhyperplasmia) where externalgenitalia does not matchgenetic sexAmbiguous genitalia orcomplete androgeninsensitive syndrome (CAIS)means testes instead ofovariesCongenital adrenalhyperplasia – Males can havelarge penises, whereasfemales could haveambiguous genitalia due toextra androgens in utero
  52. 52. Evaluation – Biological:• Objective, when lookingat hormone levels. Suchas oestrogen present inDDT• Reductionist
  53. 53. Psychological – psychosexualapproaches:• From a Freudian point ofview, gender dysphoria wouldstem from some sort ofunresolved childhood issueFor example, being stuck in apsychosexual stage(oral, anal, phallic, latent, genital)Or the Oedipus/Electra complexOedipus = boys fear castration.Electra = girls want to have sexwith their dad.
  54. 54. Psychological – Coates et al (1991):• Boy developed GID• His mother had anabortion when he was 3 (asensitive age for genderissues – as said by Money&Erhardt also!)• Boy may have developedGID to cope with anxietyfrom his mother’s abortion
  55. 55. Evaluation for Coates et al (1991):• Case study provides uswith details ofindividuals which maynot be recreated.• Case study’s notgeneralisable• May not be reliable• Unable to replicate• Androcentric
  56. 56. Psychological – Stoller (1995):• Proposed that GIDstemmed from distortedparental attitudes• In clinicalinterviews, Stoller foundGID boys to have closemother-son relationships• Which may have confusedGender Identity
  57. 57. Evaluation for Stoller(1995):• Lab study –replicable, would increasereliability if retested andsimilar results wereobtained• Interviews are subjective• Would be conducted in alab, may lack ecologicalvalidity and be subject tosocial desirability bias• Focuses on boys –Androcentric• Only looks atpsychology, not individualdifferences = reductionist
  58. 58. Question!Compare and contrast explanationsfor gender dysphoria (8+16 marks)
  59. 59. Division 3 – Social influences ongender- Social influences on gender (for example,parents, peers, media – in this powerpoint, Ionly included peers and parents)- Cultural influences on gender role
  60. 60. Social:Primary socialisers (alsoknown as Informalsocialising agents) includepeople such as family, andsiblings.Secondary socialisers (alsoknown as formal socialisingagents) include themedia, law enforcers, andteachers.
  61. 61. Influence of parents/peers on genderidentity (SLT):• SLT (Bandura and Walters 1963) came up withsocial learning theory, which was a precursorto Social cognitive theoryBOTH emphasise the importance of our socialenvironment on our development.
  62. 62. Social learning theory:Children learn gender roles throughboth positive and negativereinforcements for gender-appropriate behaviourPositive behaviour leads topraise, and an increase of thatbehaviourNegative behaviour leads topunishment/negativereception, which means thatbehaviour is often extinguishedfairly rapidly.
  63. 63. Social Learning Theory:Observational learning islearning through whatyou see. This is alsoknown as vicariousreinforcement.A lot of what you learn forgender-identity is gainedby watching your primaryand secondary socialisers.
  64. 64. SLT – Bandura and Bussey (1992):• Tested the importance of self-evaluation• Asked 3-4 year old boys and girlswhether they would ‘feel great’ or‘feel awful’ about playing withsame-sex, and cross-sex toys.• They found their choices wereconsistent with their gender. (Sogirls felt better about playing withstereotypically feminine toys etc…)
  65. 65. Inf. of parents – Rubin et al (1974):• Investigate parents perceptions ofnew borns• Newborns matched onsize, weight and muscle tone• Sons described as‘strong, active, coordinated’• Daughters described as‘beautiful, little, delicate’• Shows that from birth, parentshave different expectations ofchildren based on their sex
  66. 66. Inf. of parents – Langlois and Downs(1980):• Analyse parents response to sex-appropriateand sex-inappropriate play• 96 children (aged 3 or 5), boys and girlstested• Their parents tested individually• Both mothers and fathers rewarded same-sex toys for both boys and girls throughattention• Punished play from cross-sex toys throughbehaviours like teasing• Fathers more likely to punish older boysrather than girls or younger children• Reinforcement and punishment in responseto children’s choice of toys
  67. 67. Parental influence - Fagot et al (1992):- found that children acquired strong genderpreferences more quickly when their parentsshowed clear differential reinforcement.This highlights the importance of parents ongender identity.
  68. 68. Parental influence - Smith and Lloyd(1978) – Baby X studies:• ‘Baby-X’ studies are where the truegender of the child is unknown, orexternally changed through name-changeand clothing-change• Adults played with the children, who wereeither dressed as boys or girls.• ‘Boys’ were bounced/jiggled, morephysical movement. Whereas play with‘girls’ was more gentle.• The same was true with gender-typedtoys. So ‘boys’ were given squeakyhammers, whereas ‘girls’ got dolls.
  69. 69. Support for Smith & Lloyd (1978) –Culp et al (1983):• Also found that adults played more active gameswith ‘boys’ and verbal/gentle games ‘girls’
  70. 70. Peer influence – Bandura (1999):• Peer influences set examples of gender-linkedbehaviours. They provide an example for whatis ‘appropriate’.This is how to bea girlOoh…oops
  71. 71. Peer influence – Lamb et al (1980):• Children prefer to associate with same-genderpeers, pursuing same-gender activities. Ifnot, there’s often social punishment.
  72. 72. Peer influence – Fagot (1985):• Boys are more likely to be ridiculed forshowing feminine traits.
  73. 73. Peer influence – additional studies:Maccoby (1998) – ‘Peers are primary socialisingagents of gender development’ though, not somuch as infancy.Lamb and Roopharine (1979) – Observed pre-school children at play. They found that whenmale-typed behaviour was enforced in boys, itlasted longer than it did in girls. Thisreinforcement only acts as a reminder of what’salready known.
  74. 74. Cultural influence – Margaret Mead(1935):• Studied three cultures in Papua New Guinea:The Arapesh Mundugamor Tchambuli- Cooperative, gentlepeople- Little distinction betweenmales & females- Shared domesticresponsibilities (raisingkids)- Shared physicalresponsibilities (heavylifting)- Aggressive hostile people- Little distinction betweenmales and females- Children largelydisregarded by both sexes- Women were aggressive,and main supporters offamilies- Men dressed up, gossipedand shoppedPeople in all three cultures believed that their cultures werenaturally structured that way. More variety than can be accountedfor from evolutionary perspective.
  75. 75. Cultural – Tager and Good (2005):• To compare gender roles of American and Italianmales. AND, compare north/central and southernItalians.• Italian, and American MALE students took‘Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory’ test• Test includes 11 scales to assess traditionalmasculine norms, such as dominance, primacy ofwork, pursuit of status• Italians scored significantly lower on 9/11 studies(conforming less to masculine norms)• Northern scored significantly lower than lose inthe south, but southerners were significantly lessthan Americans• There are significant differences in gender rolesboth BETWEEN and WITHIN cultures
  76. 76. Evaluation – Tager and Good (2005):• Calculating a significancesuggests that a statisticaltest was used, turningqualitative data intoquantitativedata, thereforereplicability and maybeeven reliabilityincreased.• Androcentric• Cultural bias? May bedifferent in othercountries (outside ofItaly/America)• Social desirability biasmay have affectedoutcome
  77. 77. Media influence – Hoffner (1996):• Identify children’s favourite TVcharacters and ‘wishfulidentification’• 155 children aged 7-12 includingboth guys and girls were interviewed• Both sexes preferred same-sexcharacters• Boys = Looked for strength in males• Girls = Looked for attractiveness ingirls• Children identify with them alonggender-stereotypical lines
  78. 78. Media – Aubrey and Harrison (2004):• Found that although somecharacters were gender-neutral• Males were significantlymore likely than females toanswer questions, giveorders, problem solve andachieve a goal
  79. 79. Media – Kim and Lowry (2005):• Adverts on TV• Women were muchmore likely to be shownas dependent onothers, nurturingchildren and to be athome than men
  80. 80. Question!Discuss one or more socialexplanation for gender identity (8+16marks)

×