The document discusses the biosocial approach to gender development, which views both biological and social factors as important in determining gender identity and behavior. Specifically: - Gender is determined by an interaction between innate biological factors (such as sex) and environmental/social influences (like differential treatment based on sex). - Perceptions of a child's biological sex influence how they are treated and socialized by parents and others, meaning gender is partly socially constructed. - Studies demonstrate that adults respond differently to infants based on perceptions of their biological sex, and this influences the child's environment.

1. Biosocial approach to gender
development

2. Biosocial Theory
Money and Erhardt (1972)
Biological male
or
female is born
Social
labelling
Differential
treatment
Interact with
Biological
Factors
e.g.
hormones

3. A biosocial approach
looks at the interaction
between biological &
social factors
Both are seen as important
in determining behaviour –
so not just a direct
influence of biology
Example – adults respond
differently to a baby
This response is based
on whether the baby
is biologically male or female
So sex is as important
as temperament in the
way adults respond
Sexual stereotypes do influence
BUT do these expectations
lead to the differences in children

4. Biosocial approach
• Gender is determined by both biological and social
factors working in conjunction with each other to produce
gender identity.
• The interaction between biological and social factors is
important
• Perceptions of biological sex influence how a child is
treated . Therefore gender is partly socially constructed

5. Schaffer (2004)
Baby ‘x’ experiments
Series of studies started in 1970s
Looked at influence of child’s
sex & treatment by parents & other adults
200+ adults (m & f) shown video of a 9 month old baby
Baby intro’d as a boy (David) to some pts and as girl (Dana) to other pts

6. Baby shown
interacting
with range of toys,
to a loud buzzer etc
Adult asked to judge
emotion of baby
for each interaction
Results showed that
presumed gender
influenced response
E.g. When ‘David’ cried at the jack-in-the-box most labelled it as anger
For ‘Dana’ the same behaviour was labelled as fear
So differences between m & f babies are in the eye of the beholder

7. Another study within this
experiment is Smith & Lloyd (1978)
Babies dressed in unisex snow suits
& given names that either matched
their true gender or went against it
Found baby given toys that
matched gender of name
Also boys treated more vigorously than girls
So perceived biological make-up affects social
environment
as a result of actions of others to them

8. Wetherell and Edley 1999
• Offered support for the biosocial view that gender behaviour is
flexible.
• Several different styles of masculinity being exhibited by men –
sporty, new man, unconventional, traditional – indicated gender role
is not fixed exclusively by biology.

9. AO2
BUT
Not all studies support the biosocial view
Bower et al (1993)
Found one year olds prefer to watch
same gender children,
suggesting that initially biological innate
factors dominate.

10. A02:David Reimer
• There has been controversy over Money’s
insistence that gender role identity can be
learned/socialised.
• Money’s study of ‘Brenda’ (Money used the
name Joan) showed that actually -biology was
more important than socialisation
• David Reimer knew he wasn’t female and
reverted back to a biological male
• This research evidence supports biological
determinism.

11. A02:Problematic use of intersex
individuals
• Money et al collected other evidence to support their
theory - yet still all derived from the study of abnormal
individuals such as those with AIS or CAH. Such
evidence may not be relevant to understanding normal
gender development.

12. Social Role Theory
Eagly and Wood (1999)
Evolved physical
differences between
men & women
Men assigned social
role of hunter &
women social role of
homemaker
Psychological
differences then
emerge from these
social role
Assignments.

13. Social role theory –
Eagly & Wood (2002)
Suggest that physical
differences between
males & females
cause psychological
differences
Psychological differences are
not innate
– they are the result of the different
roles men and women are given
Male roles are based on
physical strength, size & speed E.g. efficient hunters & providers

14. Female roles based on ability
to give birth & breast feed
therefore they are
efficient at raising
children

15. E.g. In Western culture
babies can be bottle fed
Result – women can go back
to work, men can help with childcare
This theory would suggest that as females
take on more male roles, their
psychological attributes will change
Support from Konrad (2000) who found
that females increasingly value
leadership, power & prestige
– stereotypically male

16. • Equal Pay
• Maternity cover

17. Women in war time
• Mechanics
• Engineers
• Tank drivers
• Building ships
• Working in factories -
making bombs and
aircraft parts
• Air raid wardens
• Driving fire engines
• Plumbers
• Ambulance drivers
• WRVS volunteers
• Nurses

18. AO2
•Luxen (2007): criticises Eagly & Wood
•Suggests this theory cannot explain the role
of hormones in pre-natal development or
different m & f behaviours induced by
hormones e.g. menstruation
•Also young children choose toys which are
sex typed
•So biological rather than psychological as
takes time to socialise