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
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology1»M. Vd 47, No 6. .docxcroysierkathey
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Brent Sha-
phren, Deborah Skriba, Erin Dignam, and Pamela Minet
for serving as models. We are indebted to Marilyn
Waterman for filming and editing the videotape modeling
sequence, to Eileen Lynch and Sara Buxton, who acted
as experimenters, and to Nancy Adams, who assisted in
collecting the data. Finally, we also thank the staff and
children from Bing Nursery School, Stanford University.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Kay
Bussey, School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie Uni-
versity, North Ryde, Australia, 2113, or to Albert Bandura,
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Building
420 Jordan Hall, Stanford, ...
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology1»M. Vd 47, No 6. .docxdonnajames55
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Brent Sha-
phren, Deborah Skriba, Erin Dignam, and Pamela Minet
for serving as models. We are indebted to Marilyn
Waterman for filming and editing the videotape modeling
sequence, to Eileen Lynch and Sara Buxton, who acted
as experimenters, and to Nancy Adams, who assisted in
collecting the data. Finally, we also thank the staff and
children from Bing Nursery School, Stanford University.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Kay
Bussey, School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie Uni-
versity, North Ryde, Australia, 2113, or to Albert Bandura,
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Building
420 Jordan Hall, Stanford,.
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology1»M. Vd 47, No 6. .docxcroysierkathey
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Brent Sha-
phren, Deborah Skriba, Erin Dignam, and Pamela Minet
for serving as models. We are indebted to Marilyn
Waterman for filming and editing the videotape modeling
sequence, to Eileen Lynch and Sara Buxton, who acted
as experimenters, and to Nancy Adams, who assisted in
collecting the data. Finally, we also thank the staff and
children from Bing Nursery School, Stanford University.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Kay
Bussey, School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie Uni-
versity, North Ryde, Australia, 2113, or to Albert Bandura,
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Building
420 Jordan Hall, Stanford, ...
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology1»M. Vd 47, No 6. .docxdonnajames55
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Brent Sha-
phren, Deborah Skriba, Erin Dignam, and Pamela Minet
for serving as models. We are indebted to Marilyn
Waterman for filming and editing the videotape modeling
sequence, to Eileen Lynch and Sara Buxton, who acted
as experimenters, and to Nancy Adams, who assisted in
collecting the data. Finally, we also thank the staff and
children from Bing Nursery School, Stanford University.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Kay
Bussey, School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie Uni-
versity, North Ryde, Australia, 2113, or to Albert Bandura,
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Building
420 Jordan Hall, Stanford,.
The Gender Binary & LGBTI People: Religious Myth and Medical MalpracticeVeronica Drantz, PhD
Designated as disordered rather than just different, LGBTI people have been and continue to be victims of medical malpractice purely because they are neither Adams nor Eves. Psychiatrists, surgeons, endocrinologists, pediatricians, and other medical experts have subjected LGBTI people to bogus and horrific treatments with reckless disregard for patient health and well-being―all the while ignoring the basic tenets of medical ethics and the ever-growing scientific evidence showing LGBTI people to be natural variations. Beyond this, medical stigmatization of LGBTI people has contributed to their oppression in the world at large. This treatise will contrast the scientific evidence with the ongoing medical (mis)treatment of LGBTI people to vividly illustrate the insidious effect of the biblical creation myth.
This presentation is from Chapter 12 of the anthology Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails. John W. Loftus (editor), (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 2014).
Paperback or Kindle version of the book here.
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Is-Not-Great-Faith/dp/1616149566
1 You have been tasked to perform a CRISPR based knockout of your.docxkarisariddell
1: You have been tasked to perform a CRISPR based knockout of your gene. Identify all candidate sgRNAs which can knockout all isoforms of your gene. Paste the excel spreadsheet with a list below.
2: Annotate in benchling where these candidate sgRNAs are
3: For two of the sgRNAs you have found, design PCR primers which will amplify the target site and produces a product less < 1000 bp
4: Indicate where in the target site the double strand break will happen.`
5: What is the impact on the protein coding sequence if the following NHEJ mutations occur:
(A) Single base deletion
(B) Two base deletion
(C) Three base deletion
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Bren.
1 You have been tasked to perform a CRISPR based knockout of your.docxjeremylockett77
1: You have been tasked to perform a CRISPR based knockout of your gene. Identify all candidate sgRNAs which can knockout all isoforms of your gene. Paste the excel spreadsheet with a list below.
2: Annotate in benchling where these candidate sgRNAs are
3: For two of the sgRNAs you have found, design PCR primers which will amplify the target site and produces a product less < 1000 bp
4: Indicate where in the target site the double strand break will happen.`
5: What is the impact on the protein coding sequence if the following NHEJ mutations occur:
(A) Single base deletion
(B) Two base deletion
(C) Three base deletion
Journal of Pcnonaluy and Social Psychology
1»M. Vd 47, No 6. 1292-1302
Copynghi I9S4 by the
American Psychological Association. Inc
Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power
on Sex-Linked Modeling
Kay Bussey
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Competing predictions derived from cognitive-developmental theory and social
learning theory concerning sex-linked modeling were tested. In cognitive-develop-
mental theory, gender constancy is considered a necessary prerequisite for the
emulation of same-sex models, whereas according to social learning theory, sex-
role development is promoted through a vast system of social influences with
modeling serving as a major conveyor of sex role information. In accord with
social learning theory, even children at a lower level of gender conception emulated
same-sex models in preference to opposite-sex ones. Level of gender constancy
was associated with higher emulation of both male and female models rather
than operating as a selective determinant of modeling. This finding corroborates
modeling as a basic mechanism in the sex-typing process. In a second experiment
we explored the limits of same-sex modeling by pitting social power against the
force of collective modeling of different patterns of behavior by male and female
models. Social power over activities and rewarding resources produced cross-sex
modeling in boys, but not in girls. This unexpected pattern of cross-sex modeling
is explained by the differential sex-typing pressures that exist for boys and girls
and socialization experiences that heighten the attractiveness of social power
for boys.
Most theories of sex role development as-
sign a major role to modeling as a basic
mechanism of sex role learning (Bandura,
1969; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1970; Sears,
Rau & Alpert, 1965). Maccoby and Jacklin
(1974) have questioned whether social prac-
tices or modeling processes are influential in
the development of sex-linked roles. They
point to findings that in laboratory situations
children do not consistently pattern their
This research was supported by Research Grant No.
M-S162-21 from the National Institute of Mental Health,
U.S. Public Health Services, and by the Lewis S. Haas
Child Development Research Fund, Stanford University.
We thank Martin Curland, Brad Carpenter, Bren ...
lecture 23 from a college level introduction to psychology course taught Fall 2011 by Brian J. Piper, Ph.D. (psy391@gmail.com) at Willamette University, includes cognitive development, moral development
PSYA3 - Biological Rhythms powerpoint.
100 slides because there's a lot to know! Condensed it as much as possible.
Includes:
Biological rhythms - Circadian, Infradian, Ultradian, endogenous pacemakers, exogenous zeitgebers & consequences of disruption of said rhythms
Sleep states -
lifespan changes, restorative theory, evolutionary evaluations
Disorders of sleep - Insomnia & other sleep disorders.
There's minimal evaluation for Infradian - so do it yourself :D
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
3. Sex or gender?
• Sex – your physical anatomy
• Gender – your emotions
and beliefs e.g.
feminine/masculine
4. Brief history of gender…
1959 – Barbie introduced
1961 – Oral contraception introduced for married women
in UK
1967 – Abortion legalised up to 28 weeks, homosexuality
is decriminalised, gay pride movement
1973 – Homosexuality removed from DSM
1978 – Louise Brown, first IVF baby born
1990 – Abortion limited up to 24 weeks
2003 – Paternity leave introduced (2 weeks)
2005 – Same sex marriages legal in UK
5. Division 1 – Psychological
explanations of gender development
-Cognitive developmental
theory, including Kohlberg
- Gender schema theory
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 fixed
2. Gender Stability (3-7 years)
- realise gender is a fixed trait
- ‘Will you be a mummy or daddy
when you’re older?’
3. Gender Consistency (7-12 years)
- external feats. Such as a bloke in a
dress may confused the child
Kohlberg (1966) proposed that a child’s development of gender develops over
time through exploration of the world, in three stages:
7. Critique of Kohlberg:
- Gender typing is well under way before
the child acquires a mature gender
identity (Martin & Halverson, 1981)
- E.g. 2-3 year old boys prefer playing
with masculine toys, and other boys
rather than girly things
- Bem (1989) also states that 3-4 year
olds who have seen members of the
opposite sex naked may display gender-
consistency
- Only a rudimentary understanding of
gender permits gender stereotypes
8. Support for Kohlberg:
Slaby and Frey (1975)
- 55 children between 2 and 5 ½ years
- Interviewed to test 3 stages of gender
identity
- From the interview, they found that:
97% had achieved gender identity
75% had achieved gender stability
50% had achieved gender consistency
- Study shows that stages are sequential like
Kohlberg said
- HOWEVER, findings also show gender
consistency may be acquired earlier than
Kohlberg thought
9. Schema theory - Martin and
Halverson (1981):
2 key factors that differ from Kohlberg
1. They believe that the process of
understanding gender occurs before gender
consistency is achieved.
2. Martin and Halverson also suggest that
stereotypes affect later behaviour.
10. Schema Theory (cognitive):
Schema = A hypothetical mental construct that
contains your knowledge about a specific
topic. E.g. gender. <- learn that
So basically… A collection of ideas that helps
you to define specific things? <- that’s there to
help you understand.
Schema’s are resilient and don’t often change.
11. Schema theory – Martin and
Halverson (1981):
Gender schemas – Organised sets of beliefs
and expectations about males and females
that guide information processing
In-group/out-group– One’s general
knowledge of the
mannerisms, roles, activities, and
behaviours that characterise males and
females
Own-sex schema – Detailed knowledge or
plans of action that enable a person to
perform gender-consistent activities and to
enact his/her gender role.
12. More Martin and Halverson (1987):
Argue that self-socialisation begins as soon as
the child acquires a basic gender identity at ages
2 and ½ to 3
And is well under way by ages 6 and 7, when
gender consistency is achieved.
13. Martin and Halverson – Gender
Schema Theory (still):
They believe that individuals focus on
INGROUP SCHEMAS prior to Gender
Consistency.
Ingroup– Groups in which a person
identifies, for example: being a girl, and
being chums because you like the same
boy band.
Outgroup– People outside of the
ingroup, which is negatively evaluated by
the ingroup.
Individuals in the ingroup settle, they then
positively evaluate their group and
negatively evaluate the outgroup.
14. Martin et al(probs Halverson, let’s face it…) (1995)
- 4 to 5 year olds were shown unfamiliar gender
neutral toys
- And were told whether they were ‘for boys’ or
‘for girls’
- Boys preferred boys objects, and girls preferred
girls.
- However, in another experiment, the same toys
were used, but were labelled oppositely, and they
found that the matched-gender toys were
preferred
15. Evaluating Gender Schema Theory:
• Lab studies – improved reliability if
repeated to get consistent results
• Lab studies – objective, and gather
quantitative data, which is also more
reliable, and easily analysed.
• Unfalsifiable (good and bad) – it can’t
be proved or disproved.
• Cultural relativism – Different
cultures have very different attitudes
• Historical validity – Martin &
Halverson was 1981… Views change
over time e.g. homosexuality
• Reductionist – Thought processes
only, doesn’t account for biological or
social factors
• Subjective – Opinion based
• Longitudinal studies (2-6 weeks from
Slaby and Frey) may suffer from
attrition rates.
17. Division 2 – Biological influences
on gender
-The role of hormones in gender
development
-Evolutionary explanations of gender
-The biosocial approach to gender
development, inc. gender dysphoria
19. Biological sexual development:
• Sex of a baby is determined at conception, being
either XX (girl) or XY (male)
• At 6 weeks:
- male Wolffiansystem, males develop seminal
ducts
- female Mullerian system, uterus/fallopian tubes
• Swabb and Fliers (1985) identified the sexually
dimorphic nucleus in the hypothalamus, which is
2.5x larger in MALES, than in FEMALES
20. Case study: Colapinto (2000) – The
Case of Bruce and Brian Reimer
- Identical twins born in Canada, 1965
- At 6 months, they had a circumcision. Bruce’s went
horribly wrong, ending with his penis being burnt off
- The parents sought advice from Money and
Erhardt, who suggested his penis & testes were
removed. Bruce was renamed Brenda and raised as a
girl
- Money claimed the surgery was a success
- Brenda reached puberty, and was given female
hormones to encourage breasts but she was depressed
- Her parents told her what had happened
- Brenda reverted back to male and had a penis
constructed and renamed himself David
- He got married, and had 3 step-children. But they
divorced in 2002 and David killed himself
21. Evaluation:
• Argues that sex is more
important than gender
• Case study – therefore
it may not be
generalisable
• It also can never be
repeated due to
EXTREME ethical issues
22. Gorskiet al (1985) influence of
hormones (rats):
• Female rats injected with
testosterone prior to birth
• Rats developed ambiguous
genitals (enlarged clitoris), and
parts of brains looked like
males
• Behaviour was ‘masculinised’
– Female rats tried to mate
other female rats…
23. Young et al (1964) – Influence of
hormones (monkeys)
• Researched female
monkeys, who were exposed to
male hormones during prenatal
period
• Found that these monkeys
were more likely to engage in
‘rough-and-tumble’ than the
female monkeys who had not
been exposed.
24. Evaluation of Young et al and Gorskiet
al:
• Objective – looking at
effects of hormones
• Comparative study –
research on animals
may not be
generalisable to
humans
25. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (1995):
• Conducted an MRI on men and women doing
a language task
• Men only used their left hemisphere
• Women used left and right
May show that women
are better at multitasking?
26. Evaluating Shaywitz and Shaywitz:
• Objective – reliable, as
it’s based on
neuropsychology
• Lab study – more
control over the
variables
• Demand
characteristics? As it’s in
a lab study… May have
felt pressured
• Lowered ecological
validity
• Not considering
individual differences
27. Case study: Imperato-McGinley et al
(1979)
- Batista Family born in Dominican Rep.
- Four children born with external
female genitalia raised as girls
- When they hit puberty, large amounts
of testosterone was released and they
developed male genitalia
- Relabelled as boys, then they were
fine.
28. Evaluation:
• Argues that your gender
is more important than
your sex
• Case study – therefore
it may not be
generalisable
• It also can never be
repeated due to
EXTREME ethical issues
30. ES Theory – Baron-Cohen (2002):
Research has shown that women are
better at EMPATHISING
Whereas men are supposedly better at
SYSTEMATISING
Baron-Cohen (uncle of BORAT
nonetheless!) (2002) calls this the ‘E-S
theory’
Shows woman look after baby, but man have evolutionary
advantage for hunting & stuff. I like to make sexy time.
31. Parental Investment Theory – Trivers
(1972):
Women invest a lot into
children, as they give
birth, and have to
spend months
breastfeeding also.
Men however, have an
abundance of
sperm, which they can
fire willy-nilly, and don’t
have to worry about
potentially carrying
something in their
belly’s for 9 months.
This suggests that males should be more competitive between one another and
females will be more ‘choosy’ because of the amount of investment, searching for the
male with best fitness and good genes to pass onto her offspring (Trivers 1972).
32. Mate Choice Theory – Buss (1989):
Women tend to look for
guys who have
resources:
- Wealth
- Power
- Showy
Guys tend to look for
women with
reproductive traits:
- Big ‘childbearing’ hips
- Big boobs
- Smooth skin
- Healthy
- Youthful
33. Mate Choice research: Waynforth and
Dunbar (1995)
• Researchers used personal
ads to find what men and
women wanted.
• 44% MEN sought physically
attractive females compared
to only 22% of WOMEN
seeking looks.
• 50% women offered
attractiveness as a
quality, whereas only 34% of
males did.
34. Division of labour – Kuhn and Stiner
(2006):
• Men are hunters
• Women are gatherers and
childbearers.
If that wasn’t the way, then there
would be less chance of reproductive
success as the woman carries the
child AND gives birth.
Kuhn and Stiner (2006) suggest this is
why Humans survived and
Neanderthals didn’t.
37. Biosocial – Intro:
Moss (1967) found that at 3
weeks old, boys were more
irritable and harder to pacify
(calm down) than girls.
38. Wood and Eagly (2002):
• Physical differences between men and women
cause psychological differences
• Men are taller, larger, and faster – they are
viewed as more effective hunters
• Women are able to give birth and feed children –
seen as caring for offspring
• Each sex develops characteristics for the tasks
their sex typically performs
39. Support for Wood &Eagly (2002) =
Cross cultural research:
• Biosocial theory shows us that although
gender is constrained by physical
attributes, there is flexibility depending on
cultural influence.
• Clear division between men and women.
• However, women now have more choice, for
example the introduction of contraception has
given them a choice.
40. Money and Erhardt (1972):
• Anatomy at birth determines
how infant is socialised
• Money &Erhardt claim there is a
period where a child’s gender is
still flexible before the age of 3
This is contradictory to the Case
of David Reimer
(Bruce/Brenda/David) (1965)
who was only 6 months when his
gender was reassigned –
who, Money and Erhardt were
involved with… AWKWARD.
41. Support for Money and Erhardt – Case
study of Mr. Blackwell:
• Boy, raised to have a male
gender identity
• At puberty, he became a
hermaphrodite when he
developed female genitalia
and breasts
• His brain was not fully
masculinised, however
elected to remain male.
Supports biosocial approach.
42. Biosocial – evaluation:
• Holistic – although not
entirely. It’s more ‘less
reductionist’ as is looks at
both biological and social
factors
• Nature v.s. Nurture – It
looks at both, less
reductionist.
• Cultural relativism –
Considered in Wood and
Eagly’s research
44. Gender Dysphoria
Gender dysphoria is a condition in
which a person feels there is a mis-
match between their biological sex and
their gender identity.
45. Definitions!
Word Definition
Gender Mentality – masculine/feminine
Sex Physical anatomy
Cognitive Development How your personality develops over
time (e.g. Kohlberg)
Gender Roles Stereotypical views of men and
women
Biosocial Combination of biological and
social factors. i.e. How society view
you because of your anatomy
46. More definitions!
Word Definition
Historical validity Whether or not it’s generalisable
throughout history
Androgens Male hormones
Hermaphrodites Born with both female and male
genitalia
Schema An individual’s collection of beliefs
Lateralisation of function Different parts of your brain having
different functions
Neuropsychology Psychologically relating to the brain
Gender dysphoria Feeling a mismatch between
anatomy and gender
47.
48. Gender Dysphoria
• It has a prevalence of 1/4000 people
• Within this topic, we look atboth biological
explanations: Brain-sex
theory, pesticides, prenatal influences
• And Psychological explanations: Psychosexual
approaches, Coates, Stoller, Oedipus and
electra complexes
49. Biological explanations - Brain-sex
theory:
• Male and female brains
are different, transsexuals
may not match genetic
sex
• The BSTc (striaterminalis)
is TWICE as large in
heterosexual men with
TWICE as many neurones
compared with women.
50. 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 to
that of females.
• The same was true of FtM (female to male)
transsexuals.
Based on biology = objective = reliable
May not be generalisable due to individ diff.
51. Biological – Pesticides & environment:
• DDT (pesticide) contains oestrogen (female
hormone)
• If males are exposed, they could develop GID
(Gender identity disorder)
52. Biological – Prenatal influences:
• Affected by genetic
conditions
• Mis-match between
hormones and genetic sex
for example…
AIS (androgen insensitive
syndrome) and
CAH (congenital adrenal
hyperplasmia) where external
genitalia does not match
genetic sex
Ambiguous genitalia or
complete androgen
insensitive syndrome (CAIS)
means testes instead of
ovaries
Congenital adrenal
hyperplasia – Males can have
large penises, whereas
females could have
ambiguous genitalia due to
extra androgens in utero
53. Evaluation – Biological:
• Objective, when looking
at hormone levels. Such
as oestrogen present in
DDT
• Reductionist
54. Psychological – psychosexual
approaches:
• From a Freudian point of
view, gender dysphoria would
stem from some sort of
unresolved childhood issue
For example, being stuck in a
psychosexual stage
(oral, anal, phallic, latent, genital)
Or the Oedipus/Electra complex
Oedipus = boys fear castration.
Electra = girls want to have sex
with their dad.
55. Psychological – Coates et al (1991):
• Boy developed GID
• His mother had an
abortion when he was 3 (a
sensitive age for gender
issues – as said by Money
&Erhardt also!)
• Boy may have developed
GID to cope with anxiety
from his mother’s abortion
56. Evaluation for Coates et al (1991):
• Case study provides us
with details of
individuals which may
not be recreated.
• Case study’s not
generalisable
• May not be reliable
• Unable to replicate
• Androcentric
57. Psychological – Stoller (1995):
• Proposed that GID
stemmed from distorted
parental attitudes
• In clinical
interviews, Stoller found
GID boys to have close
mother-son relationships
• Which may have confused
Gender Identity
58. Evaluation for Stoller(1995):
• Lab study –
replicable, would increase
reliability if retested and
similar results were
obtained
• Interviews are subjective
• Would be conducted in a
lab, may lack ecological
validity and be subject to
social desirability bias
• Focuses on boys –
Androcentric
• Only looks at
psychology, not individual
differences = reductionist
60. Division 3 – Social influences on
gender
- Social influences on gender (for example,
parents, peers, media – in this powerpoint, I
only included peers and parents)
- Cultural influences on gender role
61. Social:
Primary socialisers (also
known as Informal
socialising agents) include
people such as family, and
siblings.
Secondary socialisers (also
known as formal socialising
agents) include the
media, law enforcers, and
teachers.
62. Influence of parents/peers on gender
identity (SLT):
• SLT (Bandura and Walters 1963) came up with
social learning theory, which was a precursor
to Social cognitive theory
BOTH emphasise the importance of our social
environment on our development.
63. Social learning theory:
Children learn gender roles through
both positive and negative
reinforcements for gender-
appropriate behaviour
Positive behaviour leads to
praise, and an increase of that
behaviour
Negative behaviour leads to
punishment/negative
reception, which means that
behaviour is often extinguished
fairly rapidly.
64. Social Learning Theory:
Observational learning is
learning through what
you see. This is also
known as vicarious
reinforcement.
A lot of what you learn for
gender-identity is gained
by watching your primary
and secondary socialisers.
65. SLT – Bandura and Bussey (1992):
• Tested the importance of self-
evaluation
• Asked 3-4 year old boys and girls
whether they would ‘feel great’ or
‘feel awful’ about playing with
same-sex, and cross-sex toys.
• They found their choices were
consistent with their gender. (So
girls felt better about playing with
stereotypically feminine toys etc…)
66. Inf. of parents – Rubin et al (1974):
• Investigate parents perceptions of
new borns
• Newborns matched on
size, weight and muscle tone
• Sons described as
‘strong, active, coordinated’
• Daughters described as
‘beautiful, little, delicate’
• Shows that from birth, parents
have different expectations of
children based on their sex
67. Inf. of parents – Langlois and Downs
(1980):
• Analyse parents response to sex-appropriate
and sex-inappropriate play
• 96 children (aged 3 or 5), boys and girls
tested
• Their parents tested individually
• Both mothers and fathers rewarded same-
sex toys for both boys and girls through
attention
• Punished play from cross-sex toys through
behaviours like teasing
• Fathers more likely to punish older boys
rather than girls or younger children
• Reinforcement and punishment in response
to children’s choice of toys
68. Parental influence - Fagot et al (1992):
- found that children acquired strong gender
preferences more quickly when their parents
showed clear differential reinforcement.
This highlights the importance of parents on
gender identity.
69. Parental influence - Smith and Lloyd
(1978) – Baby X studies:
• ‘Baby-X’ studies are where the true
gender of the child is unknown, or
externally changed through name-change
and clothing-change
• Adults played with the children, who were
either dressed as boys or girls.
• ‘Boys’ were bounced/jiggled, more
physical movement. Whereas play with
‘girls’ was more gentle.
• The same was true with gender-typed
toys. So ‘boys’ were given squeaky
hammers, whereas ‘girls’ got dolls.
70. Support for Smith & Lloyd (1978) –
Culp et al (1983):
• Also found that adults played more active games
with ‘boys’ and verbal/gentle games ‘girls’
71. Peer influence – Bandura (1999):
• Peer influences set examples of gender-linked
behaviours. They provide an example for what
is ‘appropriate’.
This is how to be
a girl
Ooh…
oops
72. Peer influence – Lamb et al (1980):
• Children prefer to associate with same-gender
peers, pursuing same-gender activities. If
not, there’s often social punishment.
73. Peer influence – Fagot (1985):
• Boys are more likely to be ridiculed for
showing feminine traits.
74. Peer influence – additional studies:
Maccoby (1998) – ‘Peers are primary socialising
agents of gender development’ though, not so
much as infancy.
Lamb and Roopharine (1979) – Observed pre-
school children at play. They found that when
male-typed behaviour was enforced in boys, it
lasted longer than it did in girls. This
reinforcement only acts as a reminder of what’s
already known.
75. Cultural influence – Margaret Mead
(1935):
• Studied three cultures in Papua New Guinea:
The Arapesh Mundugamor Tchambuli
- Cooperative, gentle
people
- Little distinction between
males & females
- Shared domestic
responsibilities (raising
kids)
- Shared physical
responsibilities (heavy
lifting)
- Aggressive hostile people
- Little distinction between
males and females
- Children largely
disregarded by both sexes
- Women were aggressive,
and main supporters of
families
- Men dressed up, gossiped
and shopped
People in all three cultures believed that their cultures were
naturally structured that way. More variety than can be accounted
for from evolutionary perspective.
76. Cultural – Tager and Good (2005):
• To compare gender roles of American and Italian
males. AND, compare north/central and southern
Italians.
• Italian, and American MALE students took
‘Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory’ test
• Test includes 11 scales to assess traditional
masculine norms, such as dominance, primacy of
work, pursuit of status
• Italians scored significantly lower on 9/11 studies
(conforming less to masculine norms)
• Northern scored significantly lower than lose in
the south, but southerners were significantly less
than Americans
• There are significant differences in gender roles
both BETWEEN and WITHIN cultures
77. Evaluation – Tager and Good (2005):
• Calculating a significance
suggests that a statistical
test was used, turning
qualitative data into
quantitative
data, therefore
replicability and maybe
even reliability
increased.
• Androcentric
• Cultural bias? May be
different in other
countries (outside of
Italy/America)
• Social desirability bias
may have affected
outcome
78. Media influence – Hoffner (1996):
• Identify children’s favourite TV
characters and ‘wishful
identification’
• 155 children aged 7-12 including
both guys and girls were interviewed
• Both sexes preferred same-sex
characters
• Boys = Looked for strength in males
• Girls = Looked for attractiveness in
girls
• Children identify with them along
gender-stereotypical lines
79. Media – Aubrey and Harrison (2004):
• Found that although some
characters were gender-
neutral
• Males were significantly
more likely than females to
answer questions, give
orders, problem solve and
achieve a goal
80. Media – Kim and Lowry (2005):
• Adverts on TV
• Women were much
more likely to be shown
as dependent on
others, nurturing
children and to be at
home than men