5 – 6 weeks – Y hasn’t development yet – Gender neutral with feminine features (only X)
7 week- SRY gene is activated (Y) – doesn’t kick in for girls as they don’t have the Y gene. Releases Androgens (e.g. Testosterone) which changes the body pre-ovaries they descend to become the testes. Clitoris changes to the penis and the labia fuses together to form the scrotum
In women it’s the oestrogen which completes what has begun (ovaries become fully developed)
Androgen insensitivity syndrome
Don’t react the androgens
In the womb the foetus never develops men’s genitals
Pre-puberty – don’t menstruate – doctors have a look and find out that none of women’s genitalia have developed – find out your actually a boy but with no physical showing of it
Pre-puberty genitalia – The biological approach cannot explain this as people have already identified themselves as a certain gender when hormones have not yet been developed
Evaluation of role of hormone and genes studies
Young et al 1964
Knickmeyer et al
Young et al 1964:
Demonstrated that pregnant monkeys injected with androgens (testosterone) gave birth to females with masculinised genitalia who acted in masculine ways such as being threatening and aggressive, engaging in rough-and-tumble play and mounting females
Evaluation: It’s not been done on humans so it might not have the same outcome as we have different genetics to monkeys – could affect humans in a different way
Very scientific – replicable and falsifiable as you can prove the theory wrong if it was
Knickmeyer et al
Studied the fT (foetal testosterone) levels in the amniotic fluid of 58 children: 35 males + 23 females
When these children reached a certain ages of 4 their mothers were given a questionnaire to complete assessing their languages skills quality of social relationships and restricted interests.
fT was negatively correlated with the quality of social relationships and positively correlated with restricted that testosterone might negatively affect social relationships
Evaluation: correlation does not mean causation – we can assume this but it may not be true (other factors)
Its done on humans which enables us to generalise the study increasing its population validity as good sample size – fewer extraneous variables which means the findings are more valid
However self-report technique used – demand characteristics
Meta-analysis done on behaviour changes that could be attributed to the menstrual cycle
63% to 84% of crimes committed by women occurred in the pre-menstrual period; accident & suicide rates increased and there was a decline in the standard of school work, in scores on intelligence tests and in speed of response.
Evaluation: Meta-analyse – can’t be sure how reliable actual individual experiments are so could be a weak study.
Debates: deterministic – can’t help when hormones are released so can’t blame them for it.
Evolutionary approach: why did we evolve to have two genders?
We have two different genders to specialise in different things, they exist because they enhanced or helped men and women perform particular types of roles in the past.
Men specialise to become hunters whilst women have specialised to be nurtures.
Increases survival and reproduction.
Gender difference males
Men being more promiscuous -able to spread their genes more quickly - able reproduce the most offspring in a short period of time. Therefore their genes are more able to survive.
Men like younger women - younger women are more fertile and can therefore support and produce a greater number of healthy babies than older women- man is more likely to have offspring that reach reproductive maturity and his genes have this evolutionary advantage.
Men tend to play more sport than women. - show off their masculinity to a woman. By showing off their genes they are showing off their strengths and abilities make them more desirable and attract mates - able to choose the mate which has the best ability to reproduce and usually tend to be younger which is shown above.
Gender difference Females
Women tend to be more selective - they want the men resources for themselves and their offspring so he can look after them - greater chance of survival and they don’t want to share resources with another woman. Therefore they have to select men who are more likely to be faithful.
Women tend to like older me - they have more resources and therefore can already provide for the woman and their offspring - offspring and women are more likely to survive as they will have more resources such as food giving it an evolutionary advantage.
Did a study of 37 cultures in 33 countries to find out what men and women found attractive in their partners.
They found that men valued physical attractiveness the most whereas women valued men’s occupational status. However this was actually not in the top of their pretences it was actually a lot further down.
They actually ranked that they agreed on the same four aspects just in a different order. These aspects were mutual attractiveness, dependable character, nice and emotional stability.
This tell us that men and women look for the same thing
If we all look for the same this it must show that this is an innate behaviour - evolutionary advantage.
If we all find attractive the same traits it must help our genes to survive.
Therefore by having two different genders it allows us to produce the best offspring which is likely to survive.
Looked at lonely heart adverts analysing how they described themselves and who they were looking for.
They found men looked for younger women and they empathised how rich they were (they can provide for the women).
This was explained by the evolutionary explanation by men looking for younger women mean there likely to get more healthy offspring and my empathising how rich they were show they can provide for both the woman and their offspring.
Women went for older men and emphasised how attractive they were. Explained by the evolutionary theory as older men are seen to have more resources therefore are more able to provide for the women and potential offspring. By empathising how attractive it increases the amount of males that want their offspring as certain features reflect fertility such as wide hips which is seen as attractive.
Kohlbergs Theory of gender development
He argues against the social learning theory by saying children first gain a sense of gender identity and then copy same-sex models because their sense of gender identity makes them copying of sex-appropriate behaviour rewarding.
Whereas the social learning theory saying it’s the other way round.
Kolhbergs idea originate from:
According to Kohlberg, children cannot be expected to show sex-typed behaviour until they have formed the necessary mental structures required to understand gender.
Children must have a certain amount of knowledge about gender before social experiences have any influences on them.
Based on Piagets ideas - dont need a teaching from an adult and that children sorted information into categories and is quickly filled from the information encounter from the enviroment. Actively seek out same-sex model and info how to act like there gender
Kohlbergs Theory the 3 stages
Stage one is where Gender Identity occurs this stage happens when the child is ages 2-3 years old - immature view of gender - can correctly label themselves a boy or girl. However they believe it would be possible to change sex.
Stage two is where Gender Stability occurs this stage happens at ages 3-4 - limited understanding of gender but can correctly say whether they will be a women or man. However they believe a change of appearance will alter someone’s gender.
McConaghy when a doll was dress in transparent clothing so there was a discrepancy between its clothing and its genitals, children in this stage decided on its sex on the basis of clothing.
Stage Three is the final stage where Gender Consistency occurs and this happens when the child is ages 4-7 years old. The child now realises that gender is consistent and that appearances will not change a person’s gender.
Kolhberg - Ruble et al 1981
Did an observation of pre-schoolers, either with high gender consistency or low gender consistency.
The children watched TV ads where toys were gender stereotyped. They found a greater effect on those with high gender consistency.
Children’s responses aren’t very reliable, may just trying to impress the researcher meaning that it is social desirability bias.
Also may be some form of experimenter bias as it is very easy to manipulate children into answering what you want them to which decreases the validity
Slaby and Frey
Found that children aged over 5 paid more attention to same sex models when showed a film than younger children.
This supports Kohlberg’s idea that children must be in the final stage of gender development before they would even tell the difference between sexes and display sex-typed behaviour.
This suggests it more about Nature then the way we are brought up.
Only older children being able to identify with and begin to copy same sex models which agrees with Kolhberg theory.
Evaluation of Kolhberg
Does not take into account the influence of parents and their encouragement of sex-typed behaviour. Parental encouragement influences gender development - Kolhbery doesnt consider this.
Evidence in favour of this was proposed by Munroe who found that in different cultures around the world children were in similar stages at similar times suggesting that it is a human’s biological make-up that influences gender, not their upbringing as gender is the same universally meaning Kohlberg’s theory can be generalised across cultures.
IDA of Kolhberg
Children’s perception of gender is learnt through cognition. Other factors involved such as social factors e.g. media representations of gender roles. Free will as children may not care as to what toys they play with so have the freewill to behaviour however they want to. However this is not seen suggesting that the schemas are deterministic.
Cognitive approach - not fully scientific because it is not empirical as the mind cannot be measured objectively as it’s not something you can see - explained by a subjective opinion which may suggest it lack reliability and validity. However it is falsifiable as tomboys can prove his theory wrong as they have gender schemas but would rather follow the opposite sexes gender schema instead. Therefore it’s more reliable and valid as it acts as evidence which makes more people willing to believe it.
Bem’s Gender schema theory
Theory based on schemas that organised cognitive framework about ideas and concepts – once a child hits gender identity they begin to form schemas
Explained by Martin et al where firstly children learn what type of things are associated with each sex e.g. boys have short hair; girls wear dresses
Then children become influenced by society and start to link inferences together e.g if a person has long hair she also likes wearing dresses and playing with dolls 4-6 years
Finally children start to make inferences about the opposite sex so a girl is now more likely to offer a boy a train set rather than a doll to play with
BEM evaluation studies.
Martin & Halverston (1983) showed 5- and 6-year-olds pictures of children either doing schema-consistent or schema-inconsistent behaviours. A week later, it was the S-C pictures that were better remembered. The S-I tended to have the gender switched to be more consistent.
Bradbard et al. (1986) showed 4- to 9-year-old children gender-neutral objects (e.g., pizza cutter). To half they were described as “boy” objects and to the rest as “girl” objects. They spent more time with G-C objects, and remembered the assigned Genders later.
Masters et al. (1979) found that children were more influenced by the gender label of a toy than the gender of someone playing with it.
Durkin (1995): this is because they are more influenced by the schema than the desire to imitate same-sex models.
Biosocial Evaluaton studies
Money & Ehrhart (1972)- A series of critical events occur:
Before birth:Biological influences
0-3yrs: Society forms gender identity
3+ yrs: Gender identity static – social and cognitive fit in here
Ignores puberty BUT agrees there is an interaction between social and biology
David reamer: He shows that social factors don’t have much influence on gender Mental illness in the family. When he was younger he felt that he was a boy – wasn’t happy about growing up being a girl
Eagly & Wood (1999) evaluation of biosocial
Evolution has only created physical differences between the sexes.
Biology say physical difference, Social says there are gender differences
These differences have then created differences in (socially defined) sex roles. These sex roles then create psychological sex differences. e.g., males are physically stronger, and are therefore labelled as the hunter.
But in a more modern society, this is no longer true. However, attractive psychological traits make an attractive mate, so it’s not only biology that evolved
Biological aspect - Brain Body mismatch
- Brain differences between male and female. This causes behaviour mismatch
For example a boy who has physical showing that he is male but feels he actually a girl been suggest that he has a female brain therefore is the female gender but the biologically male.
AO2 - Androgen insensitivity syndrome; the brain hasn't become masulatated - only works for men
Social factors - AO1 - stoller
A02 - Biller 1974 + Hamilton 1972
Biological factors in Gender dysphoria
Imperato-McGinley (1979) reports a case in the Dominican-Republic where four children were born with female genitalia and raised as girls. Testosterone during puberty caused male genitals to appear. They accepted their new genders easily because society is more acceptable.
Kruijiver et al. (2000) showed that men have twice as many somatostatin neurons as women. In transexuals (both MtF and FtM), their number of somatostatin neurons corresponds to their gender rather than their sex.
Social factor in Gender Dysphoria:
Stoller (1968) suggested that MtF GD may have been too close to their mother with a distant father. For FtM, he said that the mother may have been depressed with a weak father who then made the girl take the role of the father in controlling and supporting the mother.
Stoller (1975) also said that MtF had overly-close mother-son relationships.
Biller (1974) and Hamilton (1977) have shown that GD is associated with absent fathers either physically or psychologically.
Rekers (1986) reports that in families of GD boys, 80% of mothers and 45% of fathers had a history of a mental illness (but genetics?). But Diamond (1996) says there is no difference in GD in terms of mental illnesses.
Bio-Social factor in gender dysphoria
Reiner and Gearheart (2004) studied 16 males (XY) with nearly no penis.
Two were raised as males and the rest as females of this latter group 8 had re-identified by the age of 16.
Both bio and social as half went back to being boys –influences by biology BUT half stayed as girls –influenced by society.
Nature and Nuture
Is psychology a science
Holistic - biosocial
Operant conditioning (reward+punishment) – boy comes into school with a tutu and gets mocked all day – doesn’t do it again
Vicarious reinforcement – (sees someone else get rewarded/punished) – boys friend was going to do the same the next day but saw the results and decided not to
Imitation – (copies something) – girl wears a tutu and the next day every girl wears a tutu
Classical conditioning (association) child sees mum cook – associates cooking with female behaviour
Fagot and Leinbach 1989 carried out a longitundinl study on children which showed that parents encouraged gender-appropriate behaviour and discouraged gender-inappropriate behaviour in their child even before the age of 2. For example girls were rewards for playing with dolls and discouraged from climbing trees (OC,CC,I)
Fagot and Hagan (1991) showed that fathers responded to boys who engaged in typical girls play are more likely to be negative than their mothers.
Pomerleau (1990) looked at parental influence from birth of the child and found that girls were given more dolls and pink rooms and boys more tools and blue rooms (CC)
Sroufe 2000 videotaped 10 year olds at a summer campl. The two genders only mingled together 4% of the time when they did they were mocked by their peers (OC,VR)
Rust 2000 found that young children of either sex, if they have older brothers will become more masculine. Those with older sisters will become more feminine (I)
Maccoby 1998 said that within a school setting children get exposed to gender stereotyped and there is a huge pressure for them to conform and if they do not then they will become unpopular (I,OC,VR,CC)
Mulac, Bradoc and Mann 1985 looked at children’s cartoons and found that girls were represented as more intelligent and were more attractive than men. This suggests to the children that boys are less intelligent and less attractive (CC,I)
Field et al 1999 interviewed over 500 11-17 year olds in the USA. They found that pictures in magazines had a strong impact in girl’s weight and shape. 69% reported that magazines influenced their idea of a perfect shape. 47% reported that they wanted to lose weight because of it over 50% were unhappy with their weight and shape and this correlated with how much they read magazines.
Cultural differences and influences on Gender
In westernised countries they bring there children up to be there biological gender to be perceived as normal
Fafafine - Bring up one boy to be a girl if they’re family doesn’t have a girl within the family unit (not including the mother) - This would be to do the domestic work – society accepts this.
In the USA David Reimer was seen as normal so it was kept from him he was actually a boy not a girl like he was raised as.
Mburi Pygmies do not distinguished sex-typed roles or responsibilities within their social structure.
Mundurucu Indians of central Brazil -social and physical segregation. Men and boys live in the males house separate to females (only very young boys are part of the females house) – hardly interact at all. Different roles, different personalities (males are more dominate) and are antagonistic towards the opposite sex.
Cultural differences and influences on Gender evaluation
If different cultures have different views it must be because of social influence.
If biological everyones view would be the same
To change this you can move to different cultures such as Somoa (Fa’fafine live) to change the society a child is brought up in which would change their views on gender and be more accepting.
OR To change the current culture we live in to become more accepting and fight for equality like the suffragettes did in the early 1900s
Margaret Mead 1935:
Studied social groups in Papua New Guinea
Mundugumar – men and women were both aggressive
Arapesh – men and women were more gentle
Tchambuli – women were dominant and aggressive men were caring and gentle
Mead later changed her view as she found that in all societies men were more aggressive than women
Behaviours are innate and universal but the degree to which these behaviour are expressed are relative to the culture
Wood and Eagly 2000
Obtained from a large number (181) of non-industrialised culture. Found men had the primary role of obtaining food – hunting and fishing and women had the main role when food gathering was involved – links to the evolutionary approach
Men were dominat in 67% of them cultures in 30% neither sex were dominant and in 3% women were dominant. – Shows an important different in the roles of men and women across cultures and indicates the environmental condition and practical considerations might be more influential in determining gender roles than biology (nuture)
William and Best:
Conducted a study on gender stereotypes in 30 countries; included 2800 university students. Given 300 words adjective checklist asked whether particular words were associated with male and females.
Evaluation: Good sample size – population validity findings can be generalised. and high ecological validity.
IDA - cross cultural studies
Biological – shows that testosterone doesn’t have much influence for being dominant and aggressive – Tchambuli and Mundugumar show women were more aggressive either equally or more aggressive
Nuture – How you are brought up influences gender the most – differences in culture
Reductionist – tries to explain culture variation on gender by using just one culture split into different societies – only in Papua New Guinea.
Evolutionary approach – men and women seek partners due to social needs rather than reproductive success
Males were seen as more dominant and women seem as more nurturing. – Universal gender stereotypes and could be something to do with biology. If everyone is the same when it comes to gender it must be to do with our biology especially with our hormones as testosterone makes males more dominant – Nature.