Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Biosocial approach to
Gender development
- Biosocial theory
- A01
- Money + Ehrhardt
- Argued sex of rearing = the pivotal point in gender development
- Once biological M or F is born social learning +
differential treatment interact w/ biological features to
steer development
- Theory attempts to integrate influences of N+N
- Some individuals are intersexes +
may be mistyped at birth
- M + E predicted they would acquire
assigned genders identity if labelled before
the age of 3
- Believed the key to gender
development is the label
they are given
- A02
- Lack of evidence
- The ultimate
outcome of David
Reimer
- Sample bias
- M + E collected other
evidence to support
their theory
- Yet it was still all derived from
the study of abnormal
individuals
- Study of genetic females exposed to male
hormones prenatally due to drugs taken by
their mothers
- Such evidence may not be relevant to
understanding normal gender
development
- Social role theory
- A01
- Eagly + Wood
- Argue the evolutionary explanation
of GD is not fully correct
- E theory proses selective pressures
caused both physical and
psychological sex differences
- S-R theory suggests selective pressures
don't cause both physical +
psychological differences
- They only cause physical differences
- These lead to sex role allocations
which in turn create psychological sex
differences
- This means psychological sex differences are seen as the
consequence of different roles to which M + W are allocated rather
than vice versa
- A02
- IDA - Real-world app
- E approach has been seen as a force against gender equality - might
be seen to imply sex differences are innate + cannot be changed by
altering social context
- Value of S-R role approach = supports feminist view that changes in social roles
will lead to changes in psychological differences between men and women
- In addition, it has high ethical appeal
because sex roles are perceived as
social + therefore more flexible
- Division of labour (S-R theory)
- A01
- Biologically based physical differences
between M + W allow them to perform
certain tasks more efficiently
- In societies where strength isn't required for occupational roles +/or societies
where their is alternative childcare - social roles will be similar between M + W,
and psychological differences reduced
- A02
- Luxen argues E theory can explain influence of social factors +
provides a simpler theory which is preferable for a no. of reasons,
such as:
- Selective pressures
- Behaviour is at least as important as physical characteristics-
therefore SP would act directly on behaviour to create psychological
as well as physical sex differences
- Sex differences without socialsation
- Research has shown very young children + even animals display sex
differences in toy preference
- Suggests such preferences would be biological rather than psychological
because sex role socialisation is unlikely to have occurred in these ppts
- Mate choice (S-R theory)
- A01
- What M + W see in a partner can be related to their social roles rather
than to reproductive value of certain traits
- Physical differences between M + W create social roles
- Women maximise outcomes by selecting a M who is a good wage earner
- Men maximise outcomes by seeking a mate successful in the domestic role
- Different social roles can explain sex
differences in mate choice
- A02
- Buss's study re-examined
- E + W suggested...
- Due to fact W generally earn less it is no
wonder that, universally, W seek M w/
resources
- Along w/ resources, men also
have power + domiance
- E + W supported this identification of power as root of
mate choice by re-analysing Buss's data using Gender
Empowerment measure
- Found when W had a higher status, + M-F division of labour was
less pronounced, sex differences in mating preferences become
less pronounced
- Further suggests social roles = driving force in
psychological sex differences
- Men want younger W not because of
fertility but because they will be more
obediant
- E + W's conclusion was challenged by Gangestad et al
- Conducted further analysis of same data, adding some additional
controls (such as affluence + social structure
- Found gender equality was not related to sex
differences
- Concluded E theory can provide a better
explanation for the joint effects of biology and
culture
- IDA - Social constructionist approach
- Suggests much of human behaviour is an invention or
outcome of a particular society or culture
- No objective reality, such as real difference
between M + W - or if there is it isn't really
relevant
- Behaviours = best understood in
terms of social context in which they
occur