Blog

Psychological Explanations of Gender Development

Evaluation:

There are actual implications for the socially sensitive research. Research on gender Dysphoria has potential social consequences for those represented by the research. However, it needs to be considered that they may be better off with the research existing. For example, if a biological cause is identified, this may cause a greater acceptance of transsexuals, as it may not be seen as ‘their fault’. On the other hand, if a biological cause is found this may lead to poor treatment of those with the abnormality, as they could be considered inevitable. Therefore either way there are potential consequences but also potential benefits.

Gender Dysphoria- Plan

AO1

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

  • The brain sex theory of transsexualism: male and female brains are different, maybe their brain doesn’t match their sex
  • BSTc in the thalamus has been studied, 2x as large in heterosexual men than heterosexual women and contains 2x number of neurons.
  • Size of BSTc may correlate with preferred sex not biological sex.
  • 2 Dutch studies, Zhon et al (1995) & Kruijver et al (2000): no of neurons in MtF transsexual was similar to females. Also no of neurons in FtM was similar to male range.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

  • Gender Dysphoria is related to mental illness
  • Coates et al 1991: case study, buy with GID, defensive reaction to depressed mother, incident happened at age 3, sensitive age
  • Trauma led to cross-gender fantasy, trying to resolve the anxiety

AO2

P: Conflicting reports against brain sex theory

E: Chung et al (2002): difference in BSTc doesn’t develop until adulthood but most report feelings of Dysphoria in early childhood.

E: Suggests, the difference could be an effect not a cause.

E: Hulshoff Pol et al (2006): transgender hormone therapy influence size of BSTc and those in the Dutch study were receiving therapy.

E: Therefore, the hormones caused the differences rather than biological sex.

P: Real life implications of the studies- social consequences

E: They could be better off, biological cause = acceptance

E: Or it could lead to poor treatment of those with the abnormality, they could be considered an ‘inevitability’

E: Therefore, potential benefits and potential consequences.

  • Gender Schema Theory
  • Martin and Halverson 1981
  • Children learn schemas related to gender from their interactions with other children and adults or the media. They learn about what toys are appropriate for each gender, clothes, hair ,etc. These gender schemas are like naive theories about appropriate behaviour for men and women.
  • The term in-group refers to the groups with which a person identifies. Once a child has identified with a group this leads them to positively evaluate their own group and negatively evaluate the out-group. In turn, this evaluation motivates a child to be like their group and avoid the behaviours of the out-groups. It also leads them to actively seek information about what their in-group does. According to the gender schema theory from an early age, before gender constancy, children focus on in-group schemas and avoid behaviour that belongs to out-group schemas.
  • An important aspect of GST is that it can explain the power of gender beliefs. Gender beliefs lead children to hold fixed gender attitudes because they ignore non in-group information. For example, if a boy sees a film with a male nurse they will ignore it because it is not consistent with their gender beliefs. Meaning that the schema in unaltered. Therefore, gender schemas have a profound effect on what is remembered.
  • Evaluation:
  • There is supporting evidence for the importance of gender schemas in acquiring information about in-group behaviour. Martin and Halverson 1983 found that when children were asked to recall pictures of people, children under 6 recalled more of the gender consistent ones, such as a male fireman. Showing that children pay greater attention to information consistent with gender schemas and remember the information better. Children also appear to pay greatest attention to in-group schemas. Bradbard et al 1986 told 4-9 years old that certain gender neutral items were boyish or girly. Hey took more interest in their in-group items. They were also able to remember more details about them 1 week later. Gender schemas may also distort information as well as cause children to remember inconsistent information. This was shown in Martin and Halverson’s study. When children were shown consistent and inconsistent situations they distorted it to make it consistent when asked to describe them. For example a girl and a gun and a boy and a doll were distorted into a boy and a gun and a girl and a doll.
  • The fact that gender schemas lead to misremembering or distorting information means that even when children are exposed to counter stereotypes, they don’t remember them accurately. This suggests that in a real world situation, the use of counter stereotyping may not be the best method of reducing gender schemas. This could explain why children are frequently sexist, despite parents efforts to prevent or revert this, as their scheme cannot be easily reduced. However, Hoffman (1989) reports that children whose mothers work less have less stereotyped views of men’s behaviour. This suggests that children are not entirely fixed in there views but are receptive to some gender inconsistent ideas.
  • There are conflicting theories meaning that it is unclear when gender relevant knowledge will be absorbed by children to form preferences as both gender schema and gender consistent differ. Kohlberg claims that this cant happen until gender constancy is achieved, whereas Martin and Halverson say it is as soon as a child has some awareness of which group they belong to. This is supported by both Bauer (1993) and Martin and Little (1990). Bauer found that children as young as 25 months copied gender appropriate but not inappropriate behaviour, this was also supported by Bussey and Bandura (1992). Martin and Little showed that children under 4 acquired information on gender roles, showing strong gender stereotypes but no signs of gender stability or constancy. Furthermore, Zosuls et al (2009) supported gender schema by illustrating children could label their gender group earlier than indicated, when observed playing. They were using gender labels by the age of 19 months. Ultimately the clash between the two theories led to Stagnor and Ruble (1989) proposing a unifying of the approaches as they may represent different processes. Gender schema are concerned with organisation of information and the effect on memory whereas Gender constancy is more concerned with the motivation to find out more about your gender roles. This was supported through a study where they found that 4 – 10 year olds children memory for gender consistent pictures increased with age (schema aspect) and the preference for same sex toys increased with gender consistency. Therefore, the two theories may make sense if viewed as a two process theory and both unessential to gender development.

Psychological Explanations of Gender Development (Gender Schema Theory)- Plan

AO1

  • MARTIN AND HALVERSON 1981
  • Children learn schemas through others and the media. Learn what’s appropriate for each gender e.g. clothes, hair, toys, etc.
  • Gender schemas are like naive theories of appropriate behaviour for men and women
  • In-group- groups children identify
  • Once a child has an in-group, they positively evaluate their group and negatively evaluate the out-groups.
  • Try to be like their in-group and not their out-group. Seek in-group schemas, avoid out-group schemas.
  • Schemas have an effect on memory; ignore out-group information e.g. male nurses.

AO2

P: Supporting evidence

E: Martin and Halverson (1983):  children under 6 recalled more gender consistent pictures. Showing that children may more attention to consistent gender schema info.

E: Children also pay greatest attention to in-group schemas. Bradbard et al (1986): 4- 8 yrs. old took more interest in in-group items that were labelled as boyish or girly. Also able to remember details 1 week later.

E: GS may also distort info, as shown is Martin and Halverson’s study: distorted inconsistent info to make it consistent- boy and doll= girl and doll when asked to describe.

E: Means that they don’t remember gender counter stereotypes.

E: Could explain why children are sexist. However, Hoffman 1998: children whose mothers work less have less stereotyped views of men’s behaviour. Suggests- children aren’t fixed but may be receptive to some inconsistent ideas.

P: Unclear when gender relevant knowledge will be absorbed

E: Kohlberg claims this can’t happen until gender constancy is achieved. Martin and Halverson says it’s when a child has awareness of their gender group.

E: Supported by Bauer (1993) and Martin and Little (1990). B found that children as young as 25 months copied gender app behaviour. M & L showed that children under 4 acquired info on gender roles, showing strong gender roles but mot stability/ constancy.

E: Furthermore, Zosuls et al (2009) supported gender schema. Children could label their G group earlier than indicated. 19 months.

E: The clash between theories led to Stagnor and Ruble (1989): unifying of the approaches. Schema: organisation and memory. Constancy: Motivation

E: Supported: 4- 10 yrs. old children memory for consistent pictures increased with age & preference for same sex toys ^ with ^ in constancy.

E: Therefore, 2 theories may make sense if viewed as a two-process theory.