Biosocial Theories of Gender Development

Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Research
Red: AO3 - Evaluative points/IDAs


The biosocial approach takes a social constructionist approach to gender development. arguing that concepts of gender are artificial and a result of social norms rather than being an innate biological concept.


Money and Ehrhardt's biosocial theory suggests that gender development is the result of interactions between biological and sociocultural factors. Biological factors include chromosomes (XX for a female, XY for a male), and the neurodevelopmental and physical effects of prenatal hormones such as testosterone. Sociocultural factors include early socialisation based on cultural responses to biological stereotyping - this stereotyping can include the labelling of a child as a boy or a girl by parents and peers. The biological factors that lead to parental labelling as "girl" or "boy" then lead to different environments and reactions from others, which lead to gender development as boys and girls are socialised in different ways - leading to gender role identity and sexual orientation.


Eagly and Wood's social role theory suggests that psychological gender differences are a result of roles which men and women are assigned, which were a result of physical differences in our evolutionary history. For example, in our history, men were assigned the role of hunter due to their larger size - this lead to psychological, gendered characteristics such as aggression and impulsivity. Females were assigned the role of homemakers, which lead to psychological, gendered characteristics such as being empathetic and nurturing. While evolutionary theory states that selection pressures lead to physical and psychological differences which determine gender roles, social role theory suggests that physical differences lead to differently assigned gender roles, which lead to psychological differences as an aspect of gender.


Supporting evidence for the biosocial theory of gender development comes from Smith and Lloyd's 1978 study. Babies were dressed in non-gender specific clothes, then labelled with a male or female name. It was found that people would play with them in different ways according to their gender label, with boys being treated in a more physical manner. This supports biosocial theory's suggestion that initial parental gender labels (which participants believed was based on biology) affect how the child is treated and the socialisation process, providing evidence for the hypothesis that biological labels lead to different environments and social interactions, influencing gender development.


Schaffer (2004) provides further supporting evidence for the biosocial theory. A sample of 200 adults was showed a video of a 9-month-old baby, named "David" or "Dana", playing with toys and responding to stimuli. The adult labelled the baby's behaviour and emotions in gender typical ways according to whether they believed it male or female. Again, this shows that the gender identity label affects how others in society react to and stereotype the child, causing different gender development. This supports the biosocial hypothesis that biological labels as "male" or "female" lead to differential treatment from society, leading to different socialisation processes and gender development.


However, conflicting evidence for the biosocial approach comes from a study by Luxen (2007), finding sex differences in toy preferences in very young children even before socialisation can take place. This suggests that innate gender differences exist before the socialisation process - implying that gender differences are a result of pure biology rather than a reaction between biology and social environment. This challenges the approach's claim that gender role and identity is a result of socialisation based on biological sex, suggesting that nature is far more important than nurture.


The case study of David Reimer provides further conflicting evidence for the biosocial approach to gender development. Regardless of the way his parents attempted to socialise him to be psychologically female, adopting feminine traits and gender roles, upon learning his true genetic sex he rejected these attempts at socialisation and began to identify as male despite opposite parental labelling. The fact that a biological male who was socialised through toys, clothes, name and social environment as female still ultimately identified as male suggests that biology is a much more powerful force than society is in gender development, challenging the biosocial approach's claim of biological and social interactions being responsible.


The biosocial approach theoretically combines both biological and environmental factors to explain gender development, and could therefore be considered more holistic than approaches such as the evolutionary or cognitive-developmental approaches, which explain development in terms of either biology or thought processes, not both. This approach does not reduce gender development to a single, exclusive account of human behaviour. However, the majority of research points to either biological or social aspects as being the determining factor in gender development - not both! For example, Luxen's research and the case study of David Reimer firmly suggests that biology is more important than environment - no studies show an equal importance of biology and society, suggesting that a holistic explanation of gender is inaccurate.


However, in contrast to other theories such as the biological and evolutionary approaches and Kohlberg's cognitive developmental model, the biosocial theory does not explicitly favour either side of the nature-nurture debate. Instead, it assigns a role to elements of nature, through its biological sex component, and elements of nurture, through the importance of socialisation in the development of gendered behaviour. It is an interactionalist approach, unlike other approaches which could potentially oversimplify gender by explaining it as purely a result of neuroanatomy and genetics, or of cognitive processes, or of social learning.


Social Role Theory has an important real world application in lending scientific credibility towards egalitarian philosophies such as feminism, working to bring about a state of greater gender equality. Whilst approaches such as the evolutionary theory have been regarded as a force against gender equality, stating that sex differences are innate and cannot be changed by altering social contexts, the social role approach emphasises the flexibility of gender roles and behaviour. This gives it high ethical appeal because sex roles are perceived as a result of social and biological factors rather than purely biological, therefore more flexible, offering people opportunities to create and develop aspects of the self which may otherwise be constrained by typical ideas of masculinity and femininity.