Cultural Influences on Gender Roles

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

Across the many global cultures, there are many similarities and differences between gender roles - the attitudes, behaviours and traits adopted by either sex.  Division of labour between genders is a practice found in most cultures - in the majority of societies, food preparation and child raising are primarily done by women, whereas hunting and resource provision are usually done by men. Similarly, socialisation of genders towards certain traits appears to be consistent across cultures - men are usually socialised towards assertiveness and independence; women towards assertiveness and independence. This suggests that biological factors are more important than cultural factors in determining gender roles.

However, significant differences in gender roles exist between cultures as a result of differing cultural influences. Male superiority in spatial perceptual tasks are only found in tight-knit, sedentary, and is absent or inverted in looser, nomadic societies - Berry et al suggested that these sex differences are a result of sociocultural factors rather than human biology, and suggested that conformity differences are similar in origin - a result of social environment rather than nature, being more pronounced in tight-knit, sedentary societies. This suggests that sex differences in both conformity and spatial perception are due to cultural factors rather than human biology.

Perception of "gender" also varies between cultures, with not all cultures having the binary male/female categorisation typical of the western world. The concept of binary gender categorisation not being a global norm is supported by the example of the "berdache" in Native American tribal Crow culture is a biological male who chooses to be the "wife" of a warrior rather than a warrior, but is not scorned or ridiculed for this. 

Similarities in gender roles between cultures would suggest a natural, genetic and biological component to gender roles, differences would suggest that gender roles are mainly due to nurture, environment and different socialisation processes.

Early research by Mead supports the concept of cultural differences leading to different gender roles. Social groups in the tribes of Papua New Guinea were studied; Mead found that Arapesh men and women were gentle, responsive and cooperative, Mundugamor men and women were violent and aggressive, but Tchambuli showed distinct gender roles - men were emotionally dependent, whereas women were dominant and impersonal. The presence of distinct gender roles in one tribe but not the others suggests that gender differences are a product of society and culture, rather than biology - suggesting that cultural influences are more important than biology in determining gender roles.

Mead's interpretations of her results with respect to gender roles were originally ones of cultural determinism, suggesting that differences between males and females such are a result of social rather biological factors. However, she then changed this view to one of cultural relativism, suggesting that in all three societies, men were more aggressive than women, but these differences were just expressed differently depending on cultural socialisation processes.

Williams and Best provided supporting evidence for cultural similarities in gender stereotyping, suggesting that gender roles are biological and innate rather than a result of socialisation. 2800 participants across 30 different countries categorised adjectives as either "male" or "female" in very similar ways - "dominant" and "aggressive" were almost universally categorised as male, whereas "nurturant" and "deferent" were almost universally categorised as female.


However, several methodological flaws limit the validity of Williams and Best's research. First, the adjectival allocation task was a forced, binary choice - there was no option for "neither" or "both" - the division between male and female stereotypes may have been exaggerated. Secondly, the task related to opinion stereotypes and not behaviour - although gender stereotypes may significantly affect behaviour, this is not demonstrated or measured by the study. Finally, the participants, although from a range of cultures, were all university students - this may be reflected in their values systems, being exposed to similar global influences such as books, films, and higher education. This might explain the apparent high level of cultural similarity of gender stereotyping. 

Whiting and Edwards researched the gender attitudes and behaviours of a variety of global cultures, and found that it was fairly universal for girls to be encouraged into domestic and child-rearing roles, while boys were assigned tasks involving responsibility outside the home such as looking after animals. This suggests that the concept of specific male and female gender roles is highly prevalent cross-culturally, and therefore probably biological in origin, suggesting that biological factors are more important than cultural influence in the development of gender roles.

Much of the evidence for cultural similarities and differences in gender roles comes from studies carried out by western researchers investigating both western and non-western cultures. Research methods such as Williams and Best's adjectival allocation questionnaire to measure cultural gender stereotyping were developed in western cultural contexts and may not be applicable to other cultures' behavioural norms and attitudes - it would be imposing an etic to generalise the results of these questionnaires when used in cultures other than the one they were designed in. Berry et al suggested that most cross-cultural studies carried out by western researchers reflect a western interpretation of human mind and behaviour and view participants from other cultures through this lens - they suggest the use of more indigenous researchers to reduce this bias. 

Evidence that indicates clear cultural differences in gender roles, such as that of Mead and the differences in aggression between men and women in Papuan tribes, supports the nurture side of the nature vs nurture debate, suggesting that gender differences arise due to the influence of culture in the socialisation process. Evidence that indicates cultural similarities in gender roles, such as that of Whiting and Edwards and Williams and best supports nature's influence in gender roles, suggesting that gender roles have evolved to become part of our genetic code due to serving an adaptive evolutionary purpose. Evidence supports both sides of the debate - it is ultimately likely that gender roles are a combination of both genetic factors and socialisation, interactionalist mechanisms between nature and nurture as suggested by the biological approach.

Gender Schema Theory

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


Suggested by Martin and Halverson, this is a similar cognitive theory to Kohlberg's theory, emphasising the active role of the child and their thinking in their gender development. However, it differs from Kohlberg's in claiming that basic gender identity is enough for a child to actively seek to observe and imitate gender-appropriate behaviour (Kohlberg had suggested that this only happens at the gender constancy phase, around age 7) , and suggesting that the development of schemas affects later behaviour, especially in terms of memory and selective attention.


GST suggests that gender develops through the formation of schemas - mental clusters of related items which together represent a concept relating to the world. Children learn schemas from information received from their parents, other children, and media such as books and television. This leads to the development of a schema of gender-appropriate behaviour - what toys to play with, what to wear, how to act and so on. Through identifying as a boy or a girl, children join an ingroup, leading them to positively evaluate their own group, and negatively evaluate outgroups (the other sex.) This motivates the child to be like their own group and to avoid the behaviour of the opposite sex, and actively seek information about their ingroup's behaviour, acquiring an ingroup schema.


This leads to the resilience of gender beliefs, where the child holds firm and rigid schemas that are resistant to change, influencing selective attention. They will ignore or misremember information that conflicts with their schemas - for example, if a boy sees a film with a male nurse, the existing schema is not altered - this schematic anomaly is ignored.


Supporting evidence for the early formation of schemas as an aspect of GST comes from a study by Campbell (2000.) A visual preference technique was used to observe babies aged 3, 9 and 18 months, finding in both sexes a preference for observing same-sex babies (more noticeable in boys) - with both genders preferring to watch "male" activities. This supports Martin and Halverson's suggestion that babies develop schemas long before they are able to speak, and that schemas drive selective attention - supporting GST's central tenet of gender ingroup formation leading to selective attention to same-sex ingroup members exhibiting gendered behaviour.


Further supporting evidence for GST comes from Poulin-Dubois et al, who asked 63 Canadian toddlers to choose a doll to carry out a series of tasks typically thought male, female or neutral. Girls aged 24 months chose the "gender-appropriate" doll, which boys did not do until 31 months. This is concordant with Cambell's findings that young children pay selective attention on a sex basis between the age of 24 and 31, far before Kohlberg's suggested age of 7 years.


However, both of these studies found gender differences between boys and girls - in Campbell's study, boys preferred to watch same-sex activities, whereas girls preferred to watch opposite-sex activities; in Poulin-Dubois et al's study, girls and boys developed the ability to identify gendered behaviour at different ages. GST claims that boys and girls develop their gender identity in the same way, so it cannot account for these differences. It would be beta bias to generalise the same developmental mechanisms to both genders, as research evidence suggests that girls and boys develop their schemas in different ways at different times.


Tenenbaum and Leaper criticised GST, claiming that it doesn't explain where schemas originate from, only their role - despite the importance of schemas - and sought to explain this aspect of GST. Carrying out a meta-analysis of 43 studies involving 10'000 participants, they looked for a relationship between the gender schemas of parents, and those of their children. They found an overall correlation of +0.16 - weak, but significant. This indicates that gender schemas are partially learnt through socialisation by parents - this correlation was too significant to be explained by chance.


Tenenbaum and Leaper's research can be considered culturally biased, taking place in predominantly Western and industrialised countries such as North America and Europe, with only 1 of 43 taking place in Asia. Bearing in mind how much parenting practices differ between cultures, it's imposing an etic to suggest that inheriting schemas from parents through socialisation is a global developmental norm - other cultures may place less emphasis as European cultures do on children growing up to be a reflection of their parents' beliefs and values.


GST helps us understand why children's beliefs and attitudes about gender roles and behaviours are so inflexible - children only pay selective attention to information that is consistent with or confirms their schemas.  Therefore, if children see someone engaging in a schema-inconsistent behaviour they'll ignore or forget it.


Compared to the biological approach, this theory heavily supports the role of nurture, suggesting gender is learnt through ingroup schemas and observation/imitation of the same sex; the biological approach supports natural factors such as the influence of hormones, chromosomes and neuroanatomy as being the most important factors in gender development. Both theories have research to support them - with evidence such as the David Reimer case study supporting the role of genetics, and Campbell et al's visual preference technique supporting the role of selective attention. There is evidence for both sides of the debate, leading to the increasing popularity of the interactionalist biosocial approach, suggesting that gender is a result of both biology and environment.


This approach is based around social learning from members of same-sex ingroups, suggesting that we learn gender appropriate behaviour through the socialisation process. Kohlberg's cognitive developmental approach suggests a similar method - we pass through developmental phases of how we understand gender, but only at the stage of gender constancy experienced after the age of 7, do we pay selective attention to gendered behaviour. Although the approaches are similar, they differ strongly in this key factor, with Martin and Halverson suggesting that we have the cognitive ability to observe and imitate gendered behaviour from between two and three years old.

Social Influences on Gender

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

Gender roles are learned through observation and imitation of live and symbolic models - for example, parents, teachers, peers and the media, who convey social messages about the importance of gender role-appropriate behaviour. We observe their examples of gender-appropriate behaviour and then seek to imitate them in the social learning process. Based on learning theory principles of operant conditioning, children are seen as being positively reinforced for behaving in gender-appropriate ways.

Socialising agents model examples of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, and also the consequences of conforming or not conforming to gender norms.

Through observational learning, children acquire knowledge regarding gender roles without actually ‘doing’ anything; children observe gender role models being reinforced or punished for gender-appropriate and gender-inappropriate behaviour (vicarious reinforcement) and will imitate behaviours that they saw being reinforced and not imitate those they saw being punished. SLT therefore explains the acquisition of gender role stereotypes in this manner.

Gender appropriate behaviour is reinforced by parents giving praise and toys. Fathers have been shown to reinforce gender-appropriate behaviour more than mothers (especially in sons)

Supporting evidence comes from Lytton & Romney (1991), who found that parents reinforced with praise and attention stereotypical gender behaviours in both boys and girls – for example, what activities they participated in – suggesting that social environmental factors are important in determining gender behaviour. However, children were also raised similarly in many ways, suggesting that reinforcement alone cannot account for the development of gender behaviours.

Further supporting evidence comes from Fagot & Leinbach (1995), who compared children raised in ‘traditional’ families, where dad went to work and mum cared for children, with children raised in ‘alternative’ families, where mum and dad shared child care. At age 4, children were given gender-labelling tasks as a means of testing gender schemas. The ‘traditional’ family children displayed more gender role stereotyping and use gender labels earlier, suggesting that parents do act as gender role models for their children.

TV, cinemas, magazines, music play a role in the acquisition, shaping and maintenance of gender roles. Males tend to be more represented on TV and tend to be in higher-status roles. Males and females portrayed in gender stereotypical ways. Media is invasive and persistent.

Supporting evidence for the role of the media comes from Pierce (1993) who conducted a content analysis of teenage girls’ magazines. Girls tended to be portrayed as weak and reliant on others, with a focus on being in a relationship rather than having independent aspirations, demonstrating the influence of the media in establishing gender attitudes and behaviours, and supporting social learning theory’s explanation.

Peers have a strong influence, especially when children are slightly older. Children show preferences for same-gender playmates and segregate into same-sex groups. Peers are intolerant of gender-inappropriate behaviour, regulating one another! Young children’s gender role stereotypes are very rigid, but become less so as children mature.

Supporting the influence of peers in gender development, Archer & Lloyd reported that 3-year-old children who played the opposite sex’s games were ridiculed by their peers and ostracised, supporting the idea that peers police gender roles. This supports the idea that children develop an idea of what constitutes gender-appropriate behaviour from how their peers react to behaviour, supporting the role of peers in the social learning process.

Challenging the idea that gendered behaviour is directly learnt from peers, Lamb & Roopnarine observed preschool children at play and found that when male-type behaviour was reinforced in girls the behaviour continued for a shorter time than when male-type behaviour was reinforced in boys. This suggests that peer reinforcement mainly acts as a reminder, rather than as a way of learning gender appropriate behaviour – the children had already learnt the behaviours from their parents.

Compared to other explanations such as the evolutionary and the biological approaches, theories of social influences on gender fall firmly on the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate, explaining gendered behaviour as a direct result of learning processes – mainly through social learning from parents, peers and the media. This sharply opposes the biological approach, for example, which claims that gender development results from the influences of hormones, genetics and neuroanatomy – strongly backing the role of nature in the debate. Both explanations have significant research evidence to support them – for example, the case study of David Reimer for the biological approach, the research of Lytton and Romney for the influence of society. This has led to the increasing popularity of the interactionalist biosocial approach, which explains gender development as an interaction between environmental and biological processes.

Theories of social influence are primarily based around the learning approach, ignoring other factors such as cognitions (as suggested by Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental approach), neuroanatomy and behaviour-influencing hormones such as testosterone (as suggested by the biological approach) and genetics over the course of our evolutionary history (as suggested by the evolutionary approach.) With a significant level of research support, social influence theory can be considered strong in its own right, but fails to account for many other factors shown to affect gender, being reductionist in its attempt to simplify such a complex area such as gender development into the result of simple behavioural learning processes.

Research into the effects of social influence on gender has important real-world application in challenging certain regressive or outdated gender stereotypes in society – changing social norms and expectations through the portrayal of non-traditional gender stereotypes in the media. For example, Pingree (1978) found that stereotyping was reduced when children were shown advertisements with women in non-traditional gender roles, leading to pressure on programme makers to use this information to challenge attitudes. However, not all research supports the effectiveness of this technique – Pingree found that pre-adolescent boys experienced stronger stereotypes after being presented with examples of non-traditional gender roles, perhaps a backlash which occurs due to boys of this age wanting to take a view counter to that of views held by adults. Similarly, this conflicts with gender schema theory’s suggestion that information inconsistent with our rigid gender schemas is misremembered or ignored.

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.

Kohlberg's Cognitive Developmental Theory of Gender

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

Influenced by earlier theories of cognitive development that saw children as actively progressing through developmental stages, Kohlberg’s theory of gender development works on three principles: maturation (children can only progress to the next stage with adequate cognitive ability and maturity), universality (all children go through the same stages, albeit at different times) and socialisation (children are more likely to observe and imitate same-sex role models.) Kohlberg suggests that children understand gender differently at different ages, actively developing an understanding of gender from the environment, with three different stages.

 

Gender identity – around age 2 to 3 ½, children understand the concept of their own sex, using the labels “boy” and “girl” in reference to themselves or others, but do not understand that gender is stable for life, and have very little understanding of what it means.

 

Gender stability – around age 3 ½, the child realises that their sex will not change, knowing that they will grow up to be a “mummy” or a “daddy”. However, they are still easily misled by superficial appearances – believing that a woman cutting her hair will turn her into a man.

 

Gender constancy – between the ages 4 ½ to 7, the child realises that gender is constant – people stay the same despite superficial appearance changes. This final stage is based on Piaget’s principle of “conservation” – the ability to know that things remain the same even after changes in appearance.

 

Thompson (1975) found that by 2 year, children given pictures of boys and girls could select same-sex pictures, demonstrating that children could self-label and identify the gender of others. By 3 years, 90% showed gender identity, compared to only 76% of 2 year olds, showing the developmental nature of the concept. Supports the age ranges  that Kohlberg suggested for each stage – Kohlberg suggested that children develop gender identity aged 2 ½, and this is supported by the vast majority of children having reached this stage by 3 years old – far more than had reached this stage at 2 years.

 

McConaghy (1979) found that if a doll was dressed in transparent clothing so its genitals were visible, children of 3 to 5 years judged its gender by its clothes, not its genitals, supporting the idea of children of this age using superficial physical indicators to determine gender. This supports Kohlberg’s suggestion that until age 4 ½ to 7, most children are in a stage of gender stability – they realise that gender does not change, but are still misled by superficial appearances such as clothing.

 

Rabban (1950) found that children’s thinking changes as they age. 3 year olds demonstrated gender identity but don’t know what gender they will grow into. By age 5, 97% demonstrated gender stability. This supports the ages Kohlberg suggested at which a child progresses to the stage of gender stability – around 3 ½ to 4 ½, as well as the concept of gender development as being due to increasingly sophisticated cognitive processes with age.

Kohlberg’s theory is more holistic than certain explanations for gender development such as the evolutionary approach (explaining the social prevalence of gendered behaviour as purely a result of our evolutionary history), as Kohlberg’s theory takes into account both cognitive factors (developmental stages requiring the cognitive ability to progress past them) and social factors (observing and imitating same-sex models as a form of social learning. However, it can be considered reductionist through ignoring certain aspects of human biology that have shown to be responsible for gender development – in the case study of David Reimer, genetic biological sex was the deciding factor in his final gender identity despite overwhelming social factors aiming to change this.

 

This theory may be gender biased, as some critics claim that females are being judged using a male standard. This is largely because Kohlberg's original research, which he used as a basis for this model, was done only on males. However, gender development happens differently in males than it does in females, for example – the greater willingness of girls to participate in masculine activities than boys to participate in feminine activities.  Slaby and Frey’s research evidence supports the suggestion that Kohlberg’s theory is gender biased – the gender constant girls observed the opposite sex model more than the same sex model, while the gender constant boys did not, suggesting that it is beta bias to assume equivalency of development between sexes.

 

While Kohlberg’s theory of gender development suggests that gender development is primarily a cognitive process, albeit with social learning from same-sex models, other theories challenge this, suggesting other primary factors that influence gender development. For example, the biological approach suggests that hormones and genes are the two most important factors in gender development – two factors of which Kohlberg’s theory makes no mention, suggesting that gender behaviour and identity are determined by thought processes. Additionally, the social approach to gender explains it as a result of social reinforcement processes – seeing the child as a passive product of the society around it rather than the active figure that Kohlberg suggests – these theories are not completely mutually compatible, and vary hugely in their approach to how we develop gender.

 

Explanations of Gender Dysphoria

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

A psychosocial explanation, mental illness theory suggests that gender dysphoria is related to mental illness, which is in turn a result of childhood trauma or maladaptive upbringing. Coates et al (1991) carried out a case study of a boy who developed gender dysphoria, claiming that this was his response to his mother’s post-abortion depression. The trauma occurred when the boy was three – a time when children are particularly sensitive to gender issues – and Coates et al suggested that the trauma led to a cross-gender fantasy as a means of resolving anxiety.

Cole et al (1997) studied 435 individuals experiencing gender dysphoria and reported that the range of psychiatric conditions displayed was no greater than found in a non-dysphoric control group; challenging mental illness theory’s suggestion that gender dysphoria is related to trauma or psychological pathology.

Irregularities in mother-son relationship are another factor suggested to contribute to the development of gender dysphoria. Stoller (1975) proposed that GID results from distorted parental attitudes – in clinical interviews with individuals diagnosed with GID, they displayed overly and atypically close mother-son relationships; he suggested that this led to greater female identification and a confused gender identity.

Zucker et al (1996) studied boys with concerns about gender identity and their mothers. Of the boys who were eventually diagnosed with GID, 64% were also diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder, compared to 38% in the boys with subclinical GID symptoms. This supports Stoller’s suggestion of abnormal maternal attachment as a factor in gender dysphoria, but can only explain MtF (Male to Female) transsexuality – it does not suggest an explanation for FtM.

A biological theory of gender dysphoria, the brain-sex theory suggests that male and female brains are structurally different, and the brains of transsexuals do not match their genetic sex. A region of the brain called the BSTc, located in the thalamus, is twice as large in heterosexual men as in heterosexual women, and contains twice the number of neurons – and in transsexuals, BSTc size correlates with psychological gender, rather than biological sex, suggesting a mismatch between the brains and biological sexes of transsexuals.

Two research studies support this theory: Zhou et al (1995) and Krujiver et al (2000) found that the number of neurons in the BSTc of MtF transsexuals was similar to those of biological females, while the number of neurons in the BSTc of FtM transsexuals was similar to those of biological males. This supports the theory’s explanation of gender dysphoria as having a mismatch between chromosomal sex and psychological gender.

However, Chung et al (2002) provided powerful conflicting evidence for this theory – finding that the differences in BSTc volume between males and females do not emerge until adulthood – whereas most transsexuals experience their feelings of gender dysphoria to begin in early childhood. This suggests that the differences in the BSTc reported by Zhou and Krujiver could not be the cause for gender dysphoria, but rather a possible effect.

Additionally, Hulshoff Pol et al (2006) found that transgender hormone therapy does affect the size of the BSTc, and the individuals in Zhou and Krujiver’s studies had been receiving hormone therapy. Therefore, it may be that the hormones caused the finding in transsexuals that their brain sex was closer to their gender identity than their biological sex, challenging the validity of the supporting evidence.

There is other evidence to support the theory of gender dysphoria as a result of neuroanatomical abnormalities – Rametti et al (2011) studied the brains of FtM transsexuals before they started transgender hormone therapy, and found amounts of white matter more closely resembling individuals of their gender identity than of their biological sex.

Environmental effects have also been suggested as a biological factor that can contribute to the development of gender dysphoria – environmental pollutants such as DDT contain oestrogens which may mean that males are exposed to abnormally high levels of female hormones during gestation, causing a mismatch between genetic sex and hormone-influenced gender identity.

A study by Vreugdenhil et al (2002) supports this explanation of gender dysphoria, finding that boys born to mothers exposed to dioxins, a chemical class promoting oestrogen production, displayed more feminised play than a control group, suggesting that environmental chemical factors can lead to a mismatch between gender identity and genetic sex.

Blanchard proposed two distinct subcategories of transsexuality: “homosexual transsexuals”, who wish to change biological sex because they are attracted to their current biological sex (e.g. a homosexual male who wishes to transition to female) and “non-homosexual transsexuals” who wish to change sex because they are “autogynephilic” – attracted to the idea of themselves as the other sex. These groups are so different that it is impossible to presume that the dysphoria has the same root cause – suggesting that there are different explanations for different types of gender dysphoria.

There are ethical issues with research into dysphoria, namely that it is an extremely socially sensitive area of research, with potentially huge social consequences for individuals represented by the research. For example, if a biological cause is identified this might help others to become more accepting of transsexuals, understanding that it is not their fault, or it may cause individuals born with the biological cause present to be harmed or neglected, because it might be incorrectly assumed that future transsexualism is inevitable. Evidence from research suggests that a simple deterministic cause and effect relationship is unlikely – either way, the outcome has important social consequences for sufferers of gender dysphoria.

There is important real-world application of these explanations of gender dysphoria. Colapinto (2000) reports that 1 in 2000 people are born with anomalous genitals that do not match their genetic sex, and research into gender dysphoria is very important in determining the effect of such anomalies and determining the best solutions. Societies such as the “Organisation Intersex International” argue that our society must place less emphasis on biological sex and recognise gender characteristics as a social construction to allow intersex individuals to determine their own gender identity – psychological research is important to supply research evidence to support or challenge such arguments.

Cole (1997) found that MtF transsexuals scored much differently in the masculinity-femininity scale of the MMPI to FtM transsexuals or a control group without GID. Additionally, the incidence of MtF gender dysphoria has been found to be much higher than FtM gender dysphoria. These differences in the way the sexes experience gender dysphoria suggests that it is beta gender bias and an oversimplification to assume equivalence of origin in both genders – current theories don’t explain why biological males experience GID differently and more often than biological females; a more accurate theory should explain these differences.

Evolutionary explanations of the development of gender roles

Think I'll write up a bit of Gender tonight, as it's the most recent and fresh in my mind (and I really enjoyed this topic) - addiction and R.M will follow over the next week!

Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips

While gender is defined as the social and psychological characteristics of males and females, gender roles are the differences in attitude, interests and behaviour that members of each gender adopt. For example, in most cultures, women usually look after babies, whereas men are usually the resource providers. Evolutionary theory suggests that gender roles appeared as an adaptive behaviour thousands of years ago, and then evolved to be ingrained in the DNA of modern humans due to the advantages they provided to survival and reproduction.

Parental Investment Theory (PIT) explains different gender roles as a result of different levels of parental investment between the mother and the father - for males, each offspring requires relatively little parental investment, whereas, reproduction for females involves a considerable investment. PIT can explain different reproductive strategies between genders as an aspect of gender roles. With many limiting factors reducing the amount of offspring they can have - a narrower fertility window, 9 month pregnancies, a limited supply of eggs, and carrying out the majority of childcare, a reproductive strategy of choosiness is more adaptive for women - choosing the men who display genetic fitness and status, having few offspring, and investing heavily to ensure their survival. With their only limiting factor being access to willing females, a reproductive strategy of promiscuity is adaptive for men - having many offspring with many women, and investing little into each child.

Supporting evidence for a difference in reproductive strategies as an aspect of gender roles comes from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into gender attitudes towards casual sex in a sample of university students. When approached with an offer of sex, all the female participants declined, while 75% of male participants accepted. This supports the concept of different adaptive sexual strategies between genders - with a much more limited reproductive capacity than men, choosiness is more likely to be an adaptive sexual strategy for women, whereas men's reproductive capacities are less limited by biological constraints, so promiscuity is a much more adaptive strategy. This link between adaptive sexual strategies and different gender roles is evidenced by the gender differences in willingness to have casual sex.

Cultural bias is an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary differences in gender roles, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia, so conclusions cannot necessarily be generalised. Additionally, there is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary differences in gender roles.

PIT can also explain differences in aggression between the genders - higher levels of aggression are considered to be a trait of male gender roles much more than a trait of female gender roles. In our evolutionary history, female choosiness meant that males had to compete with each other - intraspecific competition - to be reproductively successful. Physical and behavioural characteristics which are helpful in a fight (such as size, strength, and aggression) are passed into the gene pool - these then constitute aspects of masculine gender roles in the modern world. (Probably the AO1 segment least crucial and the one to drop if you're really pressed for time in the exam - not much supporting evidence or criticism of this that I could find, so it can appear a bit tacked-on, it might be better to invest more time in the other two AO1 chunks.)

Finally, Wilson suggests that our ancestors started living in monogamous male/female pair bonds because it conveyed an evolutionary advantage - females gained protection and guaranteed resources, while males could guard their mates from other males, avoiding cuckoldry and increasing parental certainty. This formation of pair bonds led to the division of labour between the couple, which turned into gender roles - the stronger males hunted and foraged, while the more nurturing females performed tasks that could be done simultaneously to childcare, such as farming and preparing food. This led to an evolutionary advantage in societies that adopted these gender roles, leading to the creation of bigger social groups.

The almost ubiquitous nature of these gender roles across many different cultures in the modern world supports the evolutionary approach's explanation of gender role development. The status of division of labour as an almost global etic suggests that the tendency to develop specific gender roles is a fundamental part of human genetic code, rather than a product of social norms, meaning that humans have evolved this way due to the adaptive advantage provided by gender roles.

However, a study by Daly and Wilson (1988) challenges the evolutionary approach's explanation of gender roles. Between the years of 1933 and 1961, in Denmark, all cases of female-female murder were of infanticide - Hardy (1999) argued that this shows women are not always warm and nurturing, in contrast with the suggested gender roles of evolutionary theory. However, some proponents of evolutionary theory challenge Hardy's interpretation, saying that mothers must respond to environmental conditions in ways that increase the chances of their own survival, not just that of their offspring - so sometimes, due to poverty, female gender roles involve favouring one child over another, or their own wellbeing over the wellbeing of their children. (Happy Valentines' Day, everyone, here's a study on parental infanticide to lighten the mood)

It has been suggested that researcher bias is an issue with this study - the unusual and arbitrary choice of years and country could suggest that the researchers picked a specific sample with which to challenge evolutionary explanations, and this evidence is not a representation reflection of female behaviour, but was just specifically selected in order to criticise the evolutionary approach to gender roles.

Buss (1989) provides supporting evidence for the evolutionary explanation for the development of gender roles. Gathering information about mate preferences from 37 cultural groups, Buss found a strong tendency in females to seek males with resources and ambition - males who fulfilled the traditional gender role of resource provision. Males had a tendency to seek physical attractiveness and youthfulness in females - females who fulfilled the traditional evolutionary gender role of bearing and raising children. However, not all of the results supported evolutionary predictions - the idea that men would place more importance than women on chastity in a partner was only supported to a small extent. Otherwise, Buss' results support the concept of evolutionarily rooted gender roles in modern society that are reflected in the traits we find attractive.

It can be argued that despite its advantage of being representative of many different cultural groups, Buss' study did not treat psychology in a scientific manner, using an unscientific and highly subjective methodology. His use of questionnaires yielded unfalsifiable and potentially inaccurate data - questionnaires are prone to social desirability bias, as participants may have given untrue answers which presented them in a certain, socially acceptable way. This makes Buss' results potentially invalid.

Holloway et al (2002) provides supporting evidence for evolutionary explanations of gender roles in a study of male and female chimpanzees. Human males tend to be 1.1 times bigger than human females, but in chimpanzees, where selection pressures for male physical competition are more intense, males tend to be 1.3 times bigger than females. This supports the concept of gender roles being selected through evolution - male size and strength are selected for more in a more physically competitive species than in a less competitive species.

Biological determinism is a large problem with the evolutionary approach to gender role development - an abundance of obvious counterexamples to the predictions of evolutionary theory suggests that free will plays a significant role in modern gender roles, rather than just genetic predermination. The existence of successful, stable couples where traditional gender roles are inverted, e.g,  a highly paid, powerful woman in a position such as a doctor or CEO, and a house-husband who does the majority of the childraising, mean that it is overly deterministic to suggest that evolutionary psychology has caused the gender roles that exist in society today.

The evolutionary approach to gender roles is also overly reductionist, focusing entirely on the genetic "hard-wiring" of behaviour to explain the difference in contemporary gender roles. It ignores other potentially important factors such as the role of socialisation - an influence whose effect can be demonstrated by rapidly changing gender roles in modern society. The departure from traditional cultural expectations of men and women has led to changing gender roles - with a higher proportion of females in higher education and historically masculine professions. Accounting gender difference purely to evolution ignores these cultural expectations which play a powerful part in assigning gender roles.

Investigations into this area of psychology are potentially unethical, as much research here deals with socially sensitive issues of gender roles and expectations. Evolutionary theory sees men and women as being unable to escape from biologically determined roles - this creates social and political issues. The determinism of the approach means that results and conclusions should be treated sensitively in order to avoid reinforcing historically unfair and oppressive gender roles and expectations. Although gender equality is gradually progressing, it is only recently, for example, that the UK government changed the law regarding maternity and paternity leave to allow either gender leave from work to carry out the parenting role.

The theory seems to have overall face validity, providing a plausible explanation for physical differences and different mating behaviours between the genders. It can also provide an explanation for the extinction of the Neanderthals and the survival of Homo Sapiens - our psychological ability to form pair bonds and divide labour between the genders gave us greater food production efficiency, which helped our species survive and reproduce - an ability which the Neanderthals lacked.