Last lesson ..
Genes instruct hormones to determine sex of individual e.g. SRY gene on the
Y chromosome controls whether gonads become ovaries or testes.. By
releasing testosterone/progesterone at week 8 of gestation
1. Week 8 of gestation
2. Pituitary gland
Testosterone instruct gonads
form Wolffian
ducts - testis +
penis
Testis
Progesterone –
instruct gonads
become
Mullerian ducts –
Fallopian tubes +
ovaries + vagina
Ovaries
The BioSocial Explanation of Gender
Development
Please note that this is one of
those theories explicitly named
in the specification that you
really need to know about!
Also note that the majority of research evidence
in this area is based on Case studies which can
be used in lots of ways.
They can either help you gain AO2 (evaluation)
marks or add to the descriptive content of
your essay.
Activity
Make a note of four strengths of a case study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Possible answers
1. The research sample is small which makes it difficult
to generalise the results
2. Validity may be questioned as research comes from a
variety of sources which may be biased i.e. it relies
on the memory of the friend or doctors of those
involved…
3. They provide a rich source of data…
4. There provide evidence on unique events…
ACTIVITY: PRESENTATIONS
1. What is a ‘Biosocial’ Theory? – Script + Filmed
Report.
2. David Reimer case study example – Role play
3. Read theory then produce 1x – PEST Card
each/report
4. Clips – David Reimer – Computer/visuals
For info
The BioSocial Theory
The influence of labelling
boy
..
girl
Rather than seeing gender differences in terms
of either nature or nurture, the approach or
theory emphasises the interaction of these
two major influences –
nature and nurture
Genes
and
environment
nature
nurture
A newborn baby is labelled as male or female
and this labelling has consequences for how
the child will be perceived and treated, with
boys and girls being treated differently for
example how they are handled.
So gender can be seen as being socially
constructed and therefore differing across
cultures and over time.
i.e. a
.. Social constructionist theory ..
Two relevant studies on the
issue of labelling are :
1. The Condry and Condry (1976)
study
A sample of 200 adults (male and female) were
shown a videotape of a nine month old baby
dressed in neutral colours who was introduced
to some as ‘David’ and others as ‘Dana’.
The adults were asked to describe the emotion
displayed by the baby when shown a teddy or
doll or reacting to a jack in the box or a loud
buzzer.
When the baby was introduced as Dana she
showed fear when reacting to the loud buzzer
or jack in the box but anger when introduced
as David. This study shows how we interpret
behaviour based on our gender expectations.
AO2:
The results of this study are easy to generalise
because the sample size is quite large and the
participants are of both genders.
The findings come from a Laboratory experiment
and therefore indicate a link between cause and
effect i.e. gender of baby and expected
behaviour.
Support
Smith and Lloyd (1978)
Smith and Lloyd (1978)
dressed babies in non-specific gender clothes
and then either labelled them with a boy or a
girl’s name. It was found that people would
play with them differently according to their
gender label, with boys being treated in a
much more physical manner e.g. mothers
offered the baby boy a toy hammer and the
girl a soft toy. All play was sex-typed.
AO2:
This study provides support for the biosocial
theory, showing that people react differently
to boys and girls.
The participants in this study may have shown
demand characteristics as they could have
worked out the purpose of the experiment.
AO2 continued:
Wetherell and Edley (1999) found that several
different styles of adult masculinity being
exhibited by men such as unconventional,
sporty and ‘new man’ indicating that gender
role is not fixed exclusively by Biology.
Clip
CLIP PART 2
2. Core Study: Diamond and
Sigmundson (1987) or the ‘Money
study’.
clips
http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=OiRUL_VMo7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=2OeITsQgKns
http://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=soOQj7bCRvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37n51ziBBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y
The biological approach is criticised by a case
study reported on by Diamond and
Sigmundson in 1987. They aimed to show that
a child can be socialised to take on the role of
the opposite sex.
Procedure: Diamond and Sigmundson
researched the case of a boy who had been
raised as a girl. They conducted interviews to
help them to describe the life history of this
boy.
The boy was one of a pair of twins born in
Canada in 1965. When they were 8 months
old, the boys went to hospital for a routine
circumcision operation. However, one of the
twins, Bruce, suffered a terrible accident.
During the operation, most of his penis was
accidentally burnt off.
At this time, reconstructing a new penis was not
an option. So his parents took advice from a
number of experts. A psychologist named
Money recommended that Bruce was raised
as a girl instead. He believed that babies were
not born with their gender and that is was
upbringing that made them masculine or
feminine.
When Bruce was 17 months old, he had his
testes removed. He was re-named Brenda by
his parents, who then began to treat him as a
girl. The plan was that they would bring up
Bruce as their daughter, not their son. Brenda
was too young to know what had happened.
As ‘she’ got older, she was led to believe that
she had been born a girl.
Results:
At first, Money was heavily involved in the case.
He frequently interviewed and observed
Brenda. He reported that she had adapted to
her new gender role well. For example, he
claimed that she enjoyed playing with girls’
toys and had no reason to believe she was any
different from other girls of her age.
However, when Brenda reached puberty, there
were some problems. To begin with, she
needed to be given hormones to help her to
develop a more female shape (e.g. breasts and
hips). Despite this, she was said to have quite
a masculine appearance and masculine
mannerisms.
Brenda later reported that she had felt like a
man inside. For example, she found other girls
attractive and rejected boys who were
interested in her. She preferred more
masculine activities such as sports, and
wanted to ‘hang out’ with her brother.
At the ages of 13, life had become so difficult for
Brenda that her parents decided to tell her the
truth about her past. When Brenda found out
she had been born a boys she was actually
quite relieved. It helped to explain the strange
feelings she had about her gender.
Soon after finding out about her true sex,
Brenda decided to live the rest of her life as a
man. She renamed herself David. Eventually
David ended up having a penis reconstructed,
married a woman and became a father by
adopting her children.
But
• In addition to his lifelong difficult relationship
with his parents, Reimer had to deal with
unemployment and the death of his brother
Brian from an overdose of antidepressants in
2002. On May 2, 2004, his wife Jane told him
she wanted to separate. On the morning of
May 5, Reimer drove to a grocery store, and
shot himself in the head.[6]
Diamond and Sigmundson concluded that the
effect of David’s chromosomes had
outweighed the attempts to socialise him as a
girl. In other words, gender is more of a
product of nature than nurture.
However Bradley et al (1998) reported on a
similar case of a biological male that after
accidental damage to his penis had
reassignment surgery and was raised as a girl.
Bradley et al (1998) continued
This individual had exhibited some male
behaviour as a child but preferred female
company and as an adult felt female and was
happy that way. This particular case does
suggest that a biological sex does not
determine gender identity.
Evaluation:
• Studies of individuals being given reassignment surgery and raised as the opposite
gender to their biology have produced
contradictory results and have been prone on
occasion to researcher bias.
Evaluation continued:
For example Reiner and Gearhart (2003)
reported on 16 biological males born without
a penis, given re-assignment surgery and
raised as females. All exhibited male
tendencies and 10 decided to become male
again by 16 years of age.
Money (1991)
...however reported on 250 cases of people
being happy with gender re-assignment. Clear
conclusions therefore have not been possible.
Evaluation continued:
Early gender related behaviours appear to be
more biologically directed Kujawski and Bower
(1993) found that 1 year olds preferred to
watch same gender children suggesting that
initially innate factors dominate.
Evaluation continued:
The fact that the model (theory) sees gender
behaviour as not solely innate and fixed
means that it is possible for an individual to
develop their gender identity into new and
positive ways.
Evaluation continued:
Ideas about gender seem to differ crossculturally and this suggests that gender roles
and behaviour are a social construction (see
pages 66 & 67).
Evaluation continued:
This view is supported by Wetherell and Edley
(1999) who found several different styles of
adult masculinity being exhibited by men such
as unconventional, sporty and ‘new man’
indicating that gender role is not fixed
exclusively by gender.
Evaluation continued:
The biosocial model is an example of how
psychological approaches can work in unison
and should therefore not be seen as a single
exclusive explanation of human behaviour.
B
Describe and evaluate the biosocial approach to
gender development?
(10 + 14 marks)
Topic Summary
Bio- Social Theory
• Rather than seeing gender differences in terms of either nature
or nurture, the approach or theory emphasises the interaction
of these two major influences.
• A newborn baby is labelled as male or female and this labelling
has consequences for how the child will be perceived and
treated, with boys and girls being treated differently for
example how they are handled. So gender can be seen as being
socially constructed and therefore differing across cultures and
over time.
Research Evaluation
Contradictory results !!
Support - Condry & Condry (1976) Labelling / Smith & Lloyd (1978)
Support - Gender roles are a social construction e.g. Wetherell and Edley
(1999)
Nature - Diamond and Sigmundson (1987) - Money study-tried to show
labelling support but failed
Nature - Reiner and Gearhart (2003) 16 males
Nature - Money (1991) 250 cases – “happy”
however…
Nurture - E.g. Bradley et al (1998) biological sex does not determine gender
identity
Extension question..
Discuss biological explanations of gender roles
including the role of hormones and genes and
biosocial explanations (8+16 marks)
Compare Biological vs Biosocial – i.e
nature vs nurture