SOCIAL CONTEXTS OF GENDER DEVELOPMENT
To read up on social contexts of gender development, refer to pages 253–263 of
Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How does social influence explain gender socialisation?
 How do parents and peers influence gender-role development?
 How does the media affect gender development?
 What do cross-cultural studies reveal about the development of gender role?
What you need to know
SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON GENDER
DEVELOPMENT




Parents
Peers and school
The media (books, magazines,
television)
Gender stereotypes
CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES OF
GENDER ROLE

Research evidence
Social Influences on Gender Development
The Influence of Parents
Right from birth girls and boys are treated differently and described using different
language. Rubin et al. (1974, see A2 Level Psychology page 229 and page 254) found
that when parents were asked to describe their newborn infants, sons were
considered strong, active, and well co-ordinated, girls as little, delicate, beautiful,
and weak. Since researchers matched infants on size, weight, and muscle tone, these
descriptions represent expectations rather than physical differences.
Gender stereotyping is evident in a child’s physical as well as social environment.
The decor of children's rooms, their clothes, and toys are chosen on gender lines,
pink for girls and blue for boys (Pomerleau et al., 1990, see A2 Level Psychology page
254). The choice of toys also differs between the sexes: girls have more dolls and
domestic items whereas boys have more tools, sports equipment, and large and
small vehicles in their rooms (Pomerleau et al., 1990). Logos are also important: the
appearance of an aeroplane or a flower logo clearly indicates whether the toy
should be perceived as masculine or feminine (Fisher-Thompson, 1990, see A2 Level
Psychology page 254).
Fagot and Leinbach (1989, see A2 Level Psychology page 254) carried out a
longitudinal study on children which showed that parents encouraged genderappropriate behaviour and discouraged gender-inappropriate behaviour in their
children even before the age of 2. For example, girls were rewarded for playing with
dolls and discouraged from climbing trees.
Cross-gender activity is far more discouraged in boys than in girls (people may well
smile at a girl pushing a truck around the room and refer to her as a “tomboy” but
they are far more uncomfortable with a boy being affectionate to a doll). Fagot and
Hagan (1991, see A2 Level Psychology page 254), as well as many other subsequent
studies, showed that fathers’ responses to boys who engage in typical girls’ play are
more likely to be negative than mothers’ responses.
Bhanot and Jovanovic (2005, see A2 Level Psychology pages 254–255) showed that
when parents endorse the stereotype that maths is a male domain, their daughters
underestimate their ability in this subject. These stereotypes are not deliberately
imposed on the children but the parents inadvertently impose them when they give
unsolicited (uncalled for) help with homework. Bhanot et al. found that girls have
less self-confidence in their maths ability when their parents give intrusive support,
yet this was not true for help with English homework nor if they gave maths help to
their sons.
Peers and School
Within the school setting children inevitably become exposed to gender stereotypes
and there is huge pressure on them to conform to these if they are not to become
isolated and unpopular. By age 6–7, gender identity is established and children
begin to mix in same-sex groups. This process of sex segregation is important
because girls’ and boys’ groups socialise different behaviours and different rules
(Maccoby, 1998, see A2 Level Psychology page 255).
Friendship groups also differ between the sexes. Girls appear to take greater
pleasure than do boys in personal interaction. Benenson, Apostoleris, and Parnass
(1997) found that at age 6, both girls and boys tend to socialise in pairs but they
differ in that boys are greatly involved in co-ordinated group activity with larger
groups of peers, something that is much less true of girls.
Boys’ friendships tend to be less intimate than those of girls, in the sense that there
is less mutual self-disclosure, less physical closeness, and less eye contact. Boys’
friendships appear to be based primarily on interest and participation in the same
activities rather than close personal interaction. This pattern continues into adult
life (as reported by Dwyer, 2000).
As children move into adolescence, the peer group in school becomes even more
influential as the role of parents diminishes (although it is always important). Mac
an Ghail (1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 256) argues that peer groups are
stronger for boys than for girls when it comes to attitudes towards the value of
education and whether it is worthwhile to stay on at school. He suggests that is
because there is a “macho-male” culture that conveys the attitude that academic life
is more suitable for girls than for boys.
The Influence of the Media
Books. Children’s books are another important influence on children’s attitudes.
Hamilton et al. (2006, see A2 Level Psychology pages 256–257) carried out extensive
research into gender stereotyping in 200 top-selling and award-winning books.
There were nearly twice as many male as female main characters with male
characters appearing in illustrations more often than female ones. There were also
differences in the behaviours of the two sexes conforming to traditional gender
stereotypes: female main characters nurtured more than did male characters, were
more often than men in no paid occupation, and were seen in more indoor than
outdoor scenes. Compared with books sampled in the 1980s and 1990s, there was
no reduction in sexism.
Magazines. Most magazines are aimed at one sex or the other and such publications
have a strong influence on what is seen as the “ideal” lifestyle and body.
There is a great deal of research looking at the influence of magazines on teenage
girls. Field et al. (1999, see A2 Level Psychology page 257) interviewed over 500
teenage girls (aged 11–17) in the USA and found that pictures in magazines had a
strong impact on girls’ perceptions of their weight and shape. 69% reported that
magazine pictures influence their idea of the perfect body shape, and 47% reported
wanting to lose weight because of magazine pictures.
Boys are also affected. Giles and Close (2008) studied the influence of “lad mags”
(such as Zoo and FHM), which tend to make fun of men who do not have a welltoned body and place great emphasis on the importance of being successful with
girls. The researchers found that the more these men read lad mags, the more likely
they were to accept and internalise cultural ideals regarding the male body and to
strive to attain it. We must be cautious, however, in concluding that these magazines
cause these attitudes. This was a correlational study so does not necessarily show
cause and effect. It’s quite possible, as the researchers acknowledge, that men who
are concerned about physical appearance tend to read these magazines more than
those who are relatively unconcerned.
It is important, however, to note, as does Gauntlett (2008), that the mass media is
widely diverse and carries very many messages, often quite contradictory. He points
out that, in contrast to the past, we no longer receive singular, straightforward
messages about ideal types of male and female identities and that media images do
indeed change over the course of 10 or 20 years.
Television. Social learning theory proposes that children learn from role models,
including those on television. The presence or absence of role models, how women
and men, girls and boys are presented and what activities they engage in have a
powerful effect on how children see their role in the world. Research demonstrates
that over the last few years children, girls especially, have a wider range of role
models but for girls how these models look is more important than what they do.
Thompson and Zerbinos (1997, see A2 Level Psychology page 258) found that when
young children (aged 4–9) were asked to describe cartoon characters they
perceived them in very stereotypical ways: males were aggressive and active;
females were domestic and concerned with appearance.
Signorielli (1997, see A2 Level Psychology page 258) studied the types of media most
attractive to teenage girls (music magazines and videos and certain television
programmes) and found that although there are positive role models of women and
girls being intelligent and acting independently, the vast majority were more
concerned with dating, romance, and their appearance, while most males focus on
their occupations.
Williams (1986, see A2 Level Psychology page 258) examined gender-role
stereotypes in three towns in Canada nicknamed: “Notel” (no television channels);
“Unitel” (one channel); and “Multitel” (four channels). Gender-role stereotyping was
much greater in the towns with television than in the one without. During the
course of the study, Notel gained access to one television channel and this led to
increased gender-role stereotyping among children.
There is evidence that television can influence gender development in a nonstereotypical way (Johnston & Ettema, 1982, see A2 Level Psychology page 258). In
the Freestyle project, there was a series of television programmes in which nontraditional opportunities and activities were modelled. These programmes
produced significant attitude changes away from gender-role stereotypes, and these
changes were still present 9 months later. Interestingly, the effects on actual
behaviour were rather small.
There is little doubt that TV presents largely traditional gender images but there is
mixed evidence about the impact of such images on gender attitudes and behaviour.
Children are not passive recipients of TV images: their existing attitudes, shaped
from a host of other influences, play an important part in interpreting images of
gender on TV. It is too simplistic to state that because the entertainment media is
full of traditional stereotypes then this media is automatically contributing to
gender-role development. Durkin and Nugent (1998, see A2 Level Psychology page
259) have demonstrated that even by age 4 children can draw on their knowledge of
how men and women are supposed to behave to comment on what they see on TV.
The influence of gender stereotypes
Condry and Condry (1976, see A2 Level Psychology page 259) showed male and
female college students a videotape of a baby reacting to different stimuli. The same
tape was shown to everyone but half the observers thought the baby was a boy,
while half thought it was a girl. The child was seen reacting to a jack-in-the-box,
which popped out several times. The first time the child startled, the second time
became agitated, and the third time, began to cry. Those participants who thought it
was a girl tended to describe “her” as fearful whereas when the infant was regarded
as a boy the tears were seen as a sign of anger. So the simple knowledge of whether
a child is a girl or boy leads to different interpretations on behaviour.
Gender stereotypes can also affect our memory of achievement. Chatard, Guimond,
and Selimbegovic (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 260) found that girls who
strongly believed the stereotype that boys are better at maths than girls tended to
underestimate their previous performance in maths. Similarly, boys who strongly
believed in the stereotype that girls are better at arts underestimated their previous
scores in art exams.
Cross-cultural studies of gender role
One of the greatest values of cross-cultural research is that it indicates whether or
not patterns of behaviour are universal. If they are consistent across cultures it
implies that biology is an important influence. If, on the other hand, it varies
significantly, then it indicates it is culturally determined and learned.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Mead (1935, see A2 Level Psychology pages 260–261), an anthropologist,
looked at three cultural groups in New Guinea, each of which showed very
different gender roles, demonstrating that members of each of these cultures
developed in accordance with the sex roles prescribed by their culture,
demonstrating that social forces contributed heavily to sex typing.
o In the Mundugumor, both men and women were brought up to be
aggressive and emotionally unresponsive, behaving in a way that is
regarded as masculine in Western society.
o In the Arapesh, both sexes were caring, non-aggressive, and sensitive
to the needs of others in a way that is associated with the feminine
role.
o In the Tchambuli, there was what Western society would consider
gender role reversal. Males were passive, emotionally dependent, and
socially sensitive whereas females were dominant, independent, and
assertive.
 Barry, Bacon, and Child (1957, see A2 Level Psychology page 261)
demonstrated different influences. They studied 110 non-industrialised
societies and found that in 75% of these societies there was more pressure
on girls than on boys to be nurturant with none showing the opposite
pattern. Responsibility was regarded as more important in girls than in boys
in 55% of the societies, with 10% showing the opposite. Obedience was
stressed for girls more than for boys in 32% of societies, with 3% showing
the opposite. There was more pressure on boys than on girls to achieve and
to be self-reliant.
 Williams and Best (1982, see A2 Level Psychology page 250 and page 261)
explored gender stereotypes in 30 different national cultures (three in Africa,
ten in Europe, seven in Asia, two in North America, and six in South America).
They found that in most cultures men were more dominant, aggressive, and
autonomous whereas women were more nurturant, deferent, and interested
in affiliation. These findings indicate that the gender-role stereotypes of



females being expressive and males being instrumental (doing things) are
very widespread.
Williams and Best (1990, see A2 Level Psychology page 261) also found that
similar gender stereotypes to those found in the United States were present
in 24 other countries in Asia, Europe, Oceania, Africa, and the Americas.
However, the sampling process in these studies can be criticised as all the
participants were university students who had much in common with each
other, regardless of culture, and who are not necessarily typical of the
remainder of the population. One important influence on them may be their
exposure to international media images of males and females, making it
possible that consensus was due to this rather than other factors.
Wood and Eagly (2002, see A2 Level Psychology pages 261–262) looked at
cross-cultural findings relating to gender roles obtained from a large number
(181) of non-industrialised cultures. Men were dominant in two-thirds of
those cultures, especially those in which there was much warfare and men’s
economic contribution was much greater than that of women. However,
neither sex was dominant in 30% of cultures, and women were dominant in
3%. There were large cultural differences in responsibility for obtaining food
but this varied by gender according to other conditions. Men had the primary
role in obtaining food in cultures dependent on hunting or fishing, but
women had the main role when food gathering was involved. This study
therefore showed important differences in the roles of men and women
across these cultures and indicates that environmental conditions and
practical considerations may be more influential in determining gender roles
than is biology.
Societies differ considerably in the extent to which male and female roles are
differentiated. We will look at an example of each extreme. The Mbuti pygmies have
a social structure in which the role of biological sex has virtually no effect of social
role or status. They do not even have words for “girl” or “boy”, “woman” or “man”;
the only language distinction between the sexes are the terms “mother” and “father”.
Both sexes take part in hunting and gathering; fathers are as likely as mothers to
care for young children and pregnancy is no bar to hunting. Men and women share
decision making equally and have the same social status.
At the other extreme are the Mundurucu Indians of central Brazil in whom the
physical and social segregation of the sexes is virtually complete. Men and boys live
in men’s houses separate from all females (only very young boys are part of the
female homes) and the two sexes hardly interact at all. They take on different roles,
have different personalities (with males being dominant), and are antagonistic
towards the opposite sex.
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
The nature–nurture debate has never provided easy answers. Researchers on both
sides of the divide (and it many cases it is a divide) can point to convincing evidence
to support the view that on one side biology, and on the other side psychology, has a
profound influence on our behaviour. We are obviously influenced by biology but
equally we are not raised in a vacuum. You only have to look at different groups
within any society or consider the influence of the media to recognise that social
factors have a considerable effect on all our behaviour, including gendered
behaviour. Biological factors cannot explain cross-cultural variations in gender roles
nor the substantial changes in gender roles that have occurred in Western societies
in recent decades. Equally, we should not try to ignore these important biological
factors. As ever, it is essential to take an interactionist view: that both nature and
nurture shape our destiny.
OVER TO YOU
1. Discuss cross-cultural research on gender roles. (25 marks)