Gender
Revision Booklet
This booklet contains revision notes (summaries) and model answers which have been
written by students and edited to ensure that they are all grade A answers. Use them to
plan your own essays! The essay are marked
/ AO1 // AO2/AO3
www.psychbug.co.uk
Psychological
explanations of gender
development
Biological influences on
gender
Social influences on
gender
• Cognitive developmental theory, including Kohlberg
• Gender schema theory
• The role of hormones and genes in gender development
• Evolutionary explanations of gender
• The biosocial approach to gender development including gender dysphoria
• Social influences on gender for example, the influence of parents, peers,
schools, media
• Cultural influences on gender role
www.psychbug.co.uk
Contents
Cognitive developmental theory of gender development ..................................................................... 5
Kohlberg’s theory of gender consistency (1966) ................................................................................ 5
Gender schemas theory- Martin and Halverson (1981) ..................................................................... 6
Biological approach ................................................................................................................................. 8
Evolutionary approach...................................................................................................................... 11
Biosocial approach ............................................................................................................................ 14
Gender dysphoria .............................................................................................................................. 17
Social Learning and dysphoria .......................................................................................................... 18
Gender dysphoria –Genetics............................................................................................................. 19
Hormonal Explanations of Gender Dysphoria .................................................................................. 19
Social influences on gender ............................................................................................................ 21
Cultural influences on gender ........................................................................................................ 24
Past exam questions ......................................................................................................................... 26
Evaluating a theory ............................................................................................................................... 27
www.psychbug.co.uk
www.psychbug.co.uk
Cognitive developmental theory of gender development
According to the cognitive theory of gender development, gender identity is the result of children
actively structuring their own experiences and not a passive process as in the learning theory.
Kohlberg’s theory of gender consistency (1966)
Kohlberg proposes that the knowledge of appropriate gender roles arises from children actively
constructing an understanding of the world around them through their interactions with it. This
understanding is limited by their cognitive abilities at a given time.
This development takes place in three stages:
Stage 1-Gender labelling: takes place between the age of 1.5 to 2 years old; children recognise that
they are males or females, this allow them to understand and categorise the world. These are just
labels and they do not yet understand that boys become men and girls become women.
Stage 2-Gender stability: from 3-5 years old. Children realise that gender is for life, but they rely on
superficial signs to determine gender (i.e. if a boy wears a skirt he becomes a girl)
Stage 3- gender consistency: at around 6 years old, children realise that gender is permanent. They
understand that gender remains constant even if the superficial signs are changed. Only then do
children develop gender concepts suitable for their own gender.
Children proceed to a new stage only when their thinking has matured to a certain point. Once
children have acquired gender constancy they identify with adults seen as possessing the qualities
associated with their gender.
Evaluation
Slaby and Frey (1975): showed that children with higher level of gender consistency showed more
selective attention to same-sex models than those with lower level of gender consistency. This
support Kohlberg’s theory as it indicates that children watch their own gender in order to acquire
information about gender-appropriate behaviour, therefore supporting the argument that gender
development is an active process. Furthermore the fact that the higher the level of gender
consistency the more the attention the children paid to the same-sex model supports the claim that
gender consistency is the cause rather than the effect of imitation of same sex models.
Rabban (1950) found, by asking questions about gender, that children’s thinking changes as they
age. By 3 most children demonstrated gender identity and by 5 97% demonstrated gender stability.
This supports the stages of Kohlberg’s theory.
Kohlberg’s theory does not predict gender specific behaviour before children acquire gender
consistency however children display gender-specific behaviour and reward gender specific
behaviour before this age. This might be because he over-estimated the age of these stages.
Research found that the stages: labelling, stability and consistency occur in that order in many
cultures. This supports Kohlberg theory but also suggest a biological mechanism of maturation.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Campbell et al (2000) showed that even 3 months old babies preferred to watch same-sex babies
and that 9 months old boys paid more attention to “boys toys” this does not support Kohlberg
theory because by that age the babies according to Kohlberg have not reached the first stage of
development in which they label themselves as boys or girls.
Poulin-Dubois et al. (2002) asked 2-3 years old to choose dolls to carry out stereotypical male and
female jobs. The children were able to select the gender appropriate doll which does not support
the theory as at that age should only have been able to label themselves as boys and girls.
Gender schemas theory- Martin and Halverson (1981)
This theory unlike Kohlberg’s theory, argues that for gender development to take place gender
consistency is not needed. Like the social learning theory it argues that children learn “appropriate”
behaviours from observation. However the children are not passive like in SLT, they are active in the
formation of their gender schemas.
According to this theory, gender schemas start forming around the age of 2 to 3 years old once the
children have gender identity (they know if they are a boy or a girl), they accumulate knowledge and
organise this knowledge in schemas. They use these schemas to understand the world around them
and select appropriate forms of behaviour. They form in-group schemas which contain expectations
and attitudes about their own gender and out-group schemas about the opposite gender. They then
categorise toys, games and objects as “girls” or “boys”.
Once established future experiences are assimilated and children show preference for same-sex
playmate and activities and ignore the other gender.
Before the age of 5 they learn distinctions between the activities and behaviours that go with each
gender, from 4 to 6 years old they learn more subtle sets of association i.e. the way they talk and
play. Their schemas are very rigid. In late childhood and early adolescence their schemas become
more flexible.
Evaluation
Martin and Little (1990) found that preschool children have gender stereotypes about what is
appropriate for boys and girls before they develop a good understanding of gender, supporting the
idea of gender schemas.
Campbell et al (2000) Used 3 groups of babies: 3months, 9 months, 18 months . Using a visual
preference technique, they found that even the youngest Ps preferred watching same-sex babies. 9
month old male babies preferred to look at ‘boys toys’ The effect continued to 18 months. This
suggests that babies develop gender schemas before they can even talk. Boys have stronger drive to
tune in to their group (in group). This supports the theory as that gender schemas form early.
Poulin-Dubois et al. (2002) asked 2-3 years old to choose dolls to carry out stereotypical male and
female jobs. The children were able to select the gender appropriate doll which indicates that
schemas for gender-appropriate tasks are present at an early age.
This theory explains why the gender schemas in young children are very rigid as they ignore the
information which contradicts their schemas. However it does not explain how the schemas are
www.psychbug.co.uk
formed as most young children are exposed to blurred gender roles for example mother cutting the
grass and fathers cooking dinner so these schemas should include as they are being formed. It could
be argued that the media including fairy tales where women are presented as weak and in need of
rescue by men might influence the development of the schemas.
It does not explain why some children choose to play with gender inappropriate toys or perform
gender inappropriate activities i.e. “tom boys” or boys taking ballet lessons.
These evaluation points can be used for both theories
The cognitive theories of gender development do not take into account biological factors in gender
development. Testosterone influences brain development, this seems to be responsible for more
risk-taking activities in boys.
They do not take into account the influence of operant conditioning where children are praised for
displaying gender appropriate behaviour and punished for displaying gender inappropriate
behaviour i.e. boys who play with dolls are mocked by their peers. They do not take into account
social learning theory where children imitate behaviour as they see it being reinforced in a model for
example boys wanting to be footballers to get all the praise and fame that the famous footballers
get.
They do not take into account psychodynamic factors and this approach explains gender
development as identification with the same-sex parents as a result of the resolution of the Oedipus
complex in boys and Electra complex in girls.
They cannot explain the case of David Reimer, as a young baby his penis was cut off and he was
raised as a girl. However he never behaved as a girl and reverted back to being a boy when he was a
teenager. According to the cognitive approach he should have developed the schemas or recognised
himself and as a girl according to Kohlberg and developed as a girl. This suggests that other factors
must influence gender development. However this was a case study and the results could have been
influenced by individual characteristics. Furthermore it cannot be replicated for ethical reasons so
the results are low in reliability.
It does not explain cases of gender dysphoria where the individual, more commonly males, feels that
their basic gender identity does not correspond to their sexual identity i.e. a male feels he should be
a female or vice-versa.
The studies carried out were mostly done in Western cultures therefore the samples were
ethnocentric and we cannot generalise the results to other cultures as cultural factors could have
influenced the results.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Biological approach
The biological approach argues that gender is determined by the role of hormones. Male foetuses
have XY chromosomes and female have XX chromosomes. Located on the Y chromosomes males
have the SRY gene. In the very stage of development males and female foetuses have the potential
to develop as either sex. However the SRY gene produces the testis determining factor (TDF) a
protein which from the age of 6 weeks causes the gonads to change into testis rather than develop
into ovaries. The testes then start producing androgens the most important of which is testosterone,
whereas the ovaries produce oestrogen and progesterone. This then determine the development of
the sexual organs into male genitalia. This development occurs as the brain develop very rapidly and
the testosterone is thought to influence the development of certain parts of the brain like the part
responsible for spatial skills and there will also be significantly more growth in the areas of the brain
responsible for sex and aggression. Whereas the female brain will develop more neurons and more
connections in the parts of the brain responsible for verbal skills, emotion, and processing gut
feelings. After 24 weeks the levels of sex hormone is low but it increases significantly in the first six
months of life when the process of neural pruning starts occurring. After this stage the sex hormones
levels tend to remain low until puberty when they increase again significantly and are responsible
for the development of secondary sexual characteristics. This also coincides with a period of brain
development; one of the developments at that stage is the development of the frontal lobes which
are involved in reasoning, planning, emotions and problem solving. This development is influenced
by the increased level of sex hormones and could be a cause of the difference between attitude to
risk taking in males and females.
In the description you must link sexual development to brain development and gendered
behaviour or you will not get the marks as this would not be answering the question.
It is difficult to establish a clear causal link between hormones and gendered behaviour because
individuals are subject to other influences during their development such as their social environment
and for ethical reasons we cannot manipulate their hormonal levels so animal studies have been
conducted and intersex individuals are also studied to try to disentangle the influence of these
various factors.
There is scientific evidence for the differences in structures between male and female brains. We
have MRI and fMRI scans to see which part of the brains are active when we are participating in
different activities; for example, the role of the frontal lobe in decision making and control of
behaviour. This part of the brain has been found to be more developed in women; this could explain
the reason why men make quick decisions whilst women usually take time to think about the
options. These scans are replicable scientific evidence and are therefore reliable. They can be peer
reviewed by other scientists to test their validity.
However, the brain is a plastic organ and changes with the way that we use it. It could be that men
are socialised into making decisions and control their behaviour differently than women therefore
the difference in structure could be the consequence rather than the cause of the differences
observed in the some structures.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Koopman et al (1991) found that genetically female mice that lack the SRY gene, developed into
male mice when the gene is implanted into them. This demonstrates and supports the role of the
SRY gene in determining of gender. Furthermore Young (1964) injected pregnant monkeys with
testosterone and found their female babies had masculinised genitalia and acted aggressively. This
therefore supports the biological approach and the idea that hormones do affect and influence
gender behaviour. However, we cannot extrapolate the results of these studies to humans because
animals are psychologically and physiologically different to humans and therefore human bodies
may react differently.
CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) is an inherited disorder which affects baby girl’s adrenal
glands and therefore the ability to produce certain steroid hormones. The people that are affected
have a normal internal reproductive system but have male external genitalia. This condition also
causes the girls to become masculine; with bigger muscles and they prefer doing more masculine
activities such as tree-climbing and playing football. This is supporting evidence for the biological
theory because it suggests that the hormones affect the person’s behaviour. However, this type of
behaviour is present in girls and boys that don’t have abnormalities. For example, in the case of
portrayed in the Billy Elliot film, the boy who took up ballet dancing. This is usually seen as a “girl
activity” and therefore a gender-inappropriate activity for boys. This is also the case in women who
train as engineers, air pilots or plumbers which in this culture are seen as male occupations.
Furthermore it could be argued that this is influenced by culture as in Russia and China there are
many more women performing roles involving spatial reasoning so this would indicate that this
difference might not be due to biological differences but to training.
The role of hormones is also supported by Money and Ehrhardt (1972) who found that a sample of
girls whose mothers had taken drugs containing androgen during their pregnancy, showed maletype behaviours (playing energetic sports) and they didn’t show female-type behaviours (playing
with dolls.) This suggests and supports the theory that male hormones have an influence on gender
behaviour.
Further support comes from studying the incidence of criminal activity, especially aggressive and
violent crimes. Males produce between 4-10mg of the hormone a day and this is overall, about 20
times more than a woman this could explain why most of the violent crimes are committed by men
and also why most are committed by young males as teenage and early adulthood is the time when
the levels of testosterone are the highest. However, the level of testosterone also varies with age; as
the male gets older, the amount of testosterone declines. Also, with age a man becomes quieter and
less likely to turn to aggression and violence. However, it could also be argued that because they
have grown up and have learnt that criminal behaviours have consequences they are less likely to
participate in criminal behaviour as they get older. Also as they get older, most men will have a job
and a family and they might feel that being involved criminal activities could cause them to lose the
fruit of their labours.
The biological approach is reductionist as it fails to take into account a number of other possible
influence such as the effect of social norms; for example women are expected to be the ones who
take part in feminine activities such as “cooking” or “looking after the baby” and the males are the
ones that are expected to “go out to work.” This therefore could mean that these are the reasons as
to why people act the way they act. This is can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy; girls are expected to
www.psychbug.co.uk
do tasks involving caring from a very young age i.e. helping mum with younger siblings they
therefore acquire a lot of experience and become good at this type of activities and take on the
caring role naturally as adults. Whereas it could be argued that if they had had the opportunity to
help their fathers fix the car they might have become good at this type of activities.
The behaviours that we learn could also be learnt through social learning, as stated by the social
learning theory. This would mean that we see a person around us, such as our mother or father, and
see them gaining vicarious reinforcement for their actions and therefore this will lead to us copying
the behaviour to get the same reinforcements. The gendered behaviours can also be learnt by
operant conditioning; this is where the child will receive direct reinforcement or punishment for
their behaviour. This usually occurs in children when they are at school at do gender-inappropriate
activities; for example, if a boy plays dressing up, he is likely to have other boys laugh at him which
will be seen as a punishment. They will then learn not to participate in that type of behaviour again.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Evolutionary approach
When explaining the evolutionary theory you have to link it to gender.
The evolutionary theory proposes that changes in behaviour and physical appearance occur
as a result of mutations. Most mutations are not useful and die out however some are
beneficial as they help the individuals to survive until sexual maturity when they can pass on
their genes to their offspring. Through this process the mutations become more widespread
in the population and can become permanent features of a particular species. Therefore the
evolution theory sees the difference in gender roles as the result of different selective
pressures on males and females. Males produce lots of sperms and can fertilise many
females at little cost to themselves. However they cannot be sure of paternity. So their best
strategy to enhance the chances of reproducing their genes into the next generation is to
have sex with as many fertile females as possible. This approach argues that men have
developed physical aggressiveness to compete with other men. Women on the other hand
produce few large eggs once a month so they have only 300 opportunities to reproduce in
their lifetime so their best strategy to enhance the chances of reproducing their genes into
the next generation is careful mate selection, monogamy and high parental investment.
Therefore females select males displaying genetic fitness like strength, status and resources.
To make this selection women use strategies like courtship to make the male invest time,
effort and resources in them and any resulting offspring, this increases the chances that the
male will not desert them and will offer them and their offspring protection and resources.
Females also compete with other women to attract the genetically fittest males.
Division of labour is also a strategy which, it is argued, developed as a survival strategy;
women raised the children, farmed and prepared food and men hunted and were involved
in warfare. This is thought to have enhanced the chances of survival of the adults and the
offspring as pregnant of breast feeding mothers could not move as easily as men and taking
young offspring to hunt might have exposed them to danger.
Hunting was vital as it provided meat which in turn provided saturated fats which allowed
survival when there was little food available. Stanford (1999) observed chimpanzees hunting
in time of starvation and withholding from the females until after mating took place, “meat
for sex”.
The evolutionary theory predicts that difference in behaviour between gender should be
found in all cultures as it is coded for by genes and indeed differences in behaviour between
males and females are found in all cultures i.e. the men tend to engage in hunting and
warfare whereas women engage in child-rearing and domestic, less risky activities (Wood
and Eagly, 2002). The presence of injuries on female Neanderthal skeletons suggests that
they hunted like males, they did not have division of labour and this is thought to have been
a contributing factor in their extinction. However, it could be argued that this division of
labour is not strict as many occupations involved both men and women even though they
required significant physical strength i.e. carrying water or farming animals which at the
time were going through the process of domestication therefore were not as tame as they
are now.
Furthermore it also predicts that women will act in the best interest of their own and their
offspring survival and this is observed in real life, for example when women abandon their
www.psychbug.co.uk
children in the care of relief agencies in time of famine or wars. In these places the children
have more chance of survival than if they stayed with the mother.
The reproduction strategies used by the different gender is also obvious in everyday life for
example Buss (1989) found that females tended to seek men with resources and ambition
whereas males sought physical attractiveness and younger women. This shows the
differences in mating strategies between the genders.
However, this theory does not explain why a significant, proportion of women in long-term
relationships engage in short-term mating, when they might already be with a long-term
partners if we follow the logic of the approach this could lead to the loss of the partner and
the resources and protection he brings. Furthermore, it is argued that men should mate
with as many fertile females as they can to increase their chances of reproduction but this is
not a strategy which makes sense if the female does not have access to resources as the
offspring would not survive. Therefore if could be argued that the evolutionary theory is
used as to justify social 'double-standard' over men's sexual adventures e.g. young men
'sowing wild oats'.
Furthermore Holloway (2002) investigated whether the competition for females lead to the
difference in size between males and females. He found that human males tend to be larger
than females but this difference was more pronounced in chimpanzees where the males are
3 times larger than females. The competition for females in chimpanzee populations is a lot
more intense than in humans. However, it could be argued that males have grown larger
than females because they controlled access to resources i.e. meat therefore took a larger
share rather than as a mating strategy. Furthermore the evolutionary approach can appear
inconsistent also as competing for women and the violence that ensues can actually be a
dangerous strategy as it can lead to death before sexual maturity.
It also explains why men seem to be more promiscuous than women across time and
cultures. However, this could also be explained by social factors and self-fulfilling prophecy.
Men are expected to be unfaithful to their partners and seek younger partners this in turn
elicit the behaviour. It could be argued that polygamy which still exists in some parts of the
world has an evolutionary origin. Men who dispose of enough resources can marry many
women but interestingly not the other way around; women can marry only one man at a
time. This still exists in the Middle East and large parts of Africa. For example Ziona Chana in
India has 39 wives and fathered 94 children.
It could be argued that through history that men have tried to control women reproduction
for example in female for example using female circumcision, this operation in most cases
leaves the women unable to have intercourse until after marriage as only a small hole for
the passage of urine. This is still practiced in large part of Africa like Somalia. Female sexual
behaviour is also controlled by most religions and still leads to drastic measures against
women such as honour killings. This control by men, it could be argued, reflects an anxiety
on the part of men about paternity and competition between males for fertile females.
The evolutionary theory of gender development gives an interesting insight on the
difference between gender however it relies on assumptions which cannot never be tested
so it is unfalsifiable furthermore it has been used and is still being used to justify the
inequalities which exist between men and women despite the fact that we live in a very
www.psychbug.co.uk
different social environment where all the purposes it might have served have disappeared
and have been replaced by conditions which makes the equality between genders possible.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Biosocial approach
The biosocial approach proposed by Money and Ehrhardt (1972) argues that gender development is
determined by both biological and social factors. These factors work in conjunction with each other
to produce masculine and feminine behaviours and identities. It proposes that it is the interaction
between the biological and social factors that leads to gender development rather than the
biological factors direct influence.
Social factors begin to influence the child’s gender development immediately after birth according to
this theory. The child is labelled as a boy or a girl; the way the parents respond to the child is
influenced by this label. The parents apply their stereotypes in their interactions with the baby in the
way they handle and speak to the child and in their expectations of his/her behaviour. The
stereotypes and schemas held by the parents and other members of the family have consequences
for the way the child is perceived and treated. So this approach argues that gender is socially
constructed therefore is different across cultures and varies across time.
These stereotypes will then be applied during the child’s life and will in determine the kind of
experiences the child will have. From these will emerge the gender role identity. This means that
gender development is not fixed and determined only by biological factors but that an individual can
change and is not limited to the traditional male or female behaviour and identity.
This process usually is straight forward as in most cases the biological sex matches the gender
identity however in the case of ambiguous genitalia this might be more problematic and Money
believed that if the providing the child’s sex of rearing is decided before the age of 3 the child will
accept their assigned gender identity.
There is support for the fact that very young children are treated differently according to their
biological sex. Smith and Lloyd (1978) found that when a baby was dressed in gender-neutral clothes
and introduced as males or females the boys were treated in a more physical manner than girls.
They were encouraged to move more whereas the girls’ movements tended to be restricted. This
shows that the adults were applying gender stereotypes to the baby. These findings are supported
by a recent study by Shaffer (2004)who using a sample of 200 women produced very similar results.
However, the case of David Reimer does not support this theory. His penis was accidently cut off
during a surgical procedure and was raised as a girl. He displayed boy behaviour and reverted to his
original gender when he found out what had happened. This indicates that biological factors in this
case were more influential than social factors. However this was a case study so individual
characteristics could have influenced the results so we cannot generalise the results to the wider
population. The research on gender reassignment produces contradictory results Reiner and
Gearhart (2003) showed that out of 16 cases of individual born as males with little or no penis and
surgical transformed into females and raised as females ten decided to become males again by the
age of 16.
Other intersex conditions support the theory for example adrenogenital syndrome, causing genetic
females to develop penises (micro or normal), or the androgen-insensitivity syndrome, in which
genetic males develop the external appearance of women, sometimes with an enlarged clitoris.
These cases are caused by the imbalance of hormonal output or uptake in the foetus. Their external
www.psychbug.co.uk
genitals can be corrected via surgery and hormones can be artificially taken to enable the proper
development of a girl or boy. However, sometimes the sex assigned at birth is not compatible with
their genetic sex and boys have been raised as girls and vice versa with great success according to
Money as long as the gender assignment was done before the age of 3. This supports the influence
of social factors in gender development. However intersex individuals are not representative of the
general population and there is little evidence that people outside this group are as flexible in their
psychosexual development.
This theory is also supported by the Fafafinis in Samoa. Male children are born as males but the
family decides to bring them up as “fafafinis” , these dress as women and are expected to perform
feminine roles such as looking after the house and the children. They have sexual relationships with
men. However they are not asked to be women, “fafafinis” are in fact a third gender with a gender
identity different from either male or female gender. This demonstrates that the way a child is
reared is very influential in their gender development. However this is a rare case and it is not found
in other cultures so it could be argued that the sample is ethnocentric and we cannot generalise the
findings to other cultures where social norms are different.
However the Batista family in the Dominican Republic does not support this theory as four of the ten
children in the family were born daughters with normal female body shape and function, yet at age
twelve, due to a flood of testosterone their vaginas healed over, two testicles descended and they
grew full size penises. They adapted to their new gender despite having been raised as girls. The
transformed boys’ ability to adopt a male gender identity and gender role suggests that their
testosterone had preprogramed masculinity into their brains therefore that the biological have a
stronger influence than social factors.
The argument that children are born gender-neutral and develop gender identity depending on how
they are raised is challenged by Kujawski and Bower (1993) who showed that one year children seem
to prefer to watch children of the same gender. This suggests that inborn factors are influential.
However there is support for the fact that social factors are influential as cross-cultural studies show
that behaviours vary between cultures, for example some of the jobs performed by women in
Eastern Europe are considered as male in Western Europe for example in the construction industry.
The gender roles also vary across time as predicted by the theory as women are now involved in war
on an equal basis with men and this is a very recent change.
Furthermore the theory does not explain how the learning of gendered behaviour occurs, the
behaviourist approach that gender behaviours are learnt through social learning, as stated by the
social learning theory. This would mean that we see a person around us, such as our mother or
father, and see them gaining vicarious reinforcement for their actions and therefore this will lead to
us copying the behaviour to get the same reinforcements. The gendered behaviours can also be
learnt by operant conditioning; this is where the child will receive direct reinforcement or
punishment for their behaviour. This usually occurs in children when they are at school at engage in
gender-inappropriate activities; for example, if a boy plays dressing up, he is likely to have other
boys laugh at him which will be seen as a punishment. They will then learn not to participate in that
type of behaviour again.
www.psychbug.co.uk
This approach is reductionist as it does not take into account psychological factors such as
unconscious factors. The psychodynamic approach would argue that gender development as
identification with the same-sex parents as a result of the resolution of the Oedipus complex in boys
and Electra complex in girls.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Gender dysphoria
The incidence of gender dysphoria (Gender Identity Disorder, GID) is about 1 in 11 000 in this
country. It affects more males than females. It occurs in childhood and in most people it will
disappear by puberty. However, in the individuals in whom it persists the feelings seem to have been
the strongest in childhood. It has been diagnosed as a mental disorder since 1980. To be diagnosed
with gender dysphoria according to DSM IV the individuals have to present the following symptoms:
long-standing and strong identification with another gender, Long-standing disquiet about the sex
assigned or a sense of incongruity in the gender-assigned role of that sex, significant clinical
discomfort or impairment at work, social situations, or other important life areas. There are three
main explanations for GID: genetics, hormones and conditioning.
The genetic explanation focuses on a gene which influences the function of testosterone, it seems
that the receptors whilst not insensitive like in Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, do not process
testosterone like in other males. This leads to a lack of masculinization of the brain during gestation
and after birth so the brain develops as a female brain therefore leading to the feeling of lack of fit
between the biological gender and the gender identity experienced by the individuality. This is
supported by Hare et al. (2009) who examined gene sample of both dysphoric and non-dysphoric
individuals and found a significant correlation between gender dysphoria and variants of the
androgen receptor gene. However this study was correlational therefore it does not show cause and
effects and other factors such as social and psychological factors could be involved. Furthermore this
explanation could only accounts for GID in males not in females.
The hormonal explanation focuses not only on the hormones the individuals produces but also in the
hormones produced by the mother to which the foetus is exposed to during pregnancy. GID is
thought to be due to prenatal androgen exposure where a male foetus is not exposed to enough and
a female foetus is exposed to too much. This leads to key areas of their brain developing in line with
that of the opposite gender and thus them developing GID later on. This is supported by research:
for example research has shown that male’s hypothalamus tends to be larger than in females.
Transsexuals tend to have a smaller hypothalamus than heterosexual men. Other research also
supports this explanation as it has shown that women’s brains are more lateralised than males, this
also seem to the case of transsexuals brains. Kruijiver showed that males on average have more
somatostatin neurons than females. He also showed that transsexuals tended to have the brains
aligned to their perceived gender rather than their chromosological gender. This also supported by
Zhou et al (1995) who found that the brain structures of 6 male-female transsexuals had a female
brain structure. This suggests that gender dysphoria is caused by abnormal neural development,
potentially due to prenatal hormone exposure. However it is possible that the differences in brain
structure and functioning are a symptom of gender dysphoria rather than the cause.
The hormonal exposure during gestation is also supported by animal studies, Kula at al. (2000)
carried out a meta-analysis of animal studies on the influence of sex hormones on adult behaviour
and found that the effect seem to be consistent. However they were studies on animals so we
cannot extrapolate the results to humans as we are cognitively and physiologically different.
Some research on the sex hormones on heterosexual, homosexual and male gender dysphorics,
however, did not find any difference. This does not undermine the explanation as the influence of
the sex hormones on the brain occur mainly during gestation and during early childhood.
www.psychbug.co.uk
There has been an increase of about 6% a year in the prevalence of GID between 1995 and 2008,this
would be difficult to explain using the biological approach it could be that in fact the prevalence has
remained stable but people feel freer to seek advice and treatment as it is better accepted by
society.
A twin study by Coolidge (2002) indicates that genetic causes are involved in GID as the concordance
rate for MZ twins is higher than DZ twins. However other factors must be involved as the
concordance is less than 100%. Based on this study Coolidge estimated that hereditary factors
contribute about 62% to the disorder. Also it could be argued that twins are not representative of
the general population as they share a very confined space during gestation which could influence
their development and they are likely to be brought up very similarly which is not the case for Dz
twins and normal sibblings.
Psychological explanations of GID focus on conditioning and the lack of a same-gender role model in
the child’s life. The conditioning model is based on operant conditioning. Parents of dysphoric s
often report giving more attention to their children when they cross-dressed therefore reinforcing
the behavior and leading to a conflict between the anatomic sex and the acquired gender identity.
Another explanation based on the social learning theory is the lack of role model. This explains GID
by the fact that the child has not got a model to imitate therefore he/she imitates the role model
available even if this role model is of the opposite gender. This is supported by Rekers (1995) who
studied a sample of 70 gender dysphoric boys and did not find any biological causes but the lack of
same-gender role model was a common factor in his sample which suggests that social learning
plays a role in this condition.
However even if the social learning theory can explain non-gender typical behaviours, it cannot
explain the strength of the beliefs dysphoric individuals show about their gender and the resistance
to any form of therapy. It cannot explain why these individuals are willing to undergo very painful
treatments like sex-reassignment surgery and social stigmatization which often leads to the breakup
of families, loss of job and housing. This suggests that biological factors are involved.
Social Learning and dysphoria
The social learning theory explains that boys learn gender behaviour by watching older same sex role
models gaining vicarious reinforcements for their gender-suitable behaviour.
This is supported by Rekers (1995) who studied a sample of 70 gender dysphoric boys and did not
find any biological causes in any of them, but they all showed a lack of same-gender role models
when growing up; this suggests that social learning plays a role in the condition. This is because they
grew up with only female role models to imitate and learn gender behaviour from which therefore
shaped their behaviours and lead to them suffering from gender dysphoria.
This can therefore explain gender dysphoria in both genders because if a girl is brought up by her
dad, she may also become dysphoric too. However there is no support for this through any studies.
This could also explain why there is an increase in gender dysphoria; there has been an increase in
the number of one parent families and therefore an increase in opposite sex role models.
However, even though the social learning theory can explain non-gender typical behaviour, it cannot
explain why the individual has very strong beliefs and views on what they what, the attitude they
www.psychbug.co.uk
show about their gender and the resistance to any form of therapy. It cannot explain why some
individuals are willing to go through very painful treatments such as sex-reassignment surgery and
all of the social stigmas that are associated with people who have gender dysphoria. For example,
suffering from gender dysphoria can lead to the breakup of families, the loss of jobs and housing.
This therefore suggests there are other factors, such as biological factors that play a part in the
condition.
Gender dysphoria –Genetics
One biological explanation is that some individuals are born with a transsexual gene. The transsexual
gene means that the androgen receptors in males are not sensitive enough to the androgen, so this
therefore results in their brain no developing in a masculinised way.
One study that supports this is Hare et al (2009) who studied 112 MtF transsexuals and found a
version of androgen receptor gene that causes a reduced action of the male sex hormone
testosterone. This therefore may have an effect on gender development in the womb such as under
masculinising the brain which would create dysphoria later on. However this does not explain female
to male transsexuals as the female brain does not undergo masculinisation.
Another study that supports that gender dysphoria is due to genetics is a study by Coolidge. He
studied the parents of 314 twins (96MZ and 61DZ) who completed the Coolidge Personality and
Neuropsychological Inventory (CPNI). The results that were then collected suggested that there was
a 60% chance of heritability of Gender dysphoria. However twins are not representative of the
general population as they are gestated in small and confined space which could influence their
development and they are generally treated in a more similar way to each other by family members
than normal siblings. Also this is a correlational study so therefore does not show cause and effect
between the variables. Lastly, both of the studies are ethnocentric as they are carried out in
westernised countries and therefore cannot be generalised to other cultures as cultural factors
might influence gender development in different ways.
Hormonal Explanations of Gender Dysphoria
There are two types of hormonal exposure that can lead to the development of gender dysphoria.
Both are related to testosterone primarily, but it is the manner in which it is exposed to them which
differs. The first is testosterone exposure during gestation. The idea is that testosterone is directly
linked to possible masculinisation, in either sex. If the child is a boy, and he is exposed to too little
testosterone, this approach states that he will likely be effeminate in his growing up, possibly leading
to gender dysphoria. The same principle applies for girls, with the difference being that they are
exposed to too much testosterone, creating a masculinised female.
The second possible exposure is through the mother (and, by extension, the environment.) The
mother will also secrete testosterone during gestation, and its effects on the child will be similar to
that of the child’s own secretion. One thing that must also be noted is that other environmental
chemicals, such as DDT (a pesticide known to simulate the effects of oestrogen) may also play a part
on the child’s relative masculinity. These environmental chemicals will likely be introduced to the
child through the mother’s own metabolism.
There are a number of studies that have been carried out in this field. Kruijiver et al (2000) stated
that somatostatins, a specific type of neurone in the brain, are generally higher in number in males
www.psychbug.co.uk
than in females. Upon carrying out tests on transsexuals, it was found that their somatostatin count
corresponded to what their perceived gender was, not their actual sex. This implies some sort of
neurobiological, and thusly hormonal basis to gender dysphoria, though we must note that
somatostatins are not direct proof of gender, and are more of a correlative point.
Zhou et al (1995) gave brain scans six male-to-female transsexuals. It was found that all of them
displayed brain patterns that were attributed to females, indicating that their neural layout was that
of a female in the first place. A strong point for the hormonal approach, but we must remember that
this is a very small sample, and we could not possibly generalise it to the wider population without
further research.
Rametti et al (2011) studied female-to-male transsexuals before their hormone therapy, but after
their genital surgery. Like Zhou et al’s study, it was found that the brain scans matched to what the
individual’s perceived their gender to be.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Social influences on gender
The social influences on gender behaviour is based on the behavioural approach, it argues that
gender like any other behaviour is learnt through social learning. It suggests that children observe
what models (parents, peers, media) do and then they imitate the behaviour is they see the models
being rewarded for the behaviour being displayed (vicarious reinforcement). It further proposes
that the child will be reinforced directly for appropriate gender behaviour making it more likely that
the behaviour will be repeated or punished for gender inappropriate behaviour making it less likely
that the behaviour will be repeated so operant conditioning is also used. However cognitive factors
are also involved as the child has to be able to recognise that there are two distinct categories:
males and females and has to be able to recognize the underlying trends in the behaviour of these
two groups and store these in their memories in order to use them to guide their own behaviour.
Gender is also taught by direct tuition by parents, teachers and other older people in the child’s life,
it further informs the child about expectations and other rules. The influence of direct tuition can be
weakened if the “instructor” does not conform to the instructions given, for example a father who
tells his son to help his mother with the housework but does not help himself.
As the child gets older and more mobile he/she is more able to interact with the world and through
these enactive experiences the child obtains more information about gender. They also experience
reinforcement from a greater variety of people.
Parents are an important source of social influence. They might have strong and fixed views about
gender roles and how little boys and girls should behave and reinforce different types of behaviour
in their sons and daughters. Their influence starts as soon as the child is born. This is supported
Smith and Lloyd (1978) presented the same infant either as a girl or as a boy and observed mothers
interacting with the infant. They found that the mothers reinforced gender stereotypical behaviour
i.e. they encouraged movement in boys and tried to get them interested in a squeaky hammer
whereas they limited movement in girls and tried to get them interested in dolls. This shows that
gender stereotypical behaviour is reinforced from a very young age. However this study involved
only mothers and research identified gender differences in the way parents behave and fathers have
been found to be more inclined to reinforce gender typical behaviour than mothers. Another
difficulty with this study is the time validity. Gender roles in society have changed with women
having gained more equality with men and the expectations have changed so it maybe that gender
typical behaviour is not reinforced in the same way now and that girls are more encouraged to
explore and be active. Furthermore parents can shape gender development by providing different
experiences for the child for example allowing a boy to do football classes whereas they might offer
a girl the opportunity to do ballet classes. However this is challenged by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974)
as they found no consistent differences in the way both boys and girls were reinforced for
aggressiveness or autonomy. Furthermore SLT cannot explain the development of gender behaviour
in young boys who are brought up by a single female parent as they have no role model to imitate
and yet seem to display gender appropriate behaviour. This suggests that other factors might be
involved or that they find other models to imitate.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Peers are also socialising agents in gender development; however their influence is unlikely to be
important in early childhood when important aspects of gender development are taking place. It is
more likely that their influence is more in reinforcing of gender stereotypes rather than creating
them. This is supported by Lamb et al. (1978) who found that children prefer to play with same
gender peers and pursue gender-typed activities. In their interactions children reward each other for
gender appropriate behaviour but punish each other for gender inappropriate behaviour.
Furthermore Fagot (1985) found that boys tend to be more criticised for displaying “feminine”
behaviour than girls who display “male” behaviour.
Schools also contribute to gender development. This influence covers many aspects. Many school s
have a slightly different uniform for boys and girls thus emphasising gender differences but also
provide different opportunities for students. This particularly true for sports where very few schools
for example provide girls with opportunities to play football. Furthermore girls are encouraged to
take up classes of home economics whereas boys are encouraged to take up wood work. This is also
true of more academic subjects for example sciences text books tend to present male scientists but
omit to mention female scientists such as Marie Curie or Rosalind Franklin thus giving the impression
to women that science is a male dominated domain in which they have no place. However this
cannot be the only reason why women are put off science as this is also true of psychology and this
is a subject dominated by female students both in sixth form colleges and universities. Teachers
themselves act as models as they display gender behaviour
Another socialising agent is media. Media such as books and television portray males and females in
very different ways. They show men as in control of events, independent, pursuing risky activities
and ambitious whereas women are mostly portrayed as lacking of control over events, dependent
on others, lacking ambition and reacting emotionally to events. This is also shown in adverts where
women are seen as product users and men as product makers. This can be very subtle for example
the technical details of a car are mostly voiced by a male whereas advice on health is usually voiced
by females. The influence of television is supported by Williams (1985) who carried out a natural
experiment in Canada. He compared the population of a valley which had never been able to receive
TV signal (Notel) to a population who received one TV channel (Unitel) and a population who
received US TV channels (Multitel). He assessed the behaviour of the children in these towns for
their gender stereotypes. He found that the children in the Notel and Unitel had weaker sex-typed
views than the Multitel children. He then re-assessed the children two years later and found that the
Notel children had views significantly more sex-typed than two years before thus supporting the
view that television influences gender development. However this was a natural experiment so
there was no control over extraneous variables for example even if the Notel children had not TV
signals they might have watched DVDs therefore they might have had access to the media messages
before television was officially available. These results were supported by Pingree (1978) who found
that stereotypes were weaker when children were shown adverts in which women carried out nontraditional roles thus supporting the influence of television on gender development.
This approach does not deny the importance of the biological approach and Bandura recognised that
the starting point for social learning is to know whether you are a boy or a girl, the biological gender,
but it is reductionist because it does not take into account the influence of hormones on brain
development therefore on behaviour. Furthermore, it does not take into account psychological
factors and the psychodynamic approach would argue that gender development as identification
www.psychbug.co.uk
with the same-sex parents as a result of the resolution of the Oedipus complex in boys and Electra
complex in girls. Furthermore it does not take into account the evolutionary advantages of gender
behaviour, the evolutionary approach proposes that gender behaviour has an important role in the
survival of our species therefore it cannot explain why human gender behaviour present many
similarities with animal behaviour. But this approach has practical applications, to reduce the
stereotypical views of gender roles which often limit especially girls in their aspirations and
ambitions this approach suggests that we should expose them to messages through the media
showing alternatives i.e. more women scientist.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Cultural influences on gender
Cross-cultural studies of gender role aim at understanding the relative contribution of biological and
social factors. If the same behaviour is seen across cultures then it could be concluded that biological
factors is a stronger influence however if gender behaviour are different in various cultures then it
could be said that social factors are more important than biology.
One aspect of gender differences is the level of aggressiveness displayed by males compared to
females. Margaret Mead (1935) carried out a research in gender differences in three different tribes
in Papua New Guinea. In the first tribe, the Arapesh both genders were found to have gentle and
caring nature but in the second tribe, the Tchambuli, the men displayed what would be considered
in Western societies as female behaviour and the female exhibited what would be considered as
male behaviours. In the third tribe, the Mundugumor, both genders displayed aggressive behaviour.
She concluded from these observations that gender roles were socially constructed however she
later reviewed her findings and came to a position of cultural relativism. While both sexes exhibited
similar behaviours in the Arapesh and the Mundugumor, across the three societies males exhibited
more aggressiveness than females. This suggests that some behaviours are innate and universal but
the way and the degree to which they are expressed are shaped by the culture in which they take
place.
Another aspect of gender is the stereotypes we attribute to both genders i.e. female are nurturing
and males are dominant. Williams and Best (1990) explored gender stereotypes in 30 countries.
They gave their 2800 participants, university students in all cases a list of 300 adjectives checklist
and were asked if the adjectives were more often associated with males or females. In all the
countries males were found associated with dominance, aggression and independence whereas
women were described as nurturing, deferent and interested in affiliation. This supports that gender
stereotypes are universal. However there were a number of difficulties with this study: it was a
forced choice questionnaire so the respondent could not opt for both genders so this might have
exaggerated gender differences. Furthermore, the sample was made up of university students so
they might have been exposed to global influences from the West which makes them
unrepresentative of the rest of the population. Also the answers were not supported by
observations of the behaviours described. Another difficulty is the fact that the adjective chosen
were selected by Western psychologists and it is likely that these adjectives were based on Western
stereotypes and might not have described the reality of other cultures.
Spatial perception is said to be better developed in males than in females and it is assumed to be
biologically determined and one of the reasons why men were better at hunting than women
therefore used to justify division of labour. However cross-cultural research shows a different view.
The difference in spatial ability between men and women seems to be the largest in societies where
women stay at home than in nomadic societies where women and men travel and hunt. This
suggests that this difference is in fact the result of training rather than being biologically determined.
However it could be argued that men who did not have a very developed spatial perception died
young and therefore did not reproduce therefore the gene involved with poor spatial perception
disappeared of the gene pool in the cultures where men did all the hunting.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Conformity is one aspect of gender behaviour, women are said to conform more than men. However
cross-cultural studies found that women conform more in tightly knit, sedentary societies but in
society were women contribute more in food accumulation they tend to conform less as they are
highly valued and seen less as a mean of reproduction. This supports the influence of social factors
on gender.
One of the difficulties in interpreting the results of cross-cultural studies is the fact that gender is
affected by economic factors. In less advantaged societies people tend to die younger and both men
and women have to be flexible when left with the offspring because the partner has died. For
example in The Gambia women traditionally are the gatherers and sell their products on the market
but it is not rare to see men doing this when their partners have died. So from the observer’s point
of view it looks like the division of labour is not part of the culture where in fact what is observed is
the result of adverse conditions.
Conducting research and interpreting results from cross-cultural studies is not straightforward as the
research methods used in western societies might be alien to other cultures for example
questionnaires and the people we want to research might feel obliged to give answers in line with
what they think the researcher wants them to say rather than what really is happening thus leading
to flawed conclusions. Furthermore, when carrying out observations it is difficult to understand
what is happening if the researcher is not familiar with the culture he/she is observing, this can lead
to misinterpretations. Also there might be a researcher bias because the researcher might assume
that men are more aggressive and dominant and women more nurturing and dependent so instead
of observing and noting all behaviours he/she might be looking for evidence to support these rather
than looking at what is really happening in its entirety .
Furthermore, in Western societies we expect to see two genders: male and females and these
genders usually correspond to the biological sex but this is not the case in all societies for example
the “fafafinis” in Samoa who are men dressed as women who carry out tasks that female usually do
but in a different ways. This obviously poses problems for a researcher as the society cannot be
compared to Western societies where a third or even a fourth gender like in the Mohave Indian
society are unknown.
Despite all these drawbacks cross cultural studies provide information that cannot be obtained in
any other way.
www.psychbug.co.uk
Past exam questions
January 2010
Total for this question: 25 marks
6 (a) Outline psychological and biological explanations of gender development. (9 marks)
(b) Consider whether psychological or biological approaches provide the better explanation
of gender development. (16 marks)
June 2010
Total for this question: 25 marks
Outline the biosocial approach to gender development. (5 marks)
Outline social factors that may influence gender roles. (4 marks)
Use research evidence to assess the influence of such factors on gender roles.
(16 marks)
January 2011
Total for this question: 25 marks
Discuss Kohlberg’s theory of gender development. (9 marks + 16 marks)
June 2011
Total for this question: 25 marks
Discuss one or more explanations for psychological androgyny. (5 marks + 8 marks)
Outline and evaluate cross-cultural studies of gender role. (4 marks + 8 marks)
January 2012
Total for this question: 24 marks
Describe research into social influences on gender. (8 marks)
Assess the importance of social influences on gender. (16 marks)
www.psychbug.co.uk
Evaluating a theory
1. Evidence supporting the theory
2. Evidence against the theory
Then look at the other approaches:
It does not take into account…. Depending on the approach you are using it does not take
into account the other approaches, therefore it is reductionist but you need to explain
what it does not take into account in these approaches.
1. Cognitive approach
2. Behaviourist approach (classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning
theory)
3. Biological approach
4. Psychodynamic approach
5. Social approach (social norms, self-fulfilling prophecy….)
6. (Evolutionary approach if relevant)
Then consider GRENADES








Gender bias
Reductionism
Ethnocentrism
Nature/Nurture
Approach
Determinism
Ethics
Scientific method ( use this only once for each type of methodology i.e. if you use
two experiments evaluate the method only once)
For each point use the SELBE method:
State your argument/point
Elaborate/ explain
Link it to the question
Back it up with evidence
Evaluate your point/ evidence
www.psychbug.co.uk