gender essay psychology

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Gender in a social psychology context.

• Thekla Morgenroth Thekla Morgenroth Department of Psychology, University of Exeter
•  and  Michelle K. Ryan Michelle K. Ryan Dean of Postgraduate Research and Director of the Doctoral College, University of Exeter
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.309
• Published online: 28 March 2018

Understanding gender and gender differences is a prevalent aim in many psychological subdisciplines. Social psychology has tended to employ a binary understanding of gender and has focused on understanding key gender stereotypes and their impact. While women are seen as warm and communal, men are seen as agentic and competent. These stereotypes are shaped by, and respond to, social contexts, and are both descriptive and prescriptive in nature. The most influential theories argue that these stereotypes develop in response to societal structures, including the roles women and men occupy in society, and status differences between the sexes. Importantly, research clearly demonstrates that these stereotypes have a myriad of effects on individuals’ cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors and contribute to sexism and gender inequality in a range of domains, from the workplace to romantic relationships.

• gender stereotypes
• gender norms
• social psychology
• social role theory
• stereotype content model
• ambivalent sexism
• stereotype threat

Introduction

Gender is omnipresent—it is one of the first categories children learn, and the categorization of people into men and women 1 affects almost every aspect of our lives. Gender is a key determinant of our self-concept and our perceptions of others. It shapes our mental health, our career paths, and our most intimate relationships. It is therefore unsurprising that psychologists invest a great deal of time in understanding gender as a concept, with social psychologists being no exception. However, this has not always been the case. This article begins with “A Brief History of Gender in Psychology,” which gives an overview about gender within psychology more broadly. The remaining sections discuss how gender is examined within social psychology more specifically, with particular attention to how gender stereotypes form and how they affect our sense of self and our evaluations of others.

A Brief History of Gender in Psychology

During the early years of psychology in general, and social psychology in particular, the topic gender was largely absent from psychology, as indeed were women. Male researchers made claims about human nature based on findings that were restricted to a small portion of the population, namely, white, young, able-bodied, middle-class, heterosexual men [see Etaugh, 2016 ; a phenomenon that has been termed androcentrism (Hegarty, & Buechel, 2006 )]. If women and girls were mentioned at all, they were usually seen as inferior to men and boys (e.g., Hall, 1904 ).

This invisibility of women within psychology changed with a rise of the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. Here, more women entered psychology, demanded to be seen, and pushed back against the narrative of women as inferior. They argued that psychology’s androcentrism, and the sexist views of psychologists, had not only biased psychological theory and research, but also contributed to and reinforced gender inequality in society. For example, Weisstein ( 1968 ) argued that most claims about women made by prominent psychologists, such as Freud and Erikson, lacked an evidential grounding and were instead based on these men’s fantasies of what women were like rather than empirical data. A few years later, Maccoby and Jacklin ( 1974 ) published their seminal work, The Psychology of Sex Differences , which synthesized the literature on sex differences and concluded that there were few (but some) sex differences. This led to a growth of interest in the social origins of sex differences, with a shift away from a psychology of sex (i.e., biologically determined male vs. female) and toward a psychology of gender (i.e., socially constructed masculine vs. feminine).

Since then, the psychology of gender has become a respected and widely represented subdiscipline within psychology. In a fascinating analysis of the history of feminism and psychology, Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, and McHugh ( 2012 ) examined publications on sex differences, gender, and women from 1960 to 2009 . In those 50 years, the number of annual publications rose from close to zero to over 6,500. As a proportion of all psychology articles, one can also see a marked rise in popularity in gender articles from 1960 to 2009 , with peak years of interest in the late 1970s and 1990s. In line with the aforementioned shift from sex differences to gender differences, the largest proportion of these articles fall into the topic of “social processes and social issues,” which includes research on gender roles, masculinity, and femininity.

However, as interest in the area has grown, the ways in which gender is studied, and the political views of those studying it, have become more diverse. Eagly and colleagues note:

we believe that this research gained from feminist ideology but has escaped its boundaries. In this garden, many flowers have bloomed, including some flowers not widely admired by some feminist psychologists. (p. 225)

Here, they allude to the fact that some research has shifted away from societal explanations, which feminist psychologists have generally favored, to more complex views of gender difference. Some of these acknowledge the fact that nature and nurture are deeply intertwined, with both biological and social variables being used to understand gender and gender differences (e.g., Wood & Eagly, 2002 ). Others, such as evolutionary approaches (e.g., Baumeister, 2013 ; Buss, 2016 ) and neuroscientific approaches (see Fine, 2010 ), focus more heavily on the biological bases of gender differences, often causing chagrin among feminists. Nevertheless, much of the research in social psychology has, unsurprisingly, focused on social factors and, in particular, on gender stereotypes. Where do they come from and what are their effects?

Origins and Effects of Gender Stereotypes

A stereotype can be defined as a “widely shared and simplified evaluative image of a social group and its members” (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011 , p. 51) and has both descriptive and prescriptive aspects. In other words, gender stereotypes tell us what women and men are like, but also what they should be like (Heilman, 2001 ). Gender stereotypes are not only widely shared, but they are also stubbornly resistant to change (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016 ). Both the origin and the consequences of these stereotypes have received much attention in social psychology. So how do stereotypes form? The most widely cited theories on stereotype formation—social role theory (SRT; Eagly, 1987 ; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000 ) and the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, J., 2002 )—answer this question. Both of these models focus on gender as a binary concept (i.e., men and women), as does most psychological research on gender, although they could potentially also be applied to other gender groups. Both theories are considered in turn.

Social Role Theory: Gender Stereotypes Are Determined by Roles

SRT argues that gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of men and women into distinct roles within a given society (Eagly, 1987 ; Eagly et al., 2000 ). The authors note the stability of gender stereotypes across cultures and describe two core dimensions: agency , including traits such as independence, aggression, and assertiveness, and communion , including traits such as caring, altruism, and politeness. While men are generally seen to be high in agency and low in communion, women are generally perceived to be high in communion but low in agency.

According to SRT, these gender stereotypes stem from the fact that women and men are over- and underrepresented in different roles in society. In most societies, even those with higher levels of gender equality, men perform less domestic work compared to women, including childcare, and spend more time in paid employment. Additionally, men disproportionately occupy leadership roles in the workforce (e.g., in politics and management) and are underrepresented in caretaking roles within the workforce (e.g., in elementary education and nursing; see Eagly et al., 2000 ). Eagly and colleagues argue that this gendered division of labor leads to the formation of gender roles and associated stereotypes. More specifically, they propose that different behaviors are seen as necessary to fulfil these social roles, and different skills, abilities, and traits are seen as necessary to execute these behaviors. For example, elementary school teachers are seen to need to care for and interact with children, which is seen to require social skills, empathy, and a caring nature. In contrast, such communal attributes might be seen to be less important—or even detrimental—for a military leader.

To the extent that women and men are differentially represented and visible in certain roles—such as elementary school teachers or military leaders—the behaviors and traits necessary for these roles become part of each respective gender role. In other words, the behaviors and attributes associated with people in caretaking roles, communion, become part of the female gender role, while the behaviors and attributes associated with people in leadership roles, agency, become part of the male gender role.

Building on SRT, Wood and Eagly ( 2002 ) developed a biosocial model of the origins of sex differences which explains the stability of gendered social roles across cultures. The authors argue that, in the past, physical differences between men and women meant that they were better able to perform certain tasks, contributing to the formation of gender roles. More specifically, women had to bear children and nurse them, while men were generally taller and had more upper body strength. In turn, tasks that required upper body strength and long stretches of uninterrupted time (e.g., hunting) were more often carried out by men, while tasks that could be interrupted more easily and be carried out while pregnant or looking after children (e.g., foraging) were more often carried out by women.

Eagly and colleagues further propose that the exact tasks more easily carried out by each sex depended on social and ecological conditions as well as technological and cultural advances. For example, it was only in more advanced, complex societies that the greater size and strength of men led to a division of labor in which men were preferred for activities such as warfare, which also came with higher status and access to resources. Similarly, the development of plough technology led to shifts from hunter–gatherer societies to agricultural societies. This change was often accompanied by a new division of labor in which men owned, farmed, and inherited land while women carried out more domestic tasks. The social structures that arose from these processes in specific contexts in turn affected more proximal causes of gender differences, including gender stereotypes.

It is important to note that this theory focuses on physical differences between the genders, not psychological ones. In other words, the authors do not argue that women and men are inherently different when it comes to their minds, nor that men evolved to be more agentic while women evolved to be more communal.

Stereotype Content Model: Gender Stereotypes Are Determined by Group Relations

The SCM, formulated by Fiske and colleagues ( 2002 ), was not developed specifically for gender, but as an explanation of how stereotypes form more generally. Similar to SRT, the SCM argues that gender stereotypes arise from societal structures. More specifically, the authors suggest that status differences and cooperation versus competition determine group stereotypes—among them, gender stereotypes. This model also suggests two main dimensions to stereotypes, namely, warmth and competence. The concept of warmth is similar to that of communion, previously described, in that it refers to being kind, nice, and caring. Competence refers to attributes such as being intelligent, efficient, and skillful and is thus different from the agency dimension of SRT.

The SCM argues that the dimensions of warmth and competence originate from two fundamental dimensions—status and competition—which characterize the relationships between groups in every culture and society. The degree to which another group is perceived to be warm is determined by whether the group is in cooperation or in competition with one’s own group, which is in turn associated with perceived intentions to help or to harm one’s own group, respectively. While members of cooperating groups are stereotyped as warm, members of competing groups are stereotyped as cold. Evidence suggests that these two dimensions are indeed universal and can be found in many cultures, including collectivist cultures (Cuddy et al., 2009 ). Perceptions of competence, however, are affected by the status and power of the group, which go hand-in-hand with the group’s ability to harm one’s own group. Those groups with high status and power are stereotyped as competent, while those that lack status and power are stereotyped as incompetent.

Groups can thus fall into one of four quadrants of this model. Members of high status groups who cooperate with one’s own group are seen as unequivocally positive—as warm and competent—while those of low status who compete with one’s own group are seen as unequivocally negative—cold and incompetent. More interesting are the two groups that fall into the more ambivalent quadrants—those who are perceived as either warm but incompetent or competent but cold. Applied to gender, this model suggests—and research shows—that typical men are stereotyped as competent but cold, the envious stereotype, while typical women are stereotyped as warm but incompetent, the paternalistic stereotype.

However, these stereotypes do not apply equally to all women and men. Rather, subgroups of men and women come with their own stereotypes. Research demonstrates, for example, that the paternalistic stereotype most strongly applies to traditional women such as housewives, while less traditional women such as feminists and career women are stereotyped as high in competence and low in warmth. For men, there are similar levels of variation—the envious stereotype applies most strongly to men in traditional roles such as managers and career men, while other men are perceived as warm but incompetent (e.g., senior citizens), as cold and incompetent (e.g., punks), or as warm and competent (e.g., professors; Eckes, 2002 ). The section “Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism” discusses the consequences of these stereotypes in more detail.

The Effects of Gender Stereotypes

SRT and the SCM explain how gender stereotypes form. A large body of work in social psychology has focused on the consequences of these stereotypes. These include effects on the gendered perceptions and evaluations of others, as well as effects on the self and one’s own self-image, behavior, and goals.

Gendered Perceptions and Evaluations of Others

Our group-based stereotypes affect how we see members of these groups and how we judge those who do or do not conform to these stereotypes. Gender differs from many other group memberships in several ways (see Fiske & Stevens, 1993 ), which in turn affects consequences of these stereotypes. First, argue Fiske and Stevens, gender stereotypes tend to be more prescriptive than other stereotypes. For example, men may often be told to “man up,” to be tough and dominant, while women may be told to smile, to be nice, and to be sexy (but not too sexy). While stereotypes of other groups also have prescriptive elements, it is probably less common to hear Asians be told to be better at math or African Americans to be told to be more musical. The consequences of these gendered prescriptions are discussed in the section “Gender Stereotypes Affect the Evaluation of Women and Men.” Second, relationships between women and men are characterized by an unusual combination of power differences and close and frequent contact as well as mutual dependence for reproduction and close relationships. The section “Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism” discusses the effects of these factors.

Gender Stereotypes Affect the Evaluation of Women and Men

The evaluation of women and men is affected by both descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes. Research on these effects has predominantly focused on those who occupy counterstereotypical roles such as women in leadership or stay-at-home fathers.

Descriptive stereotypes affect the perception and evaluation of women and men in several ways. First, descriptive stereotypes create biased perceptions through expectancy confirming processes (see Fiske, 2000 ) such that individuals, particularly those holding strong stereotypes, seek out information that confirms their stereotypes. This is evident in their tendency to neglect or dismiss ambiguous information and to ask stereotype-confirming questions (Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994 ; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994 ). Moreover, people are more likely to recall stereotypical information compared to counterstereotypical information (Rojahn & Pettigrew, 1992 ) Second, descriptive gender stereotypes also bias the extent to which men and women are seen as suitable for different roles, as described in Heilman’s lack of fit model ( 1983 , 1995 ) and Eagly and Karau’s role congruity theory ( 2002 ). These approaches both suggest that the degree of fit between a person’s attributes and the attributes associated with a specific role is positively related to expectations about how successful a person will be in said role. For example, the traits associated with successful managers are generally more similar to those associated with men than those associated with women (Schein, 1973 ; see also Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011 ). Thus, all else being equal, a man will be seen as a better fit for a managerial position and in turn as more likely to be a successful manager. These biased evaluations in turn lead to biased decisions, such as in hiring and promotion (see Heilman, 2001 ).

Prescriptive gender stereotypes also affect evaluations, albeit in different ways. They prescribe how women and men should behave, and also how they should not behave. The “shoulds” generally mirror descriptive stereotypes, while the “should nots” often include behaviors associated with the opposite gender. Thus, what is seen as positive and desirable for one gender is often seen as undesirable for the other and can lead to backlash in the form of social and economic penalties (Rudman, 1998 ). For example, women who are seen as agentic are punished with social sanctions because they violate the prescriptive stereotype that women should be nice, even in the absence of information indicating that they are not nice (Rudman & Glick, 2001 ). These processes are particularly problematic in combination with the effects of descriptive stereotypes, as individuals may face a double bind—if women behave in line with gender stereotypes, they lack fit with leadership positions that require agency, but if they behave agentically, they violate gender norms and face backlash in the form of dislike and discrimination (Rudman & Glick, 2001 ). Similar effects have been found for men who violate prescriptive masculine stereotypes, for example, by being modest (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010 ) or by requesting family leave (Rudman & Mescher, 2013 ). Interestingly, however, being communal by itself does not lead to backlash for men (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010 ). In other words, while men can be perceived as highly agentic and highly communal, this is not true for women, who are perceived as lacking communion when being perceived as agentic and as lacking agency when being perceived as communal.

Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism

Stereotypes not only affect how individuals evaluate others, but also their feelings and behaviors toward them. The Behavior from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) map (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007 ), which extends the SCM, describes the relationship between perceptions of warmth and competence of certain groups, emotions directed toward these groups, and behaviors toward them. Cuddy and colleagues argue that bias is comprised of three elements: cognitions (i.e., stereotypes), affect (i.e., emotional prejudice), and behavior (i.e., discrimination), and these are closely linked. Groups perceived as warm and competent elicit admiration while groups perceived as cold and incompetent elicit contempt. Of particular interest to understanding gender are the two ambivalent combinations of warmth and competence: Those perceived as warm, but incompetent—such as typical women—elicit pity, while those perceived as competent, but cold—such as typical men—elicit envy.

Similarly, perceptions of warmth and competence are associated with behavior. Cuddy and colleagues ( 2007 ) argue that the warmth dimension affects behavioral reactions more strongly than competence because it stems from perceptions that a group will help or harm the ingroup. This leads to active facilitation (e.g., helping) when a group is perceived as warm, or active harm (e.g., harassing) when a group is perceived as cold. Competence, however, leads to passive facilitation (e.g., cooperation when it benefits oneself or one’s own group) when the group is perceived as competent, and passive harm (e.g., neglecting to help) when the group is perceived as incompetent.

How these emotional and behavioral reactions affect women and men has received much attention in the literature on ambivalent sexism and ambivalent attitudes toward men (Glick & Fiske, 1996 , 1999 , 2001 ). According to ambivalent sexism theory (AST), sexism is not a uniform, negative attitude toward women or men. Rather, it is comprised of hostile and benevolent elements, which arises from status differences between, and intimate interdependence of, the two genders. While men possess more economic, political, and social power, they depend on women as their mothers and (for heterosexual men) as romantic partners. Thus, while they are likely to be motivated to keep their power, they also need to find ways to foster positive relations with women.

Hostile sexism combines the beliefs that (a) women are inferior to men, (b) men should have more power in society, and (c) women’s sexuality poses a threat to men’s status and power. This form of sexism is mostly directed toward nontraditional women who directly threaten men’s status (e.g., feminists or career women), and women who threaten the heterosexual interdependence of men and women (e.g., lesbians)—in other words, toward women perceived to be competent but cold.

Benevolent sexism is a subtler form of sexism and refers to (a) complementary gender differentiation , the belief that (traditional) women are ultimately the better gender, (b) protective paternalism , where men need to cherish, protect, and provide for women, and (c) heterosexual intimacy , the belief that men and women complement each other such that no man is truly complete without a woman. This form of sexism is directed mainly toward traditional women.

While benevolent sexism may seem less harmful than its hostile counterpart, it ultimately provides an alternative mechanism for the persistence of gender inequality by “keeping women in their place” and discouraging them from seeking out nontraditional roles (see Glick & Fiske, 2001 ). Exposure to benevolent sexism is associated with women’s increased self-stereotyping (Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010 ), decreased cognitive performance (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007 ), and reduced willingness to take collective action (Becker & Wright, 2011 ), thus reinforcing the status quo.

With perceptions of men, Glick and Fiske ( 1999 ) argue that attitudes are equally ambivalent. Hostile attitudes toward men include (a) resentment of paternalism , stemming from perceptions of unfairness of the disproportionate amounts of power men hold, (b) compensatory gender differentiation , which refers to the application of negative stereotypes to men (e.g., arrogant, unrefined) so that women can positively distinguish themselves from them, and (c) heterosexual hostility , stemming from male sexual aggressiveness and interpersonal dominance. Benevolent attitudes toward men include maternalism , that is, the belief that men are helpless and need to be taken care of at home. Interestingly, while such attitudes portray women as competent in some ways, it still reinforces gender inequality by legitimizing women’s disproportionate amount of domestic work. Benevolent attitudes toward men also include complementary gender differentiation , the belief that men are indeed more competent, and heterosexual attraction , the belief that a woman can only be truly happy when in a romantic relationship with a man.

Cross-cultural research (Glick et al., 2000 , 2004 ) suggests that ambivalent sexism and ambivalent attitudes toward men are similar in many ways and can be found in most cultures. For both constructs, the benevolent and hostile aspects are distinct but positively related, illustrating that attitudes toward women and men are indeed ambivalent, as the mixed nature of stereotypes would suggest. Moreover, ambivalence toward women and men are correlated and national averages of both aspects of sexism and ambivalence toward men are associated with lower gender equality across nations, lending support to the idea that they reinforce the status quo.

Gender Stereotypes Affect the Self

Gender stereotypes not only affect individuals’ reactions toward others, they also play an important part in self-construal, motivation, achievement, and behavior, often without explicit endorsement of the stereotype. This section discusses how gender stereotypes affect observable gender differences and then describes the subtle and insidious effects gender stereotypes can have on performance and achievement through the inducement of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995 ).

Gender Stereotypes Affect Gender Differences

Gender stereotypes are a powerful influence on the self-concept, goals, and behaviors. Eagly and colleagues ( 2000 ) argue that girls and boys observe the roles that women and men occupy in society and accommodate accordingly, seeking out different activities and acquiring different skills. They propose two main mechanisms by which gender differences form. First, women and men adjust their behavior to confirm others’ gender-stereotypical expectations. Others communicate their gendered expectations in many, often nonverbal and subtle ways and react positively when expectations are confirmed and negatively when they are not. This subtle communication of expectations reinforces gender-stereotypical behavior as people generally try to elicit positive, and avoid negative, reactions from others. Importantly, the interacting partners need not be aware of these expectations for them to take effect.

The second process by which gender stereotypes translate into gender differences is the self-regulation of behavior based on identity processes and the internalization of stereotypes (e.g., Bem, 1981 ; Markus, 1977 ). Most people form their gender identity based on self-categorization as male or female and subsequently incorporate attributes associated with the respective category into their self-concept (Guimond, Chatard, Martinot, Crisp, & Redersdorff, 2006 ). These gendered differences in the self-concepts of women and men then translate into gender-stereotypical behaviors. The extent to which the self-concept is affected by gender stereotypes—and in turn the extent to which gendered patterns of behavior are displayed—depends on the strength and the salience of this social identity (Hogg & Turner, 1987 ; Onorato & Turner, 2004 ). For example, individuals may be more likely to display gender-stereotypical behavior when they identify more strongly with their gender (e.g., Lorenzi‐Cioldi, 1991 ) or when their gender is more likely to be salient, which is more likely to be the case for women (Cadinu & Galdi, 2012 ).

However, many different subcategories of women exist—housewives, feminists, lesbians—and thus what it means to identify as a woman, and behave like a woman, is likely to be complex and multifaceted (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002 ; van Breen, Spears, Kuppens, & de Lemus, 2017 ). Moreover, research demonstrates that the salience of gender in any given context also determined the degree to which an individual displays gender-stereotypical behavior (e.g., Ryan & David, 2003 ; Ryan, David, & Reynolds, 2004 ). For example, Ryan and colleagues demonstrate that while women and men act in line with gender stereotypes when gender and gender difference are salient, these differences in attitudes and behavior disappear when alternative identities, such as those based on being a student or being an individual, are made salient.

Gender Stereotypes Affect Performance and Achievement

The consequences of stereotypes go beyond the self-concept and behavior. Research in stereotype threat describes the detrimental effects that negative stereotypes can have on performance and achievement. Stereotype threat refers to the phenomenon whereby the awareness of the negative stereotyping of one’s group in a certain domain, and the fear of confirming such stereotypes, can have negative effects on performance, even when the stereotype is not endorsed. The phenomenon was first described by Steele and Aronson ( 1995 ) in the context of African Americans’ intellectual test performance, but has since been found to affect women’s performance and motivation in counterstereotypical domains such as math (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008 ) and leadership (Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005 ). This affect holds true even when minority group members’ prior performance and interest in the domain are the same as those of majority group members (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999 ). Moreover, the effect is particularly pronounced when the minority member’s desire to belong is strong and identity-based devaluation is likely (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002 ).

Different mechanisms for the effect of stereotype threat have been proposed. Schmader, Johns, and Forbes ( 2008 ) suggest that the inconsistency between one’s self-image as competent and the cultural stereotype about one’s group’s lack of competence leads to a physiological stress response that directly impairs working memory. For example, when made aware of the widely held stereotype that women are bad at math, a female math student is likely to experience an inconsistency. This inconsistency, the authors argue, is not only distressing in itself, but induces uncertainty: Am I actually good at math or am I bad at math as the stereotype would lead me to believe? In an effort to resolve this uncertainty, she is likely to monitor her performance more than others—and more than in a situation in which stereotype threat is absent. This monitoring leads to more conscious, less efficient processing of information—for example, when performing calculations that she would otherwise do more or less automatically—and a stronger focus on detecting potential failure, taking cognitive resources away from the actual task. Moreover, individuals under stereotype threat are more likely to experience negative thoughts and emotions such as fear of failure. In order to avoid the interference of these thoughts, they actively try to suppress them. This suppression, however, takes effort. All of these mechanisms, the authors argue, take working memory space away from the task in question, thereby impairing performance.

The aim of this article is to give an overview of gender research in social psychology, which has focused predominantly on gender stereotypes, their origins, and their consequences, and these are all connected and reinforce each other. Social psychology has produced many fascinating findings regarding gender, and this article has only just touched on these findings. While research into gender has seen a great growth in the past 50 years and has provided us with an unprecedented understanding of women and men and the differences (and similarities) between them, there is still much work to be done.

There are a number of issues that remain largely absent from mainstream social psychological research on gender. First, an interest and acknowledgment of intersectional identities has emerged, such as how gender intersects with race or sexuality. It is thus important to note that many of the theories discussed in this article cannot necessarily be applied directly across intersecting identities (e.g., to women of color or to lesbian women), and indeed the attitudes and behaviors of such women continue to be largely ignored within the field.

Second, almost all social psychological research into gender is conducted using an overly simplistic binary definition of gender in terms of women and men. Social psychological theories and explanations are, for the most part, not taking more complex or more fluid definitions of gender into account and thus are unable to explain gendered attitudes and behavior outside of the gender binary.

Finally, individual perceptions and cognitions are influenced by gendered stereotypes and expectations, and social psychologists are not immune to this influence. How we, as psychologists, ask research questions and how we interpret empirical findings are influenced by gender stereotypes (e.g., Hegarty & Buechel, 2006 ), and we must remain vigilant that we do not inadvertently seek to reinforce our own gendered expectations and reify the gender status quo.

• Barreto, M. , Ellemers, N. , Piebinga, L. , & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles , 62 , 532–544.
• Baumeister, R. F. (2013) Gender differences in motivation shape social interaction patterns, sexual relationships, social inequality, and cultural history. In M. K. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
• Becker, J. C. , & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 62–77.
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review , 88 , 354–364
• Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire . In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science . Cham, SZ: Springer.
• Cadinu, M. , & Galdi, S. (2012). Gender differences in implicit gender self‐categorization lead to stronger gender self‐stereotyping by women than by men. European Journal of Social Psychology , 42 , 546–551.
• Cuddy, A. J. C. , Fiske, S. T. , & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92 , 631–648.
• Cuddy, A. J. C. , Fiske, S. T. , Kwan, V. S. Y. , Glick, P. , Demoulin, S. , Leyens, J.-P. , . . . & Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology , 48 , 1–33.
• Dardenne, B. , Dumont, M. , & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 , 764–779.
• Davies, P. G. , Spencer, S. J. , & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 , 276–287.
• Deaux, K. , & Major, B. (1987) Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review , 94 , 369–389.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Eagly, A. H. , Eaton, A. , Rose, S. , Riger, S. , & McHugh, M. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist , 67 , 211–230.
• Eagly, A. H. , & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. Psychological Review , 109 , 573–598.
• Eagly, A. H. , Wood, W. , & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles , 47 , 99–114.
• Etaugh, C. (2016). Psychology of gender: History and development of the field. In N. Naples , R. C. Hoogland , M. Wickramasinghe , & W. C. A. Wong (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies , (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
• Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference . New York: Norton.
• Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 299–322.
• Fiske, S. T. , Cuddy, A. J. C. , Glick, P. , & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 , 878–902.
• Fiske, S. T. , & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 491–512.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 , 519–536.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist , 56 , 109–118.
• Glick, P. , Fiske, S. T. , Mladinic, A. , Saiz, J. L. , Abrams, D. , Masser, B. , . . . & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (5), 763–775.
• Glick, P. , Lameiras, M. , Fiske, S. T. , Eckes, T. , Masser, B. , Volpato, C. , . . . & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 (5), 713–728.
• Guimond, S. , Chatard, A. , Martinot, D. , Crisp, R. J. , & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90 , 221.
• Haines, E. L. , Deaux, K. , & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing . . . or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 40 (3), 1–11.
• Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education . New York: D. Appleton.
• Hegarty, P. , & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology , 10 (4), 377.
• Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 10 , 3–26.
• Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 657–674.
• Hogg, M. , & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology , 26 , 325–340.
• Leyens, J-Ph. , Yzerbyt, V. , & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes, social cognition, and social explanation . London: SAGE.
• Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1991). Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups. European Journal of Social Psychology , 21 (5), 403–417.
• Maccoby, E. E. , & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Macrae, C. N. , Milne, A. B. , & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 37–47.
• Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 , 63–78.
• Moss-Racusin, C. A. , Phelan, J. E. , & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash toward modest men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 11 , 140–151.
• Nguyen, H. D. , & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 1314–1334.
• Onorato, R. S. , & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 257–278.
• Rojahn, K. , & Pettigrew, T. F. (1992). Memory for schema-relevant information: A meta-analytic resolution. British Journal of Social Psychology , 31 , 81–109.
• Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 629–645.
• Rudman, L. A. , & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 743–762.
• Rudman, L.A. , & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues , 69 , 322–340.
• Ryan, M. K. , & David, B. (2003). Gender differences in ways of knowing: The context dependence of The Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey. Sex Roles , 49 , 693–699.
• Ryan, M. K. , David, B. , & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Who cares?: The effect of context on self-concept and moral reasoning. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 28 , 246–255.
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , Hersby, M. D. , & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis—think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager—think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 , 470–484.
• Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology , 57 , 95–100.
• Schmader, T. , Johns, M. , & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review , 115 , 336–356.
• Spencer, S. J. , Steele, C. M. , & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 35 , 4–28.
• Steele, C. M. , & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 797–811.
• Steele, C. M. , Spencer, S. J. , & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
• Van Breen, J. A. , Spears, R. , Kuppens, T. , & de Lemus, S. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1019.
• Vaughan, G. M. , & Hogg, M. A. , (2011). Introduction to Social Psychology (6th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Australia.
• Weisstein, N. (1968). “Kinder, kuche, kirche” as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female . Boston, MA: New England Free Press.
• Wood, W. , & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin , 128 , 699–727.

1. Psychology largely conceptualizes gender as binary. While this is problematic in a number of ways, which we touch upon in the Conclusion section, we largely follow these binary conventions throughout this article, as it is representative of the social psychological literature as a whole.

Related Articles

• Gender and Cultural Diversity in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
• Social Categorization
• Self and Identity

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

Character limit 500 /500

The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology

• © 2023
• Eileen L. Zurbriggen   ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9452-4081 0 ,
• Rose Capdevila   ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-6938 1

University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, USA

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

• The first handbook on theories of gender and power in feminist psychology
• Explores how individual experience of body, self, and world are constituted in social structures and symbolic systems
• Discusses current debates, including the Me Too movement, reproduction rights, and gender in the developing world

10k Accesses

1 Citations

15 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (33 chapters)

Front matter, introduction: feminist theorizing on power, gender, and psychology.

• Rose Capdevila, Eileen L. Zurbriggen

Setting the Stage

Power/history/psychology: a feminist excavation.

• Natasha Bharj, Katherine Hubbard

Beyond Identity: Intersectionality and Power

• Elizabeth R. Cole

Institutions and Settings

A feminist psychology of gender, work, and organizations.

• Lucy Thompson

“To Be Treated as a Thing”: Discussing Power Relations with Children in a Public School in Rio de Janeiro

• Amana Rocha Mattos, Gabriela de Oliveira Moura e Silva

‘You Feel Like You’re Throwing Your Life Away Just to Make It Look Clean’: Insights into Women’s Everyday Management of Hearth and Home in Wales

• Louise Folkes, Dawn Mannay

Politics, Citizenship, and Activism

Gender, power, and participation in collective action.

• Lauren E. Duncan

The Gendering of Trauma in Trafficking Interventions

• Ingrid Palmary

Surveillance and Gender-Based Power Dynamics: Psychological Considerations

• Sarah Camille Conrey, Eileen L. Zurbriggen

Toward an Intersectional Understanding of Gender, Power, and Poverty

• Heather E. Bullock, Melina R. Singh

Dismantling the Master’s House with the Mistress’ Tools? The Intersection Between Feminism and Psychology as a Site for Decolonization

• Natasha Bharj, Glenn Adams

Bodies and Identities

Men and masculinities: structures, practices, and identities.

• Jeff Hearn, Sam de Boise, Klara Goedecke

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Identities

• Joanna Semlyen, Sonja Ellis

The Power of Self-Identification: Naming the “Plus” in LGBT+

• T. Evan Smith, Megan R. Yost

Transnormativity in the Psy Disciplines: Constructing Pathology in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and Standards of Care

• Damien W. Riggs, Ruth Pearce, Carla A. Pfeffer, Sally Hines, Francis Ray White, Elisabetta Ruspini
• Feminist Psychology
• Women's Studies
• Sexuality Studies
• Women's Bodies
• Liberation Psychology
• Liberation Studies
• Critical Approaches

About this book

The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology takes an intersectional feminist approach to the exploration of psychology and gender through a lens of power. The invisibility of power in psychological research and theorizing has been critiqued by scholars from many perspectives both within and outside the discipline. This volume addresses that gap. The handbook centers power in the analysis of gender, but does so specifically in relation to psychological theory, research, and praxis.  Gathering the work of sixty authors from different geographies, career stages, psychological sub-disciplines, methodologies, and experiences, the handbook showcases creativity in approach, and diversity of perspective.  The result is a work featuring a chorus of different voices, including diverse understandings of feminisms and power. Ultimately, the handbook presents a case for the importance of intersectionality and power for any feminist psychological endeavor.

Abigail Stewart, Sandra Schwartz Tangri Distinguished University Professor of Psychology and Women's and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, USA

The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender,and Psychology brings together an impressive array of chapters showcasing the incisiveness and importance of feminist psychologies that foreground power relations in their analyses and applications. The book features key feminist writers from around the world, tackles a broad range of topics and approaches, and highlights the necessity of careful, reflexive scholarship aimed at understanding gender and psychology. It should be standard reading for psychology students, academics, and practitioners.

Catriona Macleod, Distinguished Professor of Psychology and SARChI Chair of Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Rhodes University, South Africa

Erica Burman, Professor of Education, Manchester Institute of Education, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, UK

Intersectionality is a cornerstone of contemporary feminist psychology, and power analysis is crucial to intersectionality. Yet as intersectionality has diffused into many areas of psychology, the power analysis has often been lost. This book is a healthy corrective, with its emphasis on and elaboration of the centrality of power in the psychology of gender. It is a must-read for any psychologist who aspires to apply an intersectional approach in their work.

Janet Shibley Hyde, Professor Emerit of Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Wisconsin—Madison, USA

I am delighted to endorse this luscious collection of transnational essays on power and gender in psychology. Written in the ink of intersectionality and feminism, taking seriously racial capitalism, hetero-patriarchy, local context and herstories, disability and reproductive justice, these essays crucially center questions of power and gender just at a time when right wing/fascist regimes rise across the globe endangering women, femmes and trans folx, rolling back gender justice movements.

This book erupts just when it is needed – to be taught/read/critiqued/extended in schools and community settings; in clinics and kitchens; in bedrooms and childcare settings; in butcher shops and hair salons; in libraries, welfare offices, immigration centers and in the bathrooms of religious spaces; on line and in music… wherever gender is being performed and transformed/silenced and flaunted/re-imaginedand queered through a radical intersectional lens, structurally and intimately.

Michelle Fine, Distinguished Professor of Critical Psychology and Women/Gender Studies at the Graduate Center, CUNY, USA and Visiting Professor, University of South Africa, RSA

The Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology is a much-needed intervention to acknowledge and credit feminist scholarship and analysis across multiple domains of study. Its contributors name feminist scholarship as foundational to understanding these domains and they engage its urgent analytic and applied value with rich nuance.

Bonnie Moradi, Professor of Psychology, Director, Center for Gender, Sexualities, and Women’s Studies Research, University of Florida, USA

Peter Hegarty, Professor in Psychology, The Open University, UK

A stunningly expansive collection of field-leaders and emerging voices who represent the vanguard of critical approaches to power,psychology, intersectionality, and social transformation. Both theoretically rich and deeply accessible, Zurbriggen, Capdevila, and their contributors show how feminist psychology can redefine the terms of engagement at this pressing moment in human history, social science, and global democracy. This volume will be the definitive resource for feminist political psychology for at least a generation.

Patrick R. Grzanka, Professor and Dean for Social Sciences, University of Tennessee, President (2023-2024), Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, USA

Hallelujah! A significant and timely collection that addresses the core issue of gender construction that psychology largely glosses over: Power. Who has a right to be heard? Who has standing as a citizen? How is gender constructed as a means to control access to power and autonomy? This book is a game-changer and should be in the hands of every gender researcher in the psychologicalsciences. Now!

Stephanie A. Shields, Professor Emeritx, Psychology & Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

As a scholar of objectification for 30 years, I’ve bemoaned how our individualist-centered field and broader neoliberal cultural framing of gender reduces research and intervention to the rigged game of “empowerment feminism.” Our current political climate demands that we replace this essentializing, divisive approach with one that centers power dynamics. Enter Zurbriggen and Capdevila’s outstanding volume, with feminist psychological science and theory, across a vast array of sites where gender and power intersect, to provide a truly empowering foundation for the collective action necessary to create a more equitable society. 

Tomi-Ann Roberts, Professor of Psychology, Colorado College, USA

Janice D. Yoder, Academic Affiliate Professor of Psychology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Across a wide variety of social, personal, and physical domains, gender and power are metaphors and models for each other. In The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology , a geographically and generationally wide range of authors explore these connections in a wide range of topics, fields, and disciplines both traditional and innovative – including the complicity of psychology. The book is an encyclopedic guide to concepts, theories, examples, and strategies to change how power and gender are linked, in everyday life as well as academic disciplines. References and suggestions for further exploration abound.

David G. Winter, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan, USA

Power, Gender and Psychology is not only an extraordinary achievement, but a gift to scholars and practitioners. Impressive in its sweep and range, it brings together the best of contemporary research on gender and psychology, is not afraid to ask challenging questions, and keeps power centre-stage in all its interrogations – from new technologies to mental health, to sexual harassment to work and care. An absolutely essential contribution that will be a source book for years to come.

Rosalind Gill , Professor of Cultural and Social Analysis, City University London, UK

Editors and Affiliations

Eileen L. Zurbriggen

Rose Capdevila

About the editors

Eileen L. Zurbriggen is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, USA where she is also affiliated with the Feminist Studies department. Her most recent book, co-authored with Ella Ben Hagai, is Queer Theory and Psychology: Gender, Sexuality, and Transgender Identities (2022).

Rose Capdevila is Professor of Psychology at the Open University, UK. Her current research is on gender in digital spaces and the history of UK feminist psychology. Rose is a past co-editor of Feminism & Psychology and co-authored A Feminist Companion to Research Methods in Psychology (2022) with Hannah Frith.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology

Editors : Eileen L. Zurbriggen, Rose Capdevila

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan Cham

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology , Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-031-41530-2 Published: 29 December 2023

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-031-41533-3 Due: 29 January 2024

eBook ISBN : 978-3-031-41531-9 Published: 28 December 2023

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XXV, 628

Number of Illustrations : 1 b/w illustrations, 1 illustrations in colour

Topics : Gender Studies , Counselling and Interpersonal Skills , Community and Environmental Psychology , Feminism , Women's Studies

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 1 What is the Psychology of Gender?

What are little boys made of snips and snails and puppy-dogs’ tails that’s what little boys are made of, what are little girls made of sugar and spice and everything nice  that’s what little girls are made of, the central concepts.

Sex is used to categorize people based on genetic, chromosomal, and anatomical differences as male, female, or intersex, often thought of as biologically determined .   Gender refers to the social meanings ascribed to people who belong to a particular sex .  The reality of these two terms is more complicated.  While traditionally, sex has been thought of as untainted by societal influences, and gender as socially constructed, the argument can be made that both terms are socially constructed.  As you will see in a later module, there are several biological markers for femaleness and maleness , but most cultures use only one of those markers to assign babies to a particular sex, the external genitalia.  However, nature lies.  There may be a mismatch between internal and external reproductive systems, or between chromosomes and external genitalia.  The sex and gender binaries are a social system that consists of two non-overlapping, opposing groups. Male and female, and masculine and feminine are used in most, but not all cultures, as they simplify interactions between societal members, aid in organizing division of labor, and help maintain social institutions (Bosson et al., 2019).  However, our understanding of research into sex and gender has moved beyond the constraints of a binary system.  Both variables currently include a range of categories that better fit to an individual’s own self-identification.

Gender Identity refers to a person’s psychological sense of being male, female, both, or neither . Categories of gender identity include:

• Cisgender or cis refers to individuals who identify with the gender assigned to them at birth .  Some people prefer the term non-trans.
• Transgender generally refers to individuals who identify as a gender not assigned to them at birth. A gender transition is based on one’s identity and social expressions.  Some individuals who transition do not experience a change in their gender identity since they have always identified in the way that they do .  The term is used as an adjective (i.e., “a transgender woman,” not “a transgender”), however some individuals describe themselves by using transgender as a noun. The term transgendered is not preferred because it undermines self-definition.
• Trans is an abbreviated term, and individuals appear to use it self-referentially more often than transgender (Tompkins, 2014).
• Non-binary and genderqueer refer to gender identities beyond binary identifications of man or woman .  The term genderqueer became popularized within the queer and trans communities in the 1990s and 2000s, and the term non-binary became popularized in the 2010s (Roxie, 2011).
• Agender , meaning “without gender,” can describe people who do not have a gender identity, while others identify as non-binary or gender neutral, have an undefinable identity, or feel indifferent about gender (Brooks, 2014).
• Genderfluid which highlights that people can experience shifts between gender identities .

Additional gender identity terms exist; these are just a few basic and commonly used terms.  Again, the emphasis of these terms is on viewing individuals as they view themselves and using self-designated names and pronouns.   

A Brief History of the Women’s Movement in the U.S.

Feminism , also known as the feminist or women’s movement,   encompasses many social movements that emphasize improving women’s lives and rectifying gender inequality in society (Young, 1997).  Overtime the focus has shifted as gains were made, or circumstances changed. The issues have ranged from women’s right to vote, hold property, receive equal pay and employment opportunity, reproductive rights, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual violence and exploitation.  Given the diversity of issues and voices that have been added to the movement it is described as having four waves. 

What has come to be called the “first wave” of the feminist movement in the Unites States began in the mid-19th century and lasted to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which gave women the right to vote.  White middle-class suffragists, such as Elizabeth Clay Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, focused on women’s suffrage , that is, the right to vote. Suffragists also worked on striking down coverture laws , which stated upon marriage a woman could no longer own property or enter into contract in her own name, and a woman’s right to education and employment (Kang et al., 2017).

Demanding women’s equality, the abolition of coverture, and access to employment and education were quite radical demands at the time. These demands confronted the ideology of the cult of true womanhood , summarized in four key tenets: piety, purity, submission and domesticity .  These held that  women were rightfully and naturally located in the private sphere of the household and not fit for public, political participation, or labor in the waged economy (Kang et al., 2017) . However, this emphasis on confronting the ideology of the cult of true womanhood was shaped by the white middle-class standpoint of the leaders of the movement. This leadership shaped the priorities of the movement, often excluding the concerns and participation of  working-class women and women of color. 

Second Wave

The “second wave” of feminism, from 1920-1980, focused generally on fighting patriarchal structures of power, and specifically on combating occupational sex segregation in employment and fighting for reproductive rights for women (Kang et al., 2017).  The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a major legal victory for the civil rights movement, not only prohibited employment discrimination based on race, but Title VII of the Act also prohibited sex discrimination. When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency created to enforce Title VII, largely ignored women’s complaints of employment discrimination, 15 women and one man organized to form the National Organization of Women (NOW). NOW focused its attention and organizing on the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), fighting sex discrimination in education, and defending Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court decision of 1973 that struck down state laws that prohibited abortion within the first three months of pregnancy.

White women were not the only women spearheading feminist movements. As historian Thompson (2002) argues, in the mid and late 1960s, Latinx women, African American women, and Asian American women were developing multiracial feminist organizations that would become important players within the U.S. second wave feminist movement.  However, during this era Black women writers and activists such as Alice Walker, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins developed Black feminist thought as a critique of the ways in which some second wave feminists still ignored racism and class oppression and how they uniquely impact women and men of color and working-class people.  bell hooks (1984) argued that feminism cannot just be a fight to make women equal with men, because such a fight does not acknowledge that all men are not equal in a capitalist, racist, and homophobic society. Sexism cannot be separated from racism, classism and homophobia, and that these systems of domination overlap and reinforce each other.  These critiques led to the third wave of feminism.

“Third wave” feminism came directly out of the experiences of feminists in the late 20th century who grew up in a world that supposedly did not need social movements because “equal rights” for racial minorities, sexual minorities, and women had been guaranteed by law in many countries (Kang et al., 2017).  However, the gap between law and reality, between the abstract proclamations of states and concrete lived experience, revealed the necessity of both old and new forms of activism.  Moreover, third-wave feminism criticized second wave feminism’s focus on the universality of women’s experiences.  Emerging from the criticism of Black feminists, third wave feminism emphasized the concept of intersectionality.   Intersectionality vie ws race, class, gender, sexuality, age, ability, and other aspects of identity as mutually constitutive ; that is, people experience these multiple aspects of identity simultaneously and the meanings of different aspects of identity are shaped by one another .

Fourth Wave

Currently we are in the “fourth wave”, and fourth wavers are not just the reincarnation of their second and third wave grandmothers and mothers.  There is a greater emphasis on intersectionality and the diversity of women (Ramptom, 2015).  It has borrowed from third wave feminist and understanding  that feminism is part of a larger context of oppression, along with ageism, racism, ableism, classism, and those of different sexual orientations.  But f ourth wave feminism also rejects the gender binary and focuses on transgender issues.  As Ramptom writes “feminism no longer just refers to the struggles of women; it is a clarion call for gender equity” (p.7).  Gender equality was the focus of much of the women’s movement.  Gender equality refers to not discriminating on the basis of a person’s gender when it comes to access to services, the allocation of resources, or opportunities (McRaney et al. 2021).  Gender equity refers to there being fairness and justice in the distribution of resources and responsibilities on the basis of gender  (McRaney, et al., 2021).

Fourth wavers have also capitalized on technological advances to promote their campaigns and raise public awareness to gain support (National Women’s History Museum, 2021).  Hashtags such as #YesAllWomen, #BringBackOurGirls, and #MeToo have promoted the experiences that women have with violence and harassment. Social media has also galvanized marches in various cities and in the nations capital.  Fourth wavers are now more global in their message and in their membership (National Women’s History Museum, 2021). 

Feminist Theories

Feminist theory grew out of the feminist/women’s movement that began around 1830 in the United States and Europe. Feminist theory actually consists of many different perspectives, as no single person or perspective is the main authority. Although focusing on different aspects of the female experience, all feminist theories advocate for eliminating gender inequalities and oppression. According to Else-Quest and Hyde (2018), the following are the major points of feminist theories:

• Gender is socially constructed. Feminist theories emphasize that individual cultures and societal influences create and maintain gender roles that perpetuate gender inequality, male domination, and female subjugation. Due to women’s perceived lower status, they are discriminated against in diverse ways, including academically, politically, economically, and interpersonally.
• Men exercise power and control over women . Because men have seized power, they use that power in interpersonal relationships, including rape and domestic violence, in politics by passing laws that harm women, and economically by supporting different pay scales for jobs reflecting traditional gender roles. Men’s sense of entitlement and privilege allow them to exert power without fear of consequences.
• Women’s problems are due to external factors rather than internal factors. Mental health disorders in women, and being the victims of violence, are often viewed as being due to internal/personal reasons. This includes that women are naturally more emotional, and therefore more likely to suffer from a mental health disorder, or they dressed provocatively and therefore  were responsible for being raped. Instead, feminist theories see external factors, such as sexism, discrimination, male aggression, and female inequality as the reasons for problems faced by women.
• Consciousness raising is an important aspect of all theories. Consciousness raising involves women first sharing their experiences and reflecting on them. Next, they engage in an analysis of their feelings and experiences. Lastly, they develop action plans to address any negative consequences from their experiences. This could include political or social actions, as well as making changes in interpersonal relationships.

Others have noted that feminist theory, as a collective, is a theoretical position which examines the world through the lens of gender but has a focus that is varied and wide-ranging (Evans, 2014). Thus, feminism is not afraid to engage in issues outside of gender, and understands that changes in the everyday circumstances of people’s lives, such as technology and even the outward trappings of society, does not inevitably bring with it changes in power, privilege, and authority.  Many view that it is the role of feminist theory to challenge much of our social knowledge, which has always been supported by, and maintained, the authority of men.

According to Else-Quest and Hyde (2018), Renzetti et al. (2012), and Kang et al., (2017) there are several major types of feminist theory and they include:

Liberal Feminism  holds that women and men are equal and should have the same opportunities.  Liberal feminists tend to work within the current system for change to ensure that women have full access to legal, educational and career opportunities.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) reflects liberal feminism, and this organization worked to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2018, p. 6).  The ERA was passed in the House of Representatives and Senate in 1972, and finally has been ratified by all the 38 states needed to pass it, with Illinois becoming the 37th state May 30, 2018, and Virginia becoming the 38th on January 27, 2020.  However, Congress set a 1982 deadline to ratify ERA, so the gesture by these states may be more symbolic.  Moreover, several states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee) have voted to rescind their earlier ratification.  However, states can only ratify an amendment, according to Article V of the constitution; they do not have the power to rescind a ratification (Equal Rights Amendment.org, 2018).  This means the question of ERA is still in legal limbo.

Cultural Feminism, unlike liberal feminism, believes that women have special and unique qualities that have been devalued by a patriarchal society.  The emphasis of cultural feminism is that these qualities, including nurturing, connectedness, and intuition, need to be elevated in society.

Radical Feminism opposes current political and social organizations because they are tied to patriarchy and the domination of women by men.  Radical-cultural feminism argues that feminine values, such as interdependence, are preferable to masculine values, such as autonomy and dominance, and therefore men should strive to be more feminine. In contrast, Radical-libertarian feminism focuses on how femininity limits women and instead advocates for female androgyny. Because changing the current patriarchal society will be a difficult process, some radical feminists advocate for separate societies where women can work together free from men.

Women-of-Color Feminism promotes an intersectional model of feminism that emphasizes the unique situation of women of color being in multiple marginalized groups.  The diversity of women’s experiences is considered more important than universal female experiences.

Marxist/Socialist Feminism concludes that the oppression of women is an example of class oppression based on a capitalist system.   Women’s lower wages, for example, benefit  corporate profits and the current capitalist economic system. Marxist/Socialist feminists argue that there should be no such category as “women’s work”, and they believe that women’s status will only improve with a major reform of American society.

Postmodern Feminism views sex and gender as socially determined scripts. They do not support a dualistic view of gender, heteronormativity, or biological determinism  Instead, postmodern feminists see gender and sexuality as more fluid.  Postmodern feminism is part of the fourth wave of feminism that is evident today.

Ecofeminism is concerned with environmentalism, and some of the most powerful leaders in the environmental movement have been women. Ecofeminism emerged in the 1970s and supports an earth-based spirituality movement that incorporates goddess imagery, female reproduction, healing, and a belief that all living beings are equal and should be respected. Ecofeminism also incorporates a wide range of intersectionality, including women of color, poor women, women with disabilities, and those who are trans and non-gender conforming. Historically, marginalized groups have experienced the brunt of extreme weather, unlawful working conditions, and exposure to toxins and pollution. Ecofeminism looks at these environmental issues through a social justice lens, critically analyzes their effects, and supports the needs of affected, marginalized people (Villalobos, 2017). Additionally, ecofeminism analyzes how western economic models have exploited and discriminated against those in economically underdeveloped societies

Ecofeminism also rejects a patriarchal society that is believed to harm both women and nature. The same societal structures (sexism, racism, classism) that oppress women and minorities, are also believed to be exploiting the environment. Applying ecofeminism in practice incorporates the blending of biocentricism, which endorses inherent value to all living things , and anthropocentricism , which focuses on humans being the most important entity in the universe. Ecofeminists support the needs of both nature and humans, and they encourage those with privilege t o use it for good by advocating with, and on behalf of, others.

Because the women’s liberation movement was seen as a white movement, and the black liberation movement was largely seen as a black male movement, Black feminist activists founded the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO) in 1973. The NBFO was the first explicitly Black feminist organization in the United States (Few, 2007). The NBFO resulted not only from Black women’s frustration with racism in the women’s movement, but also a desire to raise the consciousness and connections of all Black women. Black feminists focused on defining themselves and rejecting internalized oppression as a way of fighting sexism and racism. Current Black feminists look to popular culture (e.g., hip-hop) and art (e.g., performance, photography, dance) to analyze black women’s lives, activism, and the development of Black female identity.

A Brief History of Men’s Movements in the U.S.

In the early 1970s informal discussion groups of men at colleges and universities started to question how male gender role stereotypes and norms were harmful to men (Renzetti et al., 2012).  By the end of the decade, two camps had formed among Men’s Movement groups and writers.  The male-identified camp is highlighted by writers like Goldberg (1976) who wrote “ The Hazards of Being Male ”.  However, the subtitle of his book, “ Surviving the Myth of Male Privilege, ” suggests that while he recognized the toxicity of the masculine gender role for men, he did not believe that the same role was the main reason why women were suffering under the patriarchal system. To him, and other members of this camp, patriarchy is a myth (Edley, 2017). It is men who are the subordinated sex; women are more advantaged and protected.  It is women who seduce men then claim rape, women who make false claims to the courts about spousal abuse, and child abuse, to gain sole custody of their children, but it is men who are expected to pay to support the family they are no longer allowed to see (Renzetti et al., 2012).  The male-identified camp is antifeminist, and includes a number of faith based men’s groups, such as the Promise Keepers and the Nation of Islam , along with groups helping men find their inner wild man.

In contrast, the female-identified camp is explicitly pro-feminist, and examines both men’s relationships with women, and with other men.  These groups recognize that there needs to be social changes to remove the gender inequalities.  They also recognize that this domination and subordination is not just along gender lines, but also along racial, ethnic, social class, and sexual orientation.  Groups such as the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) advocate “a perspective that is pro-feminist, gay affirmative, anti-racist, dedicated to enhancing men’s lives, and committed to justice on a broad range of social issues including class, race, age, religion, and physical abilities” (NOMAS, 2017, Principles, para. 1).  The Good Men Project started as research for a book by Matlack and colleagues in 2009, The Good Men Project: Real Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Manhood (Houghton et al., 2009).  Matlack was interested in telling the stories of the defining moment in men’s lives.  Matlack said that there was a point in every man’s life when he looks in the mirror and says “I thought I knew what it meant to be a man.  I thought I new what it meant to be good.  And I realize that I don’t know either” (The Good Men Project, n.d., About us, para. 1).  The Good Men Project tackles issues relevant to men’s lives, from fatherhood, sex, ethics, aging, gender, sports, pornography, and politics.  In their view men are neither “mindless, sex-obsessed buffoons nor the stoic automatons our culture makes them out to be” (The Good Men Project, n.d. About us, para. 4).  Both groups challenge the traditional gender role for men.  While NOMAS directly confronts how that role negatively impacts the lives of men and women, the Good Men Project helps men navigate the changing social landscape of sex and gender.

Masculinity Theories

Many of the early psychological theorists and researchers in psychology, as well as their research participants were men, and typically white males of a higher socioeconomic status (Pleck, 2017).  So it may not seem surprising that psychology viewed men’s reactions and development as the human norm and basis for psychological theories.  However, given that this norm was also embedded within a particular social class, ethnic group, and sexual orientation, many men did not fit the profile for this norm.  This spawned renewed interest in studying the lives of men, as men, not as the stand-in for all humans.

Over 80 years ago, the trait of masculinity-femininity (m-f) was first introduced to psychology by Terman and Miles (1936). Many studies in the 1940s focused exclusively on how males scored on measures of this trait.  As many fathers had been absent in World War II, psychologists wanted to know how this impacted the gender role development of boys.  As women took to the factories during the war, researchers also looked at how having a mother who worked outside of the home impacted the gender role development of boys.

The progression of views regarding masculinity and femininity began as  conceptualizing the two on opposite sides of a continuum (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2018). This one-dimensional, bipolar continuum was supported by survey questions indicating that men responded “yes” to questions related to stereotypical masculine identities, while women responded “yes” to questions that were more stereotypical feminine.

Are masculinity and femininity really opposites of each other or can individuals demonstrate both characteristics? Of course, individuals can demonstrate androgyny, as they exhibit both masculine and feminine behaviors. The concept of androgyny is based on a two-dimensional model of masculinity-femininity instead of the one-dimensional model previously illustrated. With this representation, a person can have a high score on both femininity and masculinity and would fall in the upper right quadrant of this model.

According to Pleck (2017), research on male gender identity, using trait m-f measures, grew to link it to a wide range of phenomena: Male psychological adjustment, male homosexuality, male transsexuality, male delinquency and hyper-masculinity, male initiation rites in non-Western cultures, boys’ difficulties in the schools, and racial/ethnic and social class differences among males (Pleck, 2017, p. xii).

The research on trait m-f in men was embedded in what has come to be called the gender role identity paradigm, and this paradigm dominated ideas, theories, and research on development, personality, and clinical psychology during this time.   Gender role identity paradigm (GRIP) made t he assumption that successful personality development hinged upon the formation of a gender role that was consistent with the person’s biological sex (Levant & Powell, 2017).  GRIP was based on Freudian psychoanalytic theory.  The failure of men to achieve a masculine identity was believed to be the root of homosexuality, negativity toward women, or hyper-masculinity to compensate for this failure.  This view emerged from an essentialist view about sex and gender.  It assumed that “there is a clear masculine “essence” that is historically invariant, that is, that biological sex determined gender” (Levant & Powell, 2017, p. 16-17).

Gender Role Strain Paradigm (GRSP):   Pleck (1981) in his book, The Myth of Masculinity , introduced the concept of sex-role strain.  Pleck (1995) later referred to this idea as the gender role strain paradigm (GRSP).  Gender role strain refers to the pressure to live up to gender role ideals, and often results in psychological distress .  Pleck drew from feminist and constructionist ideologies and applied them to masculinity and the lives of men (Levant & Powell, 2017).  At the heart of this paradigm is the notion that traditional gender roles serve to maintain and protect patriarchal social order.  Rewards are bestowed on those who conform to sex-typed behavior, while those who challenge them are ignored or punished.  Overtime, these socially constructed gender-roles are seen as the norm, natural, and expected.

According to the GRSP (Levant & Powell, 2017):

• Gender roles are defined and constructed by the stereotypes and norms of the culture
• Gender roles are contradictory and inconsistent
• Violation of gender roles leads to social condemnation, and negative psychological consequences
• Violating gender roles have more negative consequences for men than for women
• Most people do not always act consistent with the gender roles
• Certain gender role traits are dysfunctional
• Each gender experiences gender role strain in the workplace and relationships
• Historical changes cause gender role strain

From this perspective, the traditional masculine gender role is impossible to achieve and is inherently harmful, leading men to experience gender role strain.  This strain may lead men to experience pressure to conform to the male gender role, and in an effort to avoid social rejection and to gain the social reward of being considered a “man”, over time men will adopt a more rigid gender role (Isacco & Wade, 2017).  

Pleck identified three sources of gender role strain: Discrepancy strain, dysfunction strain, and trauma strain.

Discrepancy strain occurs when a person fails to live up to the social standards for the gender role .  As gender role norms are sometimes contradictory and inconsistent, men will invariably violate the norms.  Pleck proposed that this discrepancy would lead to lower-self-esteem and other negative psychological issues when men fail to live up to the standards of the masculine gender role.

Dysfunction strain sugg ests that some of the gender role norms are inherently psychologically and physically harmful (Levant & Powel, 2017). Consider the main components of the traditional masculine gender role.

• Men should not be feminine
• Men should not show weakness
• Men should always strive for respect and success
• Men should always seek adventure, and never shy away from risk

Within each of these components are traits that can have negative side-effects on both men and those around them.  This “dark side of masculinity” (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995) involves various types of violence, relationship failures, and socially irresponsible actions.   Men who fail to achieve the ideals of manhood frequently have their status as a “real” man questioned.  This is the precarious manhood hypothesis , a tenuous social status that is difficult to attain, but easy to lose (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).  Men’s status as men requires validation, as a result men are constantly being asked to prove their manhood.  This is something that women rarely encounter.  Moreover, men who lose certain social achievements, such as employment, are more likely to expect that others will see them as less of a man.

Trauma strain refers to the notion that the socialization of males to achieve the traditional masculine gender-role is traumatic (Levant & Powel, 2017). In some societies males may have to go through some rite of passage to achieve manhood. This may involve taking them away from their mothers at a young age, or facing danger or withstanding pain to prove they are a man.  Even in societies that do not have a specific rite of passage, males are expected to shield their emotions, to not flinch in the face of danger, and to never show weakness.

Pleck (1995) later created the notion of masculine ideology.  Masculine ideology is defined as “ the individual’s endorsement and internalization of cultural belief systems about masculinity and the male gender ” (p. 19).  Masculinity, like femininity, is tied to the cultural and historical context.  Thus, there may be many masculinities.  However, in many cultures there is often a dominant set of expectations that serve as the foundation of cultural beliefs about what it means to be a man .  This has often been referred to as hegemonic masculinity or traditional masculinity ideology (Rowbottom et al., 2012). Pleck’s concept of masculine ideology led others to consider how the extent to which men hold such beliefs affects their self-worth and is dependent on the reference group men are using.

Masculinity Contingency:  This concept refers to the extent to which a man’s sense of self-worth is related to his sense of masculinity (Isacco & Wade, 2017).  This concept hypothesizes that a man who is high in masculinity contingency would experience more fluctuations to self-worth because it would be contingent on his masculinity being validated by others.  Masculinity contingency involves both contingency threat , which refers to the extent to which a lack of masculinity threatens a man’s self-worth , and contingency boost , where confirmati on of masculinity elevates a man’s self-worth .

Male Reference Group Identity Dependence: T his theory was proposed by Wade (1998) and is based on Erikson’s ego identity theory and Sherif’s reference group theory (Isacco & Wade, 2017).   Ego identity is the self-image that we form in adolescence and young adulthood that is the integration of our ideas about who we are and who we want to be (Schultz & Schultz, 1994).  A reference group is the group we use for comparison .  It provides us with the norms, expectations, beliefs, and customs.  The “ extent to which a male is dependent on a male reference group for his gender role self-concept ” defines male reference group identity dependence (Isacco & Wade, 2017, p.144).

According to this theory there are three levels of psychological relatedness: psychological relatedness to all males, to just some males, or no sense of connection to other males (Isacco & Wade, 2017).  The theory hypothesizes that when males feel relatedness to just some groups of men their gender role self-concept is likely to conform to that group’s norms, and such men will hold more rigid views about what is appropriate, expected, or desired behavior in men.  When the connection is to all males, since there is no single reference group, the gender self-concept is likely to be more self-defined, and such men’s gender-related attitudes will be more flexible and autonomous.  If there is no male reference group there may be confusion with regard to gender-related norms and attitudes, and the male may experience feelings of alienation and insecurity.

Gay Rights and Transgender Movements

Although there had been organizations that advocated for the acceptance of same sex relationships since the late 19th century, the uprising at the Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969 was an important turning point (Morris, 2016). Fed up with ongoing police raids, patrons of the bar fought back and galvanized the gay liberation movement. The 1970s saw the creation of political organizations focused on gay rights. Lesbian movements also emerged as many females felt excluded from the leadership of most gay liberation groups.  Another important turning point was in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. No longer would the LGBTQ community be at risk for a psychiatric diagnosis, job dismissal, or loss of a child custody case.

New legal gains for gay and lesbian couples in America occurred in 2000 when same-sex civil unions were recognized in Vermont. By 2004, same-sex marriages took place in Massachusetts and on June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage. The 21st century has also seen the emergence of  greater transgender visibility and support for transgender equal rights, as well as the increased use of non-binary terms (Morris, 2016). On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gay, lesbian, and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. A majority of the court justices determined that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination based on sex, included discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (Sherman, 2020).

Despite these gains and visibility, there is still a perception held by many that a transwoman is not really a woman. For example, author J. K. Rowling was criticized for emphasizing the definition of a woman based on menstruation. In fact, some feminists do not include transwomen as women and align with g ender-critical feminism , which advocates reserving women’s spaces for ciswomen (Zanghellini, 2020). Reasons given for the exclusion of transwomen as women, is that transwomen were socialized as cismales and not as women. Therefore, transwomen lack the distinctive experience of sex-based subordination faced by ciswomen. Additionally, gender-critical feminism asserts that transwomen would undermine the safety of ciswomen by accessing women-only spaces (e.g., bathrooms and changing rooms), and thus women’s bodies. Consequently, ciswomen would be vulnerable to enduring predatory male behavior. Further discussions of individuals in the LGBTQ community occur in later modules.

Main Themes of Gender Studies

There are a few themes that run throughout the text.  The first theme, essentialism versus constructivism , centers on how we perceive the true nature of gender.  This central belief strongly impacts how we interpret and react to the concept of gender, gender issues, and the people who occupy various gender categories. The second theme focuses on the dynamics of power in a society and how certain forms of power often reside with one gender more than the other.  One dynamic of power is demonstrated through sexism . This shapes the experiences, opportunities, and developmental course for people.  The final theme is intersectionality .  Gender is but one of a myriad of other social categories (e.g., age, race, ability, wealth) that influence people’s lives.  These themes underlie many of the topics and issues discussed in the rest of the text.

Essentialism vs. Constructivism: 

Identities are the categories we use to define both ourselves and other people .  In many societies the boundaries between different categories of people seem clear and straightforward.  Someone is a male, Hispanic, heterosexual, and Catholic.  This “black and white” way of thinking about the world is at the heart of essentialism.  In essentialism the characteristics that are a part of a category are assumed to be universal, inherent, and unambiguous (Newman, 2017).  These characteristics are viewed as part of the individual, not embedded within a social context.  The categories in which we place ourselves and others are also assumed to be immutable.  For example, the essentialist view assumes that people cannot change their sexual orientation.  If someone later in life enters into a same-sex relationship, from the essentialist view, this person has always been homosexual.  Sex, gender, and sexual orientation are viewed as unchanging characteristics of the individual.

This essentialist view can have important consequences.  If one believes that an inherent characteristic of a man is to be dominant and assertive, then should they not, by the very virtue of being men, hold the positions of power?  If it is an essential quality of women to nurture, should they not be given the role of caregiver? From this perspective it is only “natural” that women take care of others and that men lead.  This can lead to, and be used to, justify social inequalities between groups in a society.

In contrast, constructivism , also called social constructivism, argues that society creates what we believe to be true (Newman, 2017).  Thus, what we believe to be reality is always a creation of our culture and time period.  Geocentricity, the belief that the sun and other planets revolved round the earth, was a commonly held view until it was eventually displaced by the work of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.   Just like our knowledge of the universe has changed over time, so too has our understanding of sex and gender.  The constructivist view recognizes that such identifiers depend on the context.  The meaning of such categories are different between cultures and can change over time.  For instance, the original definition of heterosexual was someone who preferred both sexes (Katz, 2003).  This means these categories are historically or culturally specific and, contrary to the essentialist view, are often fluid rather than fixed.  This book will take the constructionist view about sex and gender, and you will see that “gendered behavior results from a complex interplay of genes, gonadal hormones, socialization, and cognitive development related to gender identification” (Hines, 2011, p. 70).

Dynamics of Power:

Human societies throughout the ages have typically been based on hierarchies with dominant groups holding power over subordinate groups. Power can come in many forms in a society.  Structural power determines who makes the decisions and laws that govern the society and can also determine who holds, and metes out, resources . Structural power controls society at large and this is typically in the hands of men. Dyadic power refers to the power to initiate intimate relationships and control the decisions in those relationships . Dyadic power controls more the family and home.  In many, but not all cultures and families, women control more of the dyadic power (Wingood & DiClemente, 2000).

Patriarchy is the term used to describe societies that place power and resources in the hands of males .  Most patriarchal societies are also patrilineal , meaning that lineage and wealth in a family is passed down from fathers .  Patrilocal describes cultures where women leave their families to live with or near their husband’s family . Matriarchy is the term used to describe societies that place structural power and resources in the hands of females .  There is little evidence that true matriarchal societies occurred in human history (Bosson et al., 2019).  However, there is evidence of matrilineal societies, even today, where the lineage and wealth is passed down from mothers, and matrilocal cultures where men move to live with or near their wife’s family .

Sexism can exist on a societal level, such as in hiring, employment opportunities, and education. In the United States, women are less likely to be hired or promoted in male-dominated professions, such as engineering, aviation, and construction (Funk & Parker, 2018). In many areas of the world, young girls are not given the same access to nutrition, healthcare, and education as boys. Sexism also includes people’s expectations of how members of a gender group should behave. For example, women are expected to be friendly, passive, and nurturing; when a woman behaves in an unfriendly or assertive manner, she may be disliked or perceived as aggressive because she has violated a gender role (Rudman, 1998). In contrast, a man behaving in a similarly unfriendly or assertive way might be perceived as strong or even gain respect in some circumstances.

Glick and Fiske (1997) proposed the theory of ambivalent sexism , which explains how sexism can simultaneously take the form of both hostility and benevolence . Ambivalent sexism includes both benevolent sexism , that is, positive attitudes toward an individual in a gender group often when they engage in traditional roles and hostile sexism ; that is, negative attitudes toward an individual in a gender group often when they engage in non-traditional roles.    For example, King (2015) investigated how store employees view pregnant women when applying for a job and when asking for help. In field experiments, women wearing a pregnancy prosthesis encountered more subtle forms of discrimination, including rudeness, hostility, and decreased eye contact, when applying for a retail job than when they did not appear pregnant. Conversely, when the same women asked for help finding a gift, she received more positive reactions and greater assistance when appearing to be pregnant. Ambivalent sexism explains these results by focusing on how the women demonstrated traditional gender roles. The women were “punished” when asking for a job (hostile sexism) and “rewarded” when asking for assistance (benevolent sexism).  Both types of sexism support patriarchy and maintain traditional gender roles for both women and men.

Intersectionality:

In 1976, five Black women from Missouri filed a law suit alleging that General Motors discriminated against Black women.  In DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, these women argued they were excluded from employment due to compound discrimination. They contended that only white women were hired for office and secretarial jobs. The courts weighed the allegations of race and gender discrimination separately and found that the employment of Black male factory workers disproved racial discrimination, and the employment of White female office workers disproved gender discrimination. The court declined to consider compound discrimination and dismissed the case. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw often refers to this case as an inspiration for developing intersectional theory , or the study of how overlapping or intersecting social identities relate to oppression, domination or discrimination .

According to Crenshaw (1991), the concept of intersectionality, arising from intersectional theory, identifies a mode of analysis integral to gender and sexuality studies.  Notions of gender, and the way a person’s gender is interpreted by others, are always impacted by the way that person’s race is interpreted. For example, a person is never received as just a woman, but how that person is racialized impacts how the person is received as a woman. So, notions of blackness, brownness, and whiteness always influence gendered experience, and there is no experience of gender that is outside of an experience of race. In addition to race, gendered experience is also shaped by age, sexuality, class, and ability; likewise, the experience of race is impacted by gender, age, class, sexuality, and ability (Kang et al., 2017). 

Older, minority women can face ageism, racism, and sexism, often referred to as triple jeopardy (Hinze, et al., 2012), which can adversely affect their life in late adulthood.  Older adults who are African American, Mexi can American, and Asian American experience psychological problems that are often associated with discrimination by the White majority (Youdin, 2016).

When socioeconomic status is added into the mix, the experiences of older men and women can greatly differ.  According to Quinn and Cahill (2016), the poverty rate for older adults varies based on gender, marital status, race, and age. Women aged 65 or older were 70% more likely to be poor than men, and older women aged 80 and above have higher levels of poverty than those younger. Married couples are less likely to be poor than nonmarried men and women, and poverty is more prevalent among older racial minorities.  In 2017 the poverty rates for White older men (5.8%) and White older women (8.0%) were lower than for Black older men (16.1%), Black older women (21.5%), Hispanic older men (14.8%), and Hispanic older women (19.8%) (Li & Dalaker, 2019).

Understanding intersectionality requires a particular way of thinking. It is different than how many people imagine identities operate. An intersectional analysis of identity is distinct from single-determinant identity models and additive models of identity. A single determinant model of identity pre sumes that one aspect of identity, say, gender, dictates one’s access to or disenfranchisement from power . An example of this idea is the concept of “global sisterhood or brotherhood,” or the idea that all women or all men across the globe share some basic common political interests, concerns, and needs (Morgan 1996).  Unfortunately, if the analysis of social problems stops at gender, what is missed is an attention to how various cultural contexts shaped by race, religion, and access to resources may actually place some men’s and women’s needs at cross-purposes to other men’s and women’s needs. Therefore, this approach obscures the fact that men and women in different social and geographic locations face different problems. Although many white, middle-class women activists of the mid-20th century US fought for freedom to work and legal parity with men, this was not the major problem for women of color or working-class white women who had already been actively participating in the US labor market as domestic workers, factory workers, and enslaved laborers since early US colonial settlement. Campaigns for women’s equal legal rights and access to the labor market at the international level are shaped by the experience and concerns of white American women, while women of the global south (a term used to replace third world nations), in particular, may have more pressing concerns: access to clean water, access to adequate health care, and safety from the physical and psychological harms of living in tyrannical, war-torn, or economically impoverished nations.

In contrast to the single-determinant identity model, the additive model of identity simply adds together privileged and disadvantaged identities for a slightly more complex picture . For instance, a Black man may experience some advantages based on his gender, but has less  access to power based on his race.  The additive model does not take into account how our shared cultural ideas of gender are racialized and our ideas of race are gendered and that these ideas influence access to resources and power, such as material, political, and interpersonal.  We cannot simply pull these identities apart because they are interconnected and mutually enforcing.  In summary, an intersectional perspective examines how identities are related to each other in our own experiences and how the social structures of race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and ability intersect for everyone. As opposed to single-determinant and additive models of identity, an intersectional approach develops a more sophisticated understanding of the world and how individuals in differently situated social groups experience differential access to both material and symbolic resources.

The following chapters will discuss the contemporary theories and research on gender.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER (2 Ed.) Copyright © 2023 by Suzanne Valentine-French & Martha Lally is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.1: Module 1- Foundations of A Psychology of Gender

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 150105

• Alexis Bridley and Lee W. Daffin Jr.
• Washington State University

Module 1: Foundations of A Psychology of Gender

Module Overview

In our first module, we will lay the foundation for the rest of the book by contrasting gender with the concepts of sex and sexual orientation and differentiate health and wellness. We will discuss dimensions of gender and why gender congruence is important, and then move to a listing of terms important to the study of gender. With this done, we will briefly overview movements specific to women (i.e. feminism) and men and then outline some of the professional societies and journals committed to studying gender issues.

Module Outline

• 1.1.Defining Terms
• 1.2.Movements Linked to Gender
• 1.3.Connecting with Other Psychologists of Gender

Module Learning Outcomes

• Contrast gender with sex and sexual orientation and describe the key components of gender.
• Describe movements geared to women and men.
• Identify professional societies and journals committed to the study of gender issues.

1.1. Defining Terms

Section Learning Objectives

• Define psychology.
• Contrast health and wellness.
• Differentiate sex and gender.
• List the dimensions of gender.
• Clarify the importance of gender congruence.
• Differentiate gender and sexual orientation.
• Define key terms in relation to the language of gender.

1.1.1. What is Psychology?

Welcome to your course on the psychology of gender which this book supports. Of course, you may be expecting a definition of gender in this module and we will definitely provide one. But since some students taking this class are not psychology majors or minors, and most of you had your introductory class some time ago, we want to ensure you have a solid foundation to build on. So to get us started we need to understand what psychology is.

Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. Yes, that is correct. Psychology is scientific . Psychology utilizes the same scientific process and methods practiced by disciplines such as biology and chemistry. We will discuss this in more detail in Module 2 so please just keep this in the back of your mind for now. Second, it is the study of behavior and mental processes. Psychology desires to not only understand why people engage in the behavior that they do, but also how. What is going on in the brain to control the movement of our arms and legs when running downfield to catch the game winning touchdown, what affects the words we choose to say when madly in love, how do we interpret an event as benign or a threat when a loud sound is heard, and what makes an individual view another group in less than favorable terms? Such prejudicial or discriminatory behavior could be directed at a person due to their gender or sexual orientation. These are just a few of the questions that we ask as psychologists and our focus in this book is on the psychology of gender.

1.1.2. What is Health and Wellness?

As we discuss the psychology of gender, we will cover numerous topics that affect a person’s health and wellness. So, it seems logical that we should explain what these terms mean. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines wellness as “being in good physical and mental health.” They add, “Remember that wellness is not the absence of illness or stress. You can still strive for wellness even if you are experiencing these challenges in your life.” Most people see wellness as just focused on the physical or mental. These are part of the picture, but definitely not the whole picture.

SAMHSA proposes eight dimensions of wellness as follows (this information is directly from their website):

• Physical – Recognizing the need for physical activity, healthy foods, and sleep.
• Emotional – Coping effectively with life and creating satisfying relationships.
• Environmental —Good health by occupying pleasant, stimulating environments that support well-being
• Financial —Satisfaction with current and future financial situations
• Intellectual —Recognizing creative abilities and finding ways to expand knowledge and skills
• Occupational —Personal satisfaction and enrichment from one’s work
• Social — Developing a sense of connection, belonging, and a well-developed support system
• Spiritual — Expanding a sense of purpose and meaning in life

As we tackle the content of the remaining modules consider the various dimensions of wellness that are affected by topics related to gender such as stereotypes, identity formation, aggression, relationships, health, sexuality, development, mental disorders, and physiology. As you will see, all eight are involved at different times.

Source: https://www.samhsa.gov/wellness-initiative/eight-dimensions-wellness

1.1.3. What is a Psychology of Gender?

Alright. Now to the business at hand – defining what gender is. Before we can do that we have to understand what the term sex means. But why? Aren’t they the same thing. Though typically considered synonyms by many, sex and gender have distinct meanings that become important when collecting data and engaging in research. First, sex refers to the biological aspects of a person due to their anatomy. This includes the individual’s hormones, chromosomes, body parts such as the sexual organs, and how they all interact. When we say sex, we are generally describing whether the person is male or female and this is assigned at birth.

In contrast, gender is socially constructed (presumed after a sex is assigned) and leads to labels such as masculinity or femininity and their related behaviors. People may declare themselves to be a man or woman, as having no gender, or falling on a continuum somewhere between man and woman. How so? According to genderspectrum.org, gender results from the complex interrelationship of three dimensions – body, identity, and social.

First, body , concerns our physical body, how we experience it, how society genders bodies, and the way in which others interact with us based on our body. The website states, “Bodies themselves are also gendered in the context of cultural expectations. Masculinity and femininity are equated with certain physical attributes, labeling us as more or less a man/woman based on the degree to which those attributes are present. This gendering of our bodies affects how we feel about ourselves and how others perceive and interact with us.”

Next is gender identity or our internal perception and expression of who we are as a person. It includes naming our gender, though this gender category may not match the sex we are assigned at birth. Gender identities can take on several forms from the traditional binary man-woman, to non-binary such as genderqueer or genderfluid, and ungendered or agender (i.e. genderless). Though gaining an understanding of what gender we are occurs by age four, naming it is complex and can evolve over time. As genderspectrum.org says, “Because we are provided with limited language for gender, it may take a person quite some time to discover, or create, the language that best communicates their internal experience. Likewise, as language evolves, a person’s name for their gender may also evolve. This does not mean their gender has changed, but rather that the words for it are shifting.”

Finally, we have a social gender or the manner in which we present our gender in the world, but also how other people, society, and culture affect our concept of gender. In terms of the former, we communicate our gender through our clothes, hairstyles, and behavior called gender expression . In terms of the latter, children are socialized as to what gender means from the day they are born and through toys, colors, and clothes. Who does this socialization? Anyone outside the child can to include parents, grandparents, siblings, teachers, the media, religious figures, friends, and the community. Generally, the binary male-female view of gender is communicated for which there are specific gender expectations and roles. According to genderspectrum.org, “Kids who don’t express themselves along binary gender lines are often rendered invisible or steered into a more binary gender presentation. Pressures to conform at home, mistreatment by peers in school, and condemnation by the broader society are just some of the struggles facing a child whose expression does not fall in line with the binary gender system.” The good news is that gender norms do change over time such as our culture’s acceptance of men wearing earrings and women getting tattoos.

1.1.4. Gender Congruence

When we feel a sense of harmony in our gender, we are said to have gender congruence . It takes the form of naming our gender such that it matches our internal sense of who we are, expressing ourselves through our clothing and activities, and being seen consistently by other people as we see ourselves. Congruence does not happen overnight but occurs throughout life as we explore, grow, and gain insight into ourselves. It is a simple process for some and complex for others, though all of us have a fundamental need to obtain gender congruence.

When a person moves from the traditional binary view of gender to transgender, agender, or non-binary, they are said to “ transition ” and find congruence in their gender. Genderspectrum.org adds, “What people see as a “Transition” is actually an alignment in one or more dimensions of the individual’s gender as they seek congruence across those dimensions. A transition is taking place, but it is often other people (parents and other family members, support professionals, employers, etc.) who are transitioning in how they see the individual’s gender, and not the person themselves. For the person, these changes are often less of a transition and more of an evolution.” Harmony is sought in various ways to include:

• Social – Changing one’s clothes, hairstyle, and name and/or pronouns
• Hormonal – Using hormone blockers or hormone therapy to bring about physical, mental, and/or emotional alignment
• Surgical – When gender-related physical traits are added, removed, or modified
• Legal – Changing one’s birth certificate or driver’s license

The website states that the transition experience is often a significant event in the person’s life. “A public declaration of some kind where an individual communicates to others that aspects of themselves are different than others have assumed, and that they are now living consistently with who they know themselves to be, can be an empowering and liberating experience (and moving to those who get to share that moment with them).”

1.1.5. Gender and Sexual Orientation

As gender was shown to be different from sex, so too we must distinguish it from sexual orientation which concerns who we are physically, emotionally, and/or romantically attracted to. Hence, sexual orientation is interpersonal while gender is personal. We would be mistaken to state that a boy who plays princess is gay or that a girl who wears boy’s clothing and has short hair is necessarily lesbian. The root of such errors comes from our confusing gender and sexual orientation. The way someone dresses or acts concerns gender expression and we cannot know what their sexual orientation is from these behaviors.

1.1.6. The Language of Gender

Before we move on in this module and into the rest of the book, it is critical to have a working knowledge of terms related to the study of gender. Consider the following:

• Agender – When someone does not identify with a gender
• Cisgender – When a person’s gender identity matches their assigned sex at birth
• FtM – When a person is assigned a female sex at birth but whose gender identity is boy/man
• Gender dysphoria – When a person is unhappy or dissatisfied with their gender and can occur in relation to any dimension of gender. The person may experience mild discomfort to unbearable distress.
• Genderfluid – When a person’s gender changes over time; they view gender as dynamic and changing
• Gender role – All the activities, functions, and behaviors that are expected of males and females by society
• Genderqueer – Anyone who does not identify with conventional gender identities, roles, expectations, or expression.
• MtF – When a person is assigned a male sex at birth but whose gender identity is girl/woman
• Non – binary – When a gender identity is not exclusively masculine or feminine
• Transgender – When a person’s gender identity differs from their assigned sex

To learn more about gender, we encourage you to explore the https://www.genderspectrum.org/ website.

The World Health Organization also identifies two more key concepts in relation to gender. Gender equality is “the absence of discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex in opportunities, the allocation of resources and benefits, or access to services” while gender equity refers to “the fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities between women and men.” We will tackle these two issues throughout the book in numerous places.

Source: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/gender/gender-definitions

Additional Resources:

• CBS News Report on the Gender Identity Terms You Need to Know – https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-gender-identity-terms-glossary/
• Psychology Today article on the differences between sex and gender – https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201110/sex-difference-vs-gender-difference-oh-im-so-confused
• Getting ahead a bit, but here is an article from Psychology Today on sex differences and whether they are real – https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201711/the-truth-about-sex-differences

1.2. Movements Linked to Gender

• Define feminism.
• Outline the three waves of feminism.
• List and describe the types of feminism.
• Describe and exemplify types of movements related to men.

1.2.1. Feminism

Simply, feminism states that men and women should be equal socially, economically, and politically. According to Ropers-Huilman (2002) feminist theory is grounded in three main principles. First, is the assertion that women having something of value to contribute to every aspect of the world. Second, due to oppression, women have not been able to achieve their full potential or gain full participation in society. Third, feminist research should go beyond just critiquing and include social transformation.

Feminism has developed over three waves. The first, occurring during the late 19th to early 20th centuries, was linked to the women’s suffragist movement and obtaining the right to vote for women, as well as abolitionism. Key figures included Elizabeth Cady Stanton who convened the Seneca Falls Convention in July 1848 at which it was proposed in the “Declaration of Sentiments” that women be given the right to vote, Susan B. Anthony who started the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) with Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Matilda Joslyn Gage. The second wave spanned the 1960s to the 1990s and unfolded during the antiwar and civil rights movements and drew in women of color as well as women from developing nations. During this time, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and the National Organization for the Women was started. On January 22, 1973 the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal with the Supreme Court asserting that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy which was protected in the 14th amendment. Finally, the third wave began in the 1990s and continues until today. Feminists in this wave are proud to wear tattoos, lipstick, and high heels, and display cleavage.

Feminism also takes several forms. First, liberal feminism was rooted in the first wave and seeks to level the playing field so that women can pursue the same opportunities that men can. It also attempts to dispel the belief that women are by nature not as intelligent or physically capable as men. Second, radical feminism states that its liberal counterpart is not drastic enough to address centuries of oppression on the individual, institutional, and systemic levels. It seeks to have society place higher value on feminine qualities which they believe would lessen gender oppression.

Third, multicultural feminism suggests that women in a country such as the United States have different interconnected identities. Fourth, eco feminism links the destruction of the planet with the exploitation of women worldwide by the patriarchy. It investigates racism, socioeconomic privilege, and speciesism. Fifth, cultural feminism states that fundamental differences exist between men and women and those special qualities of women should be celebrated.

1.2.2. Men’s Movements

Interestingly, movements geared to men take on three forms according to Fox (2004). First, the mythopoetic men’s movement focuses inward and on interpersonal issues related to their own manhood. They believe that modern society has feminized men and use self-help approaches to bring men back into manhood. They are characterized by such groups as the ManKind Project and Promise Keepers. In terms of the former, their website states: “The ManKind Project empowers men to missions of service, supporting men to make a difference in the lives of others – men, women, and children around the world. We help men through any transition, men at all levels of success, men facing almost any challenge. Our flagship training, is described by many as the most powerful men’s training available: New Warrior Training Adventure. The ManKind Project (MKP) is not affiliated with any religious practice or political party. We strive to be increasingly inclusive and affirming of cultural differences, especially with respect to color, class, sexual orientation, faith, age, ability, ethnicity, and nationality.” The New Warrior Training Adventure is described as a “modern male initiation and self-examination” that has men stop living vicariously through movies, television, an addiction and to step into their own adventure. For more on the ManKind Project, please visit: https://mankindproject.org/ .

In terms of the Promise Keepers, their website states that masculinity is in crisis and the soul of men is at stake due to society turning up its nose to biblical definitions of manhood. They write, “Men are seeking authentic relationships and real connections. They long to be men of influence within the workplace, among their friends, and within their own households. But these connections, these relationships, these identities are difficult to establish and maintain successfully.” They cite 7 promises – honor, brotherhood, virtue, commitment, changemaking, unity, and obedience. For more on the Promise Keepers, please visit: https://promisekeepers.org/ .

Second, some men’s movements are pro-feminist such as the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS). In their Statement of Principles, they write, “NOMAS advocates a perspective that is pro-feminist, gay affirmative, anti-racist, dedicated to enhancing men’s lives, and committed to justice on a broad range of social issues including class, age, religion, and physical abilities… We believe that the new opportunities becoming available to women and men will be beneficial to both. Men can live as happier and more fulfilled human beings by challenging the old-fashioned rules of masculinity that embody the assumption of male superiority. Traditional masculinity includes many positive characteristics in which we take pride and find strength, but it also contains qualities that have limited and harmed us.” They call on men to spend more time with their children, have intimacy and trust with other men, display emotional expressiveness, build their identity around more than just a career, rethink a man’s obsession with winning, unlearn aggressiveness, and to not fear femininity. For more on the group, please visit: http://nomas.org/ .

And not surprisingly, some of these movements are geared to the rights of men such as the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) and focus on legislative, political, and cultural change. They write, “Perhaps you are a victim of paternity fraud, lost your children in family court, were falsely accused of a gender targeted crime, were denied health services or protection by a domestic violence shelter… the list of possible discrimination’s against males is seemingly endless. Here, you may quickly realize that you are not alone…you are among friends.” To learn more about NCFM, please visit: https://ncfm.org/ . As well, the website, www.avoiceformen.com states its mission is, “… to provide education and encouragement to men and boys; to lift them above the din of misandry, to reject the unhealthy demands of gynocentrism in all its forms, and to promote their mental, physical and financial well-being without compromise or apology.”

1.3. Connecting with Other Psychologists of Gender

• Clarify what it means to communicate findings.
• Identify professional societies related to the study of gender and related issues.
• Identify publications related to the study of gender and related issues.

One of the functions of science is to communicate findings. Testing hypotheses, developing sound methodology, accurately analyzing data, and drawing cogent conclusions are important, but you must tell others what you have done too. This is accomplished via joining professional societies and submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. Below are some of the societies and journals important to the study of gender and related issues.

1.3.1. Professional Societies

• Website – https://www.apa.org/about/division/div35
• Mission Statement – “Division 35: Society for the Psychology of Women provides an organizational base for all feminists, women and men of all national origins, who are interested in teaching, research, or practice in the psychology of women. The division recognizes a diversity of women’s experiences which result from a variety of factors, including ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic status, age and sexual orientation. The division promotes feminist research, theories, education, and practice toward understanding and improving the lives of girls and women in all their diversities; encourages scholarship on the social construction of gender relations across multicultural contexts; applies its scholarship to transforming the knowledge base of psychology; advocates action toward public policies that advance equality and social justice; and seeks to empower women in community, national and global leadership.”
• Publication – Psychology of Women Quarterly (journal) and Feminist Psychologist (quarterly newsletter)
• Other Information – The division has 5 special sections for the psychology of black women; concerns of Hispanics women/Latinas; lesbian, bisexual, and transgender concerns; psychology of Asian Pacific American women; and Alaska Native/American Indian/Indigenous women.
• Website – https://www.apadivisions.org/division-44
• Mission Statement – “Div. 44 (SPSOGD) is committed to advancing social justice in all its activities. The Society celebrates the diversity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and gender nonconforming and queer people and recognizes the importance of multiple, intersectional dimensions of diversity including but not limited to: race, ethnicity, ability, age, citizenship, health status, language, nationality, religion and social class.”
• Publication – Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (journal) and Division 44 Newsletter
• Website – https://www.apa.org/about/division/div51
• Mission Statement – “Division 51: Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities (SPSMM) advances knowledge in the new psychology of men through research, education, training, public policy and improved clinical services for men. SPSMM provides a forum for members to discuss the critical issues facing men of all races, classes, ethnicities, sexual orientations and nationalities.”
• Publication – Psychology of Men and Masculinities (journal)
• Other Information – The division has five special interest groups focused on applied and professional practice, racial ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, students, and violence and trauma.

1.3.2. Publications

• Website: https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/publications/journal/index
• Published by: APA Division 35
• Description: “The Psychology of Women Quarterly ( PWQ ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, teaching briefs and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender.” Topics include violence against women, sexism, lifespan development and change, therapeutic interventions, sexuality, and social activism.”
• Website: https://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/publications/journal
• Published by: Division 44 of APA
• Description: “A quarterly scholarly journal dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual orientation and gender diversity, PSOGD is envisioned as the primary outlet for research particularly as it impacts practice, education, public policy, and social action.”
• Website: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/men
• Published by: Division 51 of APA
• Description: “ Psychology of Men & Masculinities is devoted to the dissemination of research, theory, and clinical scholarship that advances the psychology of men and masculinity. This discipline is defined broadly as the study of how boys’ and men’s psychology is influenced and shaped by both gender and sex, and encompasses the study of the social construction of gender, sex differences and similarities, and biological processes.”
• Website: https://tandfonline.com/toc/cjgs20/current
• Published by: Taylor and Francis
• Description: “The Journal of Gender Studies is an interdisciplinary journal which publishes articles relating to gender and sex from a feminist perspective covering a wide range of subject areas including the Social, Natural and Health Sciences, the Arts, Humanities, Literature and Popular Culture. We seek articles from around the world that examine gender and the social construction of relationships among genders.”
• Website: http://ijgws.com/
• Description: “ International Journal of Gender and Women’s Studies is an interdisciplinary international journal which publishes articles relating to gender and sex from a feminist perspective covering a wide range of subject areas including the social and natural sciences, the arts, the humanities and popular culture. The journal seeks articles from around the world that examine gender and the social construction of relationships among genders.”
• Website: https://addletonacademicpublishers.com/journal-of-research-in-gender-studies
• Published by: Addleton Academic Publishers
• Description: “The Journal of Research in Gender Studies publishes mainly original empirical research and review articles focusing on hot emerging topics, e.g. same-sex parenting, civil partnership, LGBTQ+ rights, mobile dating applications, digital feminist activism, sexting behavior, robot sex, commercial sex online, etc.”
• Website: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=wglm20
• Description: “J ournal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health seeks out and publishes the most current clinical and research scholarship on LGBT mental health with a focus on clinical issues.”

Module Recap

If you asked a friend or family member what the difference between sex and gender was, they would likely state that they are synonyms for one another or can be used interchangeably. After reading this module, you know that this is incorrect and that sex is a biological concept while gender is socially constructed. Gender is further complicated by the fact that it consists of the three dimensions of body, identity, and social. As human beings, we have a psychological need to have gender congruence or a sense of harmony in our gender, though at times to get there we have to transition. We also contrasted gender and sexual orientation and outlined some of the language of gender you will encounter throughout this book. Movements linked to gender include feminism and men’s movements, the latter which were said to be either mythopoetic, pro-feminist, or men’s rights focused. Finally, we featured three divisions of the American Psychological Association which study gender and several journals that publish research on it, all in an effort to communicate findings and connect with other psychologists studying gender.

In our next module, we will discuss how psychology as a discipline is scientific and demonstrate the ways in which the psychology of gender is studied. This discussion will conclude Part I: Setting the Stage of this book.

• The Psychology of Gender

3rd edition

Alexis Bridley, Kristy McRaney, and Lee Daffin

Download this book

• WordPress XML
• Digital PDF

The Psychology of Gender is an Open Education Resource (OER) written by Kristy McRaney, Alexis Bridley, and Lee Daffin through Washington State University which studies issues related to the psychology of gender across 13 modules. Our discussion begins by explaining what gender is in relation to sex, moves to how the construct is studied, and then applies the lenses of social, developmental, cognitive, physiological, health, clinical, and industrial/organizational psychology as well as education and human sexuality.

Front Matter

• Licensing Information
• Table of Contents
• Record of Changes
• Tokens of Appreciation
• Other Books in the Discovering Psychology Series

I. Part I. Setting the Stage

• Module 1: Foundations of A Psychology of Gender
• Module 2: Studying Gender Using the Scientific Method

II. Part II - Applying Social and Developmental Lenses

• Module 3: Gender Through a Social Psychological Lens
• Module 4: Gender Through a Developmental Psychology Lens

III. Part III - Applying a Biological Lens

• Module 5: Gender Through a Human Sexuality Lens
• Module 6: Gender Through a Cognitive Psychology Lens
• Module 7: Gender Through a Physiological Psychology Lens

IV. Part IV - Applying a Health Lens (Physical and Mental)

• Module 8: Gender Through a Health Psychology Lens
• Module 9: Gender Through a Clinical Psychology Lens

V. Part V - Final Topics - Section Title Page

• Module 10: Gender Through an Educational Lens
• Module 11: Gender Through an Industrial-Organizational Lens

Back Matter

Book information, book description.

The Psychology of Gender is an Open Education Resource (OER) written by Kristy McRaney, Alexis Bridley, and Lee Daffin through Washington State University which studies issues related to the psychology of gender across 13 modules.

Our discussion begins by explaining what gender is in relation to sex and the difference between health and wellness, defining other terms related to gender, and then describes how gender has been viewed in various psychological schools. We then move  to how the construct is studied by researchers.

The remaining parts of the book examine gender through social and developmental psychology lenses (Part II); applies a biological lens in relation to human sexuality, cognition, and physiological psychology (Part III); focuses on physical and mental health (Part IV), and finally uses educational and industrial/organizational lenses (Part V). We finally discuss issues related to gender in terms of future research directions and policy issues.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Creative Commons Corporation (“Creative Commons”) is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an “as-is” basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible.

Using Creative Commons Public Licenses

Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.

Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors.

Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public.

Psychology class: Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’

• Psychology class: Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’ on x (opens in a new window)
• Psychology class: Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’ on facebook (opens in a new window)
• Psychology class: Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’ on linkedin (opens in a new window)
• Psychology class: Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’ on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

This article picked by a teacher with suggested questions is part of the Financial Times free schools access programme. Details/registration  here .

Read all our psychology class picks .

Specification:

Click the link below to read the and then answer the questions:

Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’

Referring to the article, distinguish between sex and gender

Referring to examples in the article, explain the role of hormones in gender development

Explain the term ‘gender dysphoria’

Compare one biological with one social-psychological explanation for gender dysphoria

Danny Galbraith, St Bartholomew’s School

Promoted Content

Follow the topics in this article.

• FT Schools Add to myFT

International Edition

The Psychology of Gender: What are the Different Perspectives?

Debates around gender invariably centre on the assumed ‘naturalness’ of gender roles, that they are ‘hardwired’ and an inevitable result of our biology – that is, penises lead to masculinity and vaginas lead to femininity. From this perspective, the road is well travelled, and the route is predestined. In contrast, Judith Butler in Gender Trouble describes gender as a practice, as something we do. It is ‘the repeated stylisation of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being’. On this view, it is about performance rather than essence, with ‘the body as a kind of canvas on which culture paints images of gender’. It ‘boils down’ to the age-old nature versus nurture debate with which every psychology student must wrangle.

How we acquire gender identity

Traditionally, there are three main psychological explanations of how we navigate the path to gender identity. These are psychodynamic theory, social learning theory, and cognitive-developmental theory. All focus on early childhood, that is, up until about seven years of age.

Psychodynamic theory

Psychodynamic theories, following on from Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, focus on unconscious drives, the relationship of the child and early experiences with the parents (or primary caregivers). Gender is a core part of personality that rests on the child’s awareness of its anatomy and its identification with the same-sex parent. The key point in its development is the resolution of the Oedipus complex for boys and the Electra complex for girls. Both involve resolving an incestuous desire for the opposite-sex parent and competition with the same-sex parent. Girls view the same-sex parent as responsible for their loss of a penis. Boys fear that their penis will be taken away by the same-sex parent. This antagonism is somehow resolved, and the child aligns with the same-sex parent. For males, fear of the loss of the penis is a more abstract concept, meaning males must work harder to deal with uncertainty. For females, the loss is already apparent. On this view, the male role is stronger than is the female. It is not difficult to see the three gender lenses at work here.

Social learning theory 

Instead of an innate, unconscious and biological basis of gender identity, social learning theory emphasises the child’s environment and learning experiences. According to this view, gender roles are learned through a mixture of observing the behaviour of others and modelling (imitation of same-sex caregivers). Children recognise the differential behaviours of boys and girls, generally, and the treatment by others in the form of rewards or punishments for appropriate/inappropriate actions. Children also experience individual differences in treatment, which starts at birth with physical handling, clothes and toy choices and patterns of speech. Gender-linked behaviours are observable by age one. Through conditioning, behaviours regularly and consistently rewarded are most likely to persist, whereas those behaviours that are punished are more apt to cease. 

Although social learning theory offers some explanation of how modelling and reinforcement interact, it tends to underplay individual differences in development and reactions from others such as inconsistencies in behavioural reinforcement. While it considers cognitive factors, it also underplays the agency of children and how they actively make sense of the world. It is also not clear how children cope with conflicting messages regarding gender.

Cognitive-developmental theory

According to the cognitive-developmental theory, as children we mature and experience the world, reorganising mental processes as we progress through a series of stages of development. Children’s development hits various milestones moving from the simple to the complex and from the concrete to the abstract, including language development. Children are active agents in acquiring gender roles within development stages that allow for an increasingly sophisticated grasp of concepts and language. As children mature, discrepancies between their knowledge and their experiences of the environment cause their ideas to shift accordingly. The acquisition of gender constancy, stability and consistency can only happen when a child has reached a certain level of cognitive maturity.

According to this view, gender identity exists at several levels, possibly developing in line with language. A strong theme that emerges from the literature is that boys, more so than girls, value their own gender more highly. This offers some support for the psychodynamic view that boys must try harder. 

Overall, the psychology of gender is revealed in the grey areas, that is, the relationship between identity and expression, and how we make sense of the gaps between (biological) sex, self and the social. For many the mismatch gaps might be narrow or even imperceptible, others might find ways of behaving and thinking to bridge the divide, and yet for others, the divide can seem insurmountable.

This is an extract from The Psychology of Gender, published by Routledge

Find Welldoing therapists near you

Related articles, recent posts.

The Anxious-Avoidant Dance: What Happens When Insecure Attachment Styles Combine?

The Many Symptoms of Stress, And What To Do About Them

Why Bother Being Mindful?

Meet the Therapist: Jayne Morris

Dear Therapist..."I've Spoken Up About Past Abuse – My Family Hasn't Supported Me"

Is FOPO Holding You Back at Work and In Your Personal Life?

Are Mental Health Diagnoses Doing More Harm Than Good To Our Children?

Meet the Therapist: Matthew Reed

3 Tips for Mindful Communication in Intimate Relationships

Meet the Therapist: Eric B. Litwack

Find counsellors and therapists in London

Find counsellors and therapists in your region, join over 23,000 others on our newsletter.

Stereotypes and Gender Roles

Many of our gender stereotypes are strong because we emphasize gender so much in culture (Bigler & Liben, 2007). For example, children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Gender roles refer to the role or behaviors learned by a person as appropriate to their gender and are determined by the dominant cultural norms. Cross-cultural studies reveal that children are aware of gender roles by age two or three and can label others’ gender and sort objects into gender categories. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally appropriate gender roles (Kane, 1996). When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role for their culture, they may face negative sanctions such as being criticized, bullied, marginalized or rejected by their peers. A girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready, 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams, 2008; Kimmel, 2000)

By the time we are adults, our gender roles are a stable part of our personalities, and we usually hold many gender stereotypes. Men tend to outnumber women in professions such as law enforcement, the military, and politics. Women tend to outnumber men in care-related occupations such as child care, health care, and social work. These occupational roles are examples of typical Western male and female behavior, derived from our culture’s traditions. Adherence to these occupational gender roles demonstrates fulfillment of social expectations but may not necessarily reflect personal preference (Diamond, 2002).

Gender stereotypes are not unique to American culture. Williams and Best (1982) conducted several cross-cultural explorations of gender stereotypes using data collected from 30 cultures. There was a high degree of agreement on stereotypes across all cultures which led the researchers to conclude that gender stereotypes may be universal. Additional research found that males tend to be associated with stronger and more active characteristics than females (Best, 2001); however recent research argues that culture shapes how some gender stereotypes are perceived. Researchers found that across cultures, individualistic traits were viewed as more masculine; however, collectivist cultures rated masculine traits as collectivist and not individualist (Cuddy et al., 2015). These findings provide support that gender stereotypes may be moderated by cultural values.

There are two major psychological theories that partially explain how children form their own gender roles after they learn to differentiate based on gender. Gender schema theory argues that children are active learners who essentially socialize themselves and actively organize others’ behavior, activities, and attributes into gender categories, which are known as schemas . These schemas then affect what children notice and remember later. People of all ages are more likely to remember schema-consistent behaviors and attributes than schema-inconsistent behaviors and attributes. So, people are more likely to remember men, and forget women, who are firefighters. They also misremember schema-inconsistent information. If research participants are shown pictures of someone standing at the stove, they are more likely to remember the person to be cooking if depicted as a woman, and the person to be repairing the stove if depicted as a man. By only remembering schema-consistent information, gender schemas strengthen more and more over time.

A second theory that attempts to explain the formation of gender roles in children is social learning theory which argues that gender roles are learned through reinforcement, punishment, and modeling. Children are rewarded and reinforced for behaving in concordance with gender roles and punished for breaking gender roles. In addition, social learning theory argues that children learn many of their gender roles by modeling the behavior of adults and older children and, in doing so, develop ideas about what behaviors are appropriate for each gender. Social learning theory has less support than gender schema theory but research shows that parents do reinforce gender-appropriate play and often reinforce cultural gender norms.

Gender Roles and Culture

Hofstede’s (2001) research revealed that on the Masculinity and Femininity dimension (MAS), cultures with high masculinity reported distinct gender roles, moralistic views of sexuality and encouraged passive roles for women. Additionally, these cultures discourage premarital sex for women but have no such restrictions for men. The cultures with the highest masculinity scores were: Japan, Italy, Austria and Venezuela. Cultures low in masculinity (high femininity) had gender roles that were more likely to overlap and encouraged more active roles for women. Sex before marriage was seen as acceptable for both women and men in these cultures. Four countries scoring lowest in masculinity were Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden. The United States is slightly more masculine than feminine on this dimension; however, these aspects of high masculinity are balanced by a need for individuality.

Culture and Psychology Copyright © 2020 by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Sex: In Psychology, sex is the classification of being male or female. It is biologically determined (caused by chromosomes and hormones), is fixed and cannot be changed, and is innate (due to the influence of nature only).

Gender: This is the psychological sense of feeling masculine or feminine. It is influenced by psychological and social factors, the role of nature and nurture play a part, and is more fluid and open to change (it is more of a sliding scale, whereas sex tends to be a binary choice of male or female). Gender can be changed through gender reassignment surgery.

Gender identity disorder: Most people’s sex and gender correspond (e.g. male-masculine). However, some experience feelings of a mismatch between biological sex and psychological gender. This is classified as gender identity disorder (referred to as gender dysphoria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Some individuals with GID decide to have gender reassignment surgery and become transgender.

Sex-role stereotypes: These are expectations/pre-conceived ideas of what is ‘typical’ male and female behaviours. These may change from time to time and between (and within) cultures, and are communicated in many ways, for example through parents, at school, in the media, and so on. For example, females may be expected to be caring, empathetic, emotional and nurturing, whereas males may be expected to be competitive, ambitious, aggressive and less emotional.

Androgyny & the BSRI

Androgyny: This is the psychological state of possessing a balance of male and female psychological characteristics. For example, a man may possess the emotional skills to be caring, but also is competitive and ambitious. This is thought to be advantageous, as the person can respond appropriately to many different situations in life. When necessary, they can be empathetic, and when another situation demands that they are competitive, they can do this as well. Androgynous people are argued to be more mentally healthy.

The BSRI: Sandra Bem (1974) devised a way of measuring the extent to which a person is androgynous. She created a list of behaviours and characteristics, 20 of which could be classified as ‘masculine’, 20 ‘feminine’, and 20 ‘neutral’ (not particularly associated with either gender). Participants would indicate how true the statement was for them personally on a scale of 1 (never true) to 7 (always true). Masculine behaviours included ‘aggressive’, ‘ambitious’, ‘dominant’, ‘assertive’. Feminine behaviours included ‘affectionate’, ‘compassionate’, ‘gentle’, ‘sympathetic’. Neutral behaviours included ‘adaptable’, ‘sincere’, ‘helpful’, ‘truthful’. A high score for both the masculine and feminine items indicated androgyny in the participant.

Evaluation:

• When it was piloted, the results of the BSRI broadly matched with the participant’s own reported sense of gender identity, suggesting the BSRI is a valid measure of gender.
• It has been argued that androgyny may not be the most beneficial thing for mental health, and that having more masculine traits is more advantageous, challenging the assumptions of Bem.
• Assessing a person’s sense of gender by completing the BSRI reduces the complex concept of ‘gender’ to a series of numbers, therefore not reflecting the reality of gender. Also, the BSRI may be culturally and historically biased, as certain behaviours are seen as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, which may not be true of all cultures at all times.

The Role of Chromosomes & Hormones

• DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid): self-replicating material, located in cells of the body, which is the carrier of genetic material
• Genes: short sections of DNA that determine the characteristics of a living thing
• Chromosomes: objects found in the nucleus of most cells, made from DNA
• Hormones: Chemicals that travel around the body affecting the activity of cells and organs

Chromosomes: Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each of these pairs carry hundreds of genes containing instructions on physical and behavioural characteristics. One pair of chromosomes are called the sex chromosomes, because they determine an individual’s sex. The female chromosome pair is called XX because both chromosomes are shaped like X’s. The male chromosome pair is described as XY. The Y chromosome carries very little genetic material although it does determine the sex of the child. There is a direct link between an individual’s chromosomal sex (XX or XY) and their external genitalia (vagina or penis) and internal genitalia (ovaries and testes). During prenatal development all individuals look the same – and embryos have genitalia that externally looks feminine. When the foetus is about three months old, if it is to develop as a male, the testes produce testosterone which causes external male genitalia to develop. Biology explains how an individual acquires their sex genetically. It may also explain some aspects of gender because people feel ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ in part because of the genitalia they have.

Hormones: Chromosomes initially determine a person’s sex but most gender development is actually governed by hormones. They are produced both prenatally and in puberty. Hormones influence the development of genitalia and/or affect the development of the brain, both of which influence gender behaviour. The effects of particular hormones are as follows:

• Testosterone: a male hormone, which develops the male sex organs and is linked with behaviours such as increased aggression
• Oestrogen: a female hormone which develops female sexual characteristics and is linked with emotional changes during the menstrual cycle (for example, increased irritability)
• Oxytocin: a hormone which facilitates bonding. It is released in large doses after childbirth, making the mother feel a strong emotional connection to their baby. It is produced in lower quantities in men, but in equal amounts in both sexes during sexual intercourse

Hormone Imbalance During Development

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: Where a genetic male is not exposed to enough testosterone in the womb, and can look physically female at birth. This happened to members of the Batista family in the Dominican Republic- some male family members appeared female at birth, and were raised female, but once hormonal changes in puberty occurred that physically turned into males, and changed to living as males.

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: Where a genetic female is exposed to too much testosterone. Genitalia can appear swollen, and they may act more masculine (tomboys).

• The case of David Reimer supports the role of chromosomes and hormones. David was born as Bruce, and, when taken to be circumcised as an infant, accidentally had his penis burnt off due to an electrical malfunction. Psychologist John Money worked with the parents, suggesting that ‘gender’ is entirely created by upbringing and the environment, so Bruce was renamed ‘Brenda’, was castrated, and raised as a girl for the first years of life. However, the case was not successful and Brenda, feeling suicidal, was told the truth when a teenager. Brenda immediately changed back to living as a man, calling himself ‘David’. This case shows how the influence of nature overrode the influence of nurture.
• Van Goozen et al (1995) found that when injected with male or female hormones, transgender individuals demonstrated more typical male or female behaviours (in line with the hormones they were receiving). This supports the link between hormones and gender behaviour.
• Tricker et al (1996) found that there were no differences in behaviours amongst participants injected with testosterone or a placebo, weakening the link between hormones and gender behaviour.

Atypical Sex Chromosome Patterns

Klinefelter’s syndrome: This is where there is an abnormal chromosome pattern in males, where there is an extra X chromosome (‘XXY’). 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 males are affected. The effects of this include:

• Reduced body hair
• Breast development
• ‘Soft’ body contours
• Underdeveloped genitalia
• Poor language/reading skills
• Passive and shy
• Poorer memory/problem-solving skills

Turner’s syndrome: This is where there is an abnormal chromosome pattern in females, where there is only one X chromosome (‘X’). Around 1 in 5000 females are affected. The effects of this include:

• No menstrual cycle
• Broad chest and webbed neck
• High waist-to-hip ratio
• Physically immature
• Higher reading ability
• Poorer spatial, visual, maths ability
• Socially immature
• Atypical sex chromosome patterns lend support to nature in the nature-nurture debate, suggesting behaviour is affected by biological influences. This is helpful to understand gender behaviour more generally.
• Environmental influences may cause the behaviours, for example, females with Turner’s may be treated more immaturely due to their childlike appearance. This weakens the link between chromosomes and gender behaviour.
• There are beneficial practical applications in studying these individuals, are diagnosis can be made more readily and hormone treatments can be used to reduce the effects of the conditions.

Cognitive Explanations: Kohlberg’s Theory

Cognitive theories suggest cognition (‘thinking’) has an impact on gender behaviour, emphasising that environmental factors and brain development influence cognition and cognition influences gender behaviour. Thinking about gender alters as a child’s cognitive capabilities develop, and a child’s sense of their own gender is critical in the acquisition of gender behaviour. Kohlberg suggested that children’s sense of gender develops over three stages, which are gone through gradually.

Stage 1: Gender identity (2-3 ½ years): Children have the ability to correctly identify themselves and others as male or female, although labelling is based more on appearance than reality, e.g. a child might label a man with long hair ‘a girl’. Gender may change over time or situations.

Stage 2: Gender stability (3 ½-4 ½ years): Recognition that the child’s own gender will not change over time (if they are a girl they will grow into a woman). However, children may believe that other people’s gender can change in different situations, e.g. they may believe that if they see a boy putting on a dress that boy will become a girl.

Stage 3: Gender constancy/gender consistency (6-7 years): The child recognises that gender is independent of clothing/hair and so on, and gender is constant over time and situations. At this point, Kohlberg believed that full gender understanding has developed and children become interested in, and manifest, gender typical behaviour. Children in this stage are no longer egocentric (think that everyone sees the world in the same way they do) so can appreciate that other’s thoughts and feelings are different to theirs.

Role models: Once they reach gender constancy, children will begin to seek same-sex role models who they will identify with and wish to imitate. They will not do this before this stage, as they think that ‘gender’ is still something that could change.

• Slaby and Frey (1975) asked young children: ‘were you a little girl or a little boy when you were a baby?’ and ‘when you grow up will you be a mummy or a daddy?’. Children did not recognise that these traits were stable over time until they were 3 or 4 years old, supporting the predictions of the theory. In another study, they found children in the gender constancy stage spent longer looking at same-sex adults, supporting the idea of role models.
• There is evidence that children may acquire a fixed sense of gender before age 6-7- Bussey and Bandura (1992) found that 4 year-olds reported feeling ‘awful’ about playing with gender-inappropriate toys. This weakens the prediction of Kohlberg’s theory.
• There are methodological issues with interviewing children to investigate cognitive theories. Children may not have the vocabulary to adequately express what they are thinking, therefore it may not be a valid way of investigating cognitions. This weakens the evidence for Kohlberg’s theory.

Issues and Debates in Psychology (A-Level Revision)

Deb Gajic, CPsychol

Team Leader Examiner (A-Level Psychology)

B.A. (Hons), Social Sciences, Msc, Psychology

Deb Gajic is an experienced educational consultant with a robust history in the education and training field. She brings expertise in Psychology, Training, CPD Provision, Writing, Examining, Tutoring, Coaching, Lecturing, Educational Technology, and Curriculum Development. She holds a Master of Science (MSc) in Psychology from The Open University, a PGCE from Leicester University, and a BA (Hons) 2:1 from Warwick University. She is a Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol) and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society (AFBPsS).

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

What do the examiners look for?

• Accurate and detailed knowledge
• Clear, coherent, and focused answers
• Effective use of terminology (use the “technical terms”)

In application questions, examiners look for “effective application to the scenario,” which means that you need to describe the theory and explain the scenario using the theory making the links between the two very clear.

If there is more than one individual in the scenario you must mention all of the characters to get to the top band.

Difference between AS and A level answers

The descriptions follow the same criteria; however, you have to use the issues and debates effectively in your answers. “Effectively” means that it needs to be clearly linked and explained in the context of the answer.

Read the model answers to get a clearer idea of what is needed.

Gender and Culture in Psychology

Gender bias.

Gender bias results when one gender is treated less favorably than the other, often referred to as sexism, and it has a range of consequences, including:

• Scientifically misleading
• Upholding stereotypical assumptions
• Validating sex discrimination

Avoiding gender bias does not mean pretending that men and women are the same.

There are three main types of gender bias:

Alpha bias – this occurs when the differences between men and women are exaggerated. Therefore, stereotypically male and female characteristics may be emphasized.

Beta bias -this occurs when the differences between men and women are minimized. This often happens when findings obtained from men are applied to women without additional validation.

Androcentrism – taking male thinking/behavior as normal, regarding female thinking/behavior as deviant, inferior, abnormal, or ‘other’ when it is different.

Positive Consequences of Gender Bias

Alpha Bias :

• This has led some theorists (Gilligan) to assert the worth and valuation of ‘feminine qualities.’
• This has led to healthy criticism of cultural values that praise certain ‘male’ qualities, such as aggression and individualism, as desirable, adaptive, and universal.

Beta Bias :

• Makes people see men and women as the same, which has led to equal treatment in legal terms and equal access to, for example, education and employment.

Negative Consequences of Gender Bias

• Focus on differences between genders leads to the implication of similarity WITHIN genders. Thus, this ignores the many ways women differ from each other.
• Can sustain prejudices and stereotypes.
• Draws attention away from the differences in power between men and women.
• Is considered an egalitarian approach, but it results in major misrepresentations of both genders.

Consequences of Gender Bias

Kitzinger (1998) argues that questions about sex differences aren’t just scientific questions – they’re also political (women have the same rights as men). So gender differences are distorted to maintain the status quo of male power.

• Women were kept out of male-dominant universities.
• Women were oppressed.
• Women stereotypes (Bowlby).

Feminists argue that although gender differences are minimal or non-existent, they are used against women to maintain male power.

Judgments about an individual women’s ability are made on the basis of average differences between the sexes or biased sex-role stereotypes, and this also had the effect of lowering women’s self-esteem; making them, rather than men, think they have to improve themselves (Tavris, 1993).

Examples of Gender Bias in Research AO3

Kohlberg & moral development.

Kohlberg based his stages of moral development around male moral reasoning and had an all-male sample. He then inappropriately generalized his findings to women ( beta bias ) and also claimed women generally reached the lower level of moral development ( androcentrism ).

Carol Gilligan highlighted the gender bias inherent in Kohlberg’s work and suggested women make moral decisions in a different way than men (care ethic vs. justice ethic).

However, her research is arguably, also (alpha) biased, as male and female moral reasoning is more similar than her work suggests.

Freud & Psychosexual Development

Freud’s ideas are seen as inherently gender biased, but it must be remembered that he was a product of his time. He saw ‘Biology as destiny’ and women’s roles as prescribed & predetermined.

All his theories are androcentric , most obviously: -‘Penis envy’ – women are defined psychologically by the fact that they aren’t men.

But Freud’s ideas had serious consequences/implications. They reinforced stereotypes, e.g., of women’s moral Inferiority, treated deviations from traditional sex-role behavior as pathological (career ambition = penis envy), and are clearly androcentric (phallocentric).

Biomedical Theories of Abnormality

In women, mental illness, especially depression, is much more likely to be explained in terms of neurochemical/hormonal processes rather than other possible explanations, such as social or environmental (e.g., domestic violence, unpaid labor, discrimination).

The old joke ‘Is it your hormones, love?’ is no joke for mentally ill women!

Gender Bias in the Research Process AO1

• Although female psychology students outnumber males, at a senior teaching and research level in universities, men dominate. Men predominate at the senior researcher level.
• The research agenda follows male concerns, female concerns may be marginalized or ignored.
• Most experimental methodologies are based on the standardized treatment of participants. This assumes that men and women respond in the same ways to the experimental situation.
• Women and men might respond differently to the research situation.
• Women and men might be treated differently by researchers.
• Could create artificial differences or mask real ones.
• Publishing bias towards positive results.
• Research that finds gender differences more likely to get published than that which doesn’t.
• Exaggerates the extent of gender differences.

Reducing Gender Bias in Psychology (AO3)

Equal opportunity legislation and feminist psychology have performed the valuable functions of reducing institutionalized gender bias and drawing attention to sources of bias and under-researched areas in psychology like childcare, sexual abuse, dual burden working, and prostitution.

The Feminist perspective

• Re-examining the ‘facts’ about gender.
• View women as normal humans, not deficient men.
• Skepticism towards biological determinism.
• Research agenda focusing on women’s concerns.
• A psychology for women, rather than a psychology of women.

Learning Check AO2

This activity will help you to:

• Identify gender biases in psychological theories
• Discuss the impact of biased research on society
• Critically assess gender-biased theories

Below are two examples of research that could be considered gender biased. Working in pairs or small groups, you need to do the following:

1. Identify aspects of the research that could be considered gender biased

2. Identify and explain the type of gender bias that is present

3. Suggest the impact that these research examples could have on society

You could look, for example, at how the research might uphold or reinforce gender stereotypes or be used to disempower women in society.

The Psychodynamic View of Personality and Moral Development

Freud and many of his followers believed that biological differences between men and women had major consequences for psychological development. In their view, ‘biology is destiny.’

Freud believed that gender divergence begins at the onset of the phallic stage, where the girl realizes that she has no penis, and starts to feel inferiour to boys (penis envy).

Penis envy becomes a major driving force in the girl’s mental life and needs to be successfully sublimated into a desire for a husband and children if it is not to become pathological.

This view of gender divergence in personality development has implications for other aspects of development. For example, Freud’s view of morality was that it was regulated by the superego, which is an internalization of the same-sex parent that regulates behavior through the threat of punishment.

In boys, immoral behavior is regulated through the mechanism of castration anxiety – men obey the rules because of an unconscious fear that their father will take away their penis.

In the Freudian view, the girl has already had to accept her castration as a fait accompli, which raises important questions about the relative moral strength of men and women.

The Biological View of Mental Illness

The biomedical view of mental illness, which approaches behavioral and psychological abnormality as a manifestation of underlying pathological processes on the biological level, dominates the discussion of mental illness.

In the biomedical view , illnesses such as depression can be explained in terms of chemical imbalances causing malfunction in the parts of the brain associated with emotion.

When explaining why twice as many women as men are diagnosed with depression, adherents of the biomedical view tend to suggest that this is due to hormonal differences and point to the existence of, for example, post-natal depression to show how fluctuations in female sex hormones can lead to abnormalities of mood.

Similarly, sex differences in hormonal processes can be used to explain the existence of disorders that are ‘gender bound,’ such as pre-menstrual syndrome.

Culture Bias

Culture can be described as all the knowledge and values shared by a society.

Cultures may differ from one another in many ways, so the findings of psychological research conducted in one culture may not apply directly to another.

General Background

In order to fulfill its aspiration of explaining human thinking and behavior, psychology must address the huge diversity in people around the globe. Each individual’s behavior is shaped by a huge number of factors, including their genes, upbringing, and individual experiences.

At the same time, people are affected by a range of factors that are specific to the cultural group in which they developed and within which they live. Psychologists should always attempt to account for the ways in which culture affects thinking and behavior.

However, this has not always been the case. Psychology is a discipline that evolved within a very specific cultural context.

Psychology is predominantly a white, Euro-American enterprise: – (i) 64% of psychological researchers are from the US; (ii) in some texts, 90% of studies have US Participants; (iii) samples are predominantly white middle class.

Consequently, it has incorporated a particular worldview (that of the industrialized West) into the ways it tries to understand people. This can have consequences. For example:

• Psychologists may overlook the importance of cultural diversity in understanding human behavior, resulting in theories that are scientifically inadequate.
• They may also privilege their own worldview over those that emerge from other cultures, leading to research that either intentionally or unintentionally supports racist and discriminatory practices in the real world.

We will be looking at how cultural bias can affect psychological theories and research studies and the sorts of things psychologists can do to avoid the worst effects of cultural bias.

Types of Theoretical Constructions for Understanding Cultural Bias AO1

An emic construct is one that is applied only to one cultural group, so they vary from place to place (differences between cultures).

An emic approach refers to the investigation of a culture from within the culture itself. This means that research of European society from a European perspective is emic, and African society by African researchers in Africa is also emic. An emic approach is more likely to have ecological validity as the findings are less likely to be distorted or caused by a mismatch between the cultures of the researchers and the culture being investigated.

Cultural bias can occur when a researcher assumes that an emic construct (behavior specific to a single culture) is actually etic (behavior universal to all cultures).

For example, emic constructs are likely to be ignored or misinterpreted as researchers from another culture may not be sensitive to local emics. Their own cultural ‘filters’ may prevent them from detecting them or appreciating their significance.

An etic construct is a theoretical idea that is assumed to apply in all cultural groups. Therefore, etic constructs are considered universal to all people and are factors that hold across all cultures (similarities between cultures).

Etic constructs assume that most human behavior is common to humans but that cultural factors influence the development or display of this behavior.

Cultural bias can occur when emics and etics get mistaken for each other.

Making the assumption that behaviors are universal across cultures can lead to imposed etics , where a construct from one culture is applied inappropriately to another. For example, although basic human emotional facial expressions are universal, there can be subtle cultural variations in these.

Bias can occur when emics and etics get mistaken for each other.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism occurs when a researcher assumes that their own culturally specific practices or ideas are ‘natural’ or ‘right’.

The individual uses their own ethnic group to evaluate and make judgments about other individuals from other ethnic groups. Research that is ‘centered’ around one cultural group is called ‘ethnocentric.’

When other cultures are observed to differ from the researcher’s own, they may be regarded in a negative light, e.g., ‘primitive,’ ‘degenerate,’ ‘unsophisticated,’ ‘undeveloped,’ etc.

This becomes racism when other cultures are denigrated, or their traditions are regarded as irrelevant, etc.

The antidote to ethnocentrism is cultural relativism, which is an approach to treating each culture as unique and worthy of study.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself.

The principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism.

Culturally Biased Research AO3

Ainsworth’s strange situation for attachment.

The strange situation procedure is not appropriate for assessing children from non-US or UK populations as it is based on Western childrearing ideals (i.e., ethnocentric).

The original study only used American, middle-class, white, home-reared infants and mothers; therefore, the generalisability of the findings could be questioned, as well as whether this procedure would be valid for other cultures too.

Cultural differences in child-rearing styles make results liable to misinterpretation, e.g., German or Japanese samples.

Takashi (1990) aimed to see whether the strange situation is a valid procedure for cultures other than the original. Takashi found no children in the avoidant-insecure stage.

This could be explained in cultural terms as Japanese children are taught that such behavior is impolite, and they would be actively discouraged from displaying it. Also, because Japanese children experience much less separation, the SSC was more than mildly stressful.

IQ testing and Research (e.g., Eysenck)

An example of an etic approach that produces bias might be the imposition of IQ tests designed within one culture on another culture. If a test is designed to measure a European person’s understanding of what intelligence is , it may not be a valid measurement of the intelligence of people from other continents.

IQ tests developed in the West contain embedded assumptions about intelligence, but what counts as ‘intelligent’ behavior varies from culture to culture.

Non-Westerners may be disadvantaged by such tests – and then viewed as ‘inferior’ when they don’t perform as Westerners do.

Task: Try the Chittling IQ Test

Consequences of Culture Bias AO3

Nobles (1976) argues that western psychology has been a tool of oppression and dominance. Cultural bias has also made it difficult for psychologists to separate the behavior they have observed from the context in which they observed it.

Reducing Culture Bias AO3

Equal opportunity legislation aims to rid psychology of cultural bias and racism, but we must be aware that merely swapping old, overt racism for new, more subtle forms of racism (Howitt and Owusu-Bempah, 1994).

Free Will & Determinism

The free will/determinism debate revolves around the extent to which our behavior is the result of forces over which we have no control or whether people are able to decide for themselves whether to act or behave in a certain way.

Free Will suggests that we all have a choice and can control and choose our own behavior. This approach is all about personal responsibility and plays a central role in Humanist Psychology.

By arguing that humans can make free choices, the free will approach is quite the opposite of the deterministic one. Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and dignity and devalues human behavior.

To a lesser degree, Cognitive Psychology also supports the idea of free will and choice. In reality, although we do have free will, it is constrained by our circumstances and other people. For example, when you go shopping, your choices are constrained by how much money you have.

• It emphasizes the importance of the individual and studying individual differences.
• It fits society’s view of personal responsibility, e.g., if you break the law, you should be punished.
• The idea of self-efficacy is useful in therapies as it makes them more effective.
• Free will is subjective, and some argue it doesn’t exist.
• It is impossible to scientifically test the concept of free will.
• Few people would agree that behavior is always completely under the control of the individual.

Determinism

The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is determined and thus predictable. Some approaches in psychology see the source of this determinism as being outside the individual, a position known as environmental determinism.

Others see it from coming inside, i.e., in the form of unconscious motivation or genetic determinism – biological determinism.

• Environmental (External) Determinism : This is the idea that our behavior is caused by some sort of outside influence, e.g., parental influence.

Skinner (1971) argued that freedom is an illusion. We may think we have free will, but the probability of any behavior occurring is determined by past experiences.

Skinner claimed that free will was an illusion – we think we are free, but this is because we are not aware of how our behavior is determined by reinforcement.

• Biological (Internal) Determinism : Our biological systems, such as the nervous system, govern our behavior.

For example, a high IQ may be related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et al. 1998).

• Psychic (Internal) Determinism : Freud believed childhood experiences and unconscious motivations governed behavior.

Freud thought that free will was an illusion because he felt that the causes of our behavior are unconscious and still predictable.

There are different levels of determinism.

Hard Determinism

Hard Determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.

Soft Determinism

Soft Determinism represents a middle ground. People do have a choice, but that choice is constrained by external factors, e.g., Being poor doesn’t make you steal, but it may make you more likely to take that route through desperation.

• Determinism is scientific and allows cause-and-effect relationships to be established.
• It gives plausible explanations for behavior backed up by evidence.
• Determinism is reductionist.
• Does not account for individual differences. By creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their own destiny.
• Hard determinism suggests criminals cannot be held accountable for their actions. Deterministic explanations for behavior reduce individual responsibility. A person arrested for a violent attack, for example, might plead that they were not responsible for their behavior – it was due to their upbringing, a bang on the head they received earlier in life, recent relationship stresses, or a psychiatric problem. In other words, their behavior was determined.

Essay Question : – Discuss free will & determinism in psychology (16 marks)

Nature & Nurture

The central question is the extent to which our behavior is determined by our biology (nature) and the genes we inherit from our parents versus the influence of environmental factors (nurture) such as home school and friends.

Nature is the view that all our behavior is determined by our biology and our genes. This is not the same as the characteristics you are born with because these may have been determined by your prenatal environment.

In addition, some genetic characteristics only appear later in development as a result of the process of maturation. Supporters of the nature view have been called ‘nativists.’

Evolutionary explanations of human behavior exemplify the nature approach in psychology. The main assumption underlying this approach is that any particular behavior has evolved because of its survival value.

E.g., Bowlby suggested that attachment behaviors are displayed because they ensure the survival of an infant and the perpetuation of the parents’ genes. This survival value is further increased because attachment has implications for later relationship formation, which will ultimately promote successful reproduction.

Evolutionary psychologists assume that behavior is a product of natural selection. Interpersonal attraction can, for example, be explained as a consequence of sexual selection.

Men and women select partners who enhance their productive success, judging this in terms of traits that ‘advertise’ reproductive fitness, such as signs of healthiness (white teeth) or resources.

Physiological psychology is also based on the assumption that behavior can be explained in terms of genetically programmed systems.

• Bowlby’s explanation of attachment does not ignore environmental influences, as is generally true for evolutionary explanations. In the case of attachment theory, Bowlby proposed that infants become most strongly attached to the caregiver who responds most sensitively to the infant’s needs.
• The experience of sensitive caregiving leads a child to develop expectations that others will be equally sensitive so that they tend to form adult relationships that are enduring and trusting.
• The problem of the transgenerational effect. Behavior that appears to be determined by nature (and therefore is used to support this nativist view) may, in fact, be determined by nurture! e.g., if a woman has a poor diet during her pregnancy, her unborn child will suffer.
• This means that the eggs with which each female child is born will also have these negative effects. This can then affect the development of her children a whole generation later.
• This means that a child’s development may, in fact, be determined by their grandmother’s environment (transgenerational effect). This suggests that what may appear to be inherited and inborn is, in fact, caused by the environment and nurture.

Nurture is the opposite view that all behavior is learned and influenced by external factors such as the environment etc. Supports of the nurture view are ‘empiricists’ holding the view that all knowledge is gained through experience.

The behaviorist approach is the clearest example of the nurture position in psychology, which assumes that all behavior is learned through the environment. The best-known example is the social learning explanation of aggression using the Bobo doll.

SLT proposes that much of what we learn is through observation and vicarious reinforcement. E.g., Bandura demonstrated this in his Bobo doll experiments. He found that children who watched an adult role model being rewarded for aggression toward an inflatable doll tended to imitate that behavior when later on their own with a Bobo doll.

This supports the idea that personality is determined by nurture rather than nature. This provides us with a model of how to behave. However, such behavior becomes part of an individual’s behavioral repertoire through direct reinforcement – when behavior is imitated, it receives direct reinforcement (or not).

Another assumption of the nurture approach is that there is a double bind hypothesis that explains schizophrenia. They suggest that schizophrenia develops because children receive contradictory messages from their parents.

• Empirical evidence shows that behavior is learned and can be modified through conditioning.
• Behaviorist accounts are all in terms of learning, but even learning itself has a genetic basis. For example, research has found that mutant flies missing a crucial gene cannot be conditioned (Quinn et al., 1979).

Conclusion (AO3)

Instead of defending extreme nature or nurture views , most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating the ways in which nature and nurture interact. It is limiting to describe behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behavior.

For example, in psychopathology, this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

The Diathesis-stress model of Schizophrenia suggests that although people may inherit a predisposition to Schizophrenia, some sort of environmental stressor is required in order to develop the disease.

This explains why Schizophrenia happens in the late teens or early adulthood, times of considerable upheaval and stress in people’s lives, e.g., leaving home, starting work, forging new relationships, etc.

Essay Question : – Describe & evaluate the nature-nurture debate in psychology (16 marks)

Reductionism & Holism

Holism is often referred to as Gestalt psychology . It argues that behavior cannot be understood in terms of the components that make them up. This is commonly described as ‘the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.’

Psychologists study the whole person to gain an understanding of all the factors that might influence behavior. Holism uses several levels of explanation, including biological, environmental, and social factors.

Holistic approaches include Humanism, Social, and Gestalt psychology and make use of the case study method. Jahoda’s six elements of Optimal Living are an example of a holistic approach to defining abnormality.

Imagine you were asked to make a cake .

If I simply told you that you needed 3 eggs, 75 grams of sugar, and 75 grams of self-raising. Would that be enough information for you to make a sponge cake? What else would you need to know?

In this way, a cake is more than the sum of its parts. Simply putting all the ingredients into a tin and sticking them in the oven would not result in a sponge cake!

• Looks at everything that may impact behavior.
• Does not ignore the complexity of behavior.
• Integrates different components of behavior in order to understand the person as a whole.
• It can be higher in ecological validity.
• Over-complicate behaviors that may have simpler explanations (Occam’s Razor).
• Does not lend itself to the scientific method and empirical testing.
• Makes it hard to determine cause and effect.
• Neglects the importance of biological explanations.
• Almost impossible to study all the factors that influence complex human behaviors

Reductionism

Reductionism is the belief that human behavior can be explained by breaking it down into smaller component parts. Reductionists say that the best way to understand why we behave as we do is to look closely at the very simplest parts that make up our systems and use the simplest explanations to understand how they work.

In psychology, the term is most appropriately applied to biological explanations (e.g., genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones) of complex human behaviors such as schizophrenia, gender, and aggression.

Such reductionist explanations can be legitimately criticized as ignoring psychological, social, and cultural factors.

Cognitive psychology, with its use of the computer analogy, reduces behavior to the level of a machine, mechanistic reductionism.

Behaviorist psychology sees behavior in terms of simple stimulus/response relationships. And finally, the psychodynamic perspective reduces behavior to unconscious motivation and early childhood experiences.

• The use of a reductionist approach to behavior can be a useful one in allowing scientific study to be carried out. The scientific study requires the isolation of variables to make it possible to identify the causes of behavior.
• For example, research into the genetic basis of mental disorders has enabled researchers to identify specific genes believed to be responsible for schizophrenia. This way, a reductionist approach enables the scientific causes of behavior to be identified and advances the possibility of scientific study.
• A reductionist approach to studying mental disorders has led to the development of effective chemical treatments
• The disadvantage is that it can be over-simplistic. Humans and their environments are so complex that the reductionist explanation falls short of giving the whole explanation of the behavior. Thus, it lacks ecological validity
• Does not address larger societal issues e.g., poverty.

Reductionism in psychology is useful, as sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Physiological approaches do tend to be reductionist, but as long as we bare these limitations in mind.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to take a completely holistic approach to psychology, as human behavior is so complex. Case studies come closest to taking a holistic approach.

Explaining behavior in a reductionist manner is seen as a low-level explanation, whereas more holistic explanations are high-level explanations.

Essay Question : – Discuss holism and reductionism in psychology (16 marks)

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

Nomothetic approach.

The Nomothetic approach looks at how our behaviors are similar to each other as human beings. The term “nomothetic” comes from the Greek word “nomos,” meaning “law.”

Psychologists who adopt this approach are mainly concerned with studying what we share with others. That is to say, in establishing laws or generalizations. Tend to use quantitative methods.

Personality: – A Nomothetic Approach

The psychometric approach to the study of personality compares individuals in terms of traits or dimensions common to everyone. This is a nomothetic approach, and two examples are Hans Eysenck’s type and Raymond Cattell’s 16PF trait theories.

The details of their work need not concern us here. Suffice it to say they both assume that there are a small number of traits that account for the basic structure of all personalities and that individual differences can be measured along these dimensions.

• The nomothetic approach is seen as far more scientific than the idiographic approach, as it takes an evidence-based, objective approach to formulate causal laws.
• This enables us to make predictions about how people are likely to react in certain circumstances, which can be very useful, e.g., Zimbardo’s findings about how prisoners and guards react in a prison environment.
• Predictions can be made about groups, but these may not apply to individuals.
• The approach has been accused of losing sight of the ‘whole person.’

Idiographic Approach

The Idiographic or individual differences approach looks at how our behaviors are different from each other. The term “idiographic” comes from the Greek word “idios” meaning “own” or “private.” Psychologists interested in this aspect of experience want to discover what makes each of us unique. Tend to use qualitative methods.

Personality: – An Idiographic Approach

At the other extreme, Gordon Allport found over 18,000 separate terms describing personal characteristics. Whilst some of these are common traits (that could be investigated nomothetically), the majority, in Allport’s view, referred to more or less unique dispositions based on life experiences peculiar to ourselves.

He argues that they cannot be effectively studied using standardized tests. What is needed is a way of investigating them ideographically.

Carl Rogers, a Humanist psychologist, has developed a method of doing this, a procedure called the “Q-sort.” First, the subject is given a large set of cards with a self-evaluative statement written on each one. For example, “I am friendly” or “I am ambitious,” etc.

The subject is then asked to sort the cards into piles. One pile contains statements that are “most like me,” one statement that is “least like me,” and one or more piles for statements that are in-between.

In a Q-sort, the number of cards can be varied, as can the number of piles and the type of question (e.g., How I am now? How I used to be? How my partner sees me? How I would like to be?) So there are a potentially infinite number of variations.

That, of course, is exactly as it should be for an idiographic psychologist because, in his/her view, there are ultimately as many different personalities as there are people.

• A major strength of the idiographic approach is its focus on the individual. Gordon Allport argues that it is only by knowing the person as a person that we can predict what the person will do in any given situation.
• The idiographic approach is very time-consuming. It takes a lot of time and money to study individuals in depth. If a researcher is using the nomothetic approach, once a questionnaire, psychometric test, or experiment has been designed, data can be collected relatively quickly.

From these examples, we can see that the difference between a nomothetic and an idiographic approach is not just a question of what the psychologist wants to discover but also of the methods used.

Experiments, correlation, psychometric testing, and other quantitative methods are favored from a nomothetic point of view. Case studies, informal interviews, unstructured observation, and other qualitative methods are idiographic.

There are also broad differences between theoretical perspectives. Behaviorist, cognitive and biological psychologists tend to focus on discovering laws or establishing generalizations: – Nomothetic. The humanists are interested in the individual: – Idiographic.

As always, it is best to take a combined approach. Millon & Davis (1996) suggest research should start with a nomothetic approach and once general ‘laws’ have been established, research can then move to a more idiographic approach. Thus, getting the best of both worlds!

Essay Question : – Discuss idiographic and nomothetic approaches to psychological investigation (16 marks)

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples :

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children put in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children that participated would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, think of the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young charges in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are in no way harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

1) Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.

2) Friends and relatives of those taking part in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.

3) The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.

4) The institution in which the research is conducted.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) also suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• The way in which the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics are able to detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t. When research findings are publicized, people are likely to take them as fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are totally responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how taking part in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls. E.g., The Tuskergee Study which withheld treatment for STIs from black men to investigate the effects of syphilis on the body.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their own interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : If the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits, it is unethical. However, it is difficult to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise: Researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.
• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still carried out on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.
• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

A-Level Psychology Revision Notes

A-Level Psychology Attachment

Psychology Memory Revision Notes

Social Influence Revision Notes

Psychopathology Revision Notes

Psychology Approaches Revision for A-level

Research Methods: Definition, Types, & Examples

Overview – Gender

Gender refers to the psychological traits of masculinity and femininity. A person’s gender is a different thing to their biological sex, although the two things often overlap. This topic looks at:

• How sex and gender relate to each other (including sex-role stereotypes and androgyny )
• Biological influences on sex and gender (including the role of chromosomes and hormones )
• Cognitive explanations of gender development (in particular Kohlberg’s theory and gender schema theory )
• Psychodynamic explanations of gender development (in particular Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of gender )
• Social learning explanations of gender development (including the role of culture and the media )
• Atypical gender development (including biological and social explanations of gender dysphoria )

Sex and gender

There is a difference between sex and gender , but the two things often overlap:

• Sex: Whether a person is biologically male or female (i.e. what sex organs and chromosomes they have).
• Gender: Whether a person is psychologically masculine and/or feminine (i.e. how they act and what they identify as).

The different sexes have different sex-role stereotypes . If someone has a mix of masculine and feminine traits, they are androgynous .

Sex-role stereotypes

Sex-role stereotypes are social and cultural expectations of how males and females should behave. Some typical examples include:

• Women are more nurturing than men
• Men are more aggressive than women
• Men like football, women don’t
• Caring for children is women’s work, men do the DIY
• Pink is a girl’s colour, blue is a boy’s colour

• Different stereotypes: There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all explanation of gender stereotypes, as there are many different forms of stereotype. For example, as described above, the stereotype that men are more aggressive than women is likely to have a biological explanation, whereas the stereotype that women wear skirts and men wear trousers is likely to have a cultural explanation.
• Interactionism: The various discussions below suggest biological , social , cognitive , and psychodynamic explanations of sex-role stereotypes and gender roles. One way to reconcile these competing explanations is to adopt an interactionist approach. Instead of relying on only one explanation, you might argue that some sex-role stereotypes have a biological basis that gets reinforced and amplified by social learning, for example.
• Negative effects: Sex-role stereotypes may have harmful effects on society. For example, women may not go into fields such as science or technology – even if they are equally talented as men – because sex-role stereotypes might tell them these are ‘male’ industries. Similarly, men may avoid going into fields such as nursing and childcare due to sex-role stereotypes.

Androgyny is when someone has a mix of both feminine and masculine traits. It is commonly used to refer to someone’s appearance (e.g. a female with short hair or a man wearing makeup), but in this context we are talking about psychological androgyny.

Androgyny can be measured using the Bem sex-role inventory .

Bem sex-role inventory

Bem (1977) describes four broad personality types that are captured by the Bem sex-role inventory:

• Masculine: High masculinity and low femininity
• Feminine: High femininity and low masculinity
• Androgynous: High masculinity and high femininity
• Undifferentiated: Low masculinity and low femininity

Bem argues that androgyny – scoring highly for both masculinity and femininity – is psychologically healthy and advantageous. One reason androgyny may be advantageous is that having a mix of masculine and feminine traits enables a person to adapt and excel in more situations, whereas a person who scores highly one way but not the other is likely to have a more limited skillset.

Strengths of the Bem sex-role inventory:

• Reliability: Bem (1974) re-administered the Bem sex-role inventory to a sample of participants 4 weeks after they originally completed the test. She found the participants’ answers were consistent both times, suggesting the Bem sex-role inventory has good test-retest reliability .
• Predictive power: Some studies (e.g. Flaherty and Dusek (1980) and Lubinski et al (1981) ) support Bem’s prediction that androgyny is psychologically advantageous.

Weaknesses of the Bem sex-role inventory:

• Questions of cultural and temporal validity : The items in the Bem sex-role inventory were decided based on surveys of what American students in the 1970’s considered to be desirable traits for each gender. However, other cultures might have different ideas about which traits are masculine and feminine and so the Bem sex-role inventory might not be valid when applied outside of America. Similarly, American values may have changed since the 1970’s and so the Bem sex-role inventory may also lack temporal validity when measuring gender in American participants today.
• Subjective: Self-report methods such as the Bem sex-role inventory are subjective because they require participants to assess their own personality (rather than e.g. an independent observer objectively assessing each participant). Each participant’s different subjective interpretations, biases, and ways of understanding the items on the checklist may reduce the validity of the Bem sex-role inventory.
• Overly simplistic: The Bem sex-role inventory focuses solely on personality traits and reduces gender to a single number. However, this may be an oversimplification. For example, Golombok and Fivush (1994) argue that gender identity also includes things like interests and abilities.

Biological influences on gender development

Chromosomes (genetics) determine a person’s biological sex, which influences their natural hormone levels. In addition to physical effects, these biological factors have psychological effects that influence gender development.

Chromosomes

Each cell in the body (with a few exceptions) has chromosomes , which carry genetic information. Humans have 46 chromosomes, or 23 pairs . The 23rd chromosome pair determines a person’s biological sex.

• Females: XX

Females have two pairs of X chromosomes, whereas males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. It is genes in the Y chromosome that are responsible for male development, such as the formation of testes and higher levels of the hormone testosterone .

Atypical sex chromosome patterns

Atypical sex chromosome patterns are when a person has a 23rd chromosome pair that is something other than the typical XX pattern for females or XY pattern for males. These atypical sex chromosome patterns cause differences in development compared those with typical sex chromosome patterns.

Klinefelter’s syndrome

Klinefelter’s syndrome (also known as 47,XXY) is when a male is born with XXY chromosomes rather than XY sex chromosomes. It affects roughly one in 750 males.

Physical characteristics of Klinefelter’s syndrome may include:

• Less body hair than average males
• Gynaecomastia (increased breast tissue)
• Poorly functioning testicles (sterility)
• Weaker muscles
• Taller height than average males

Psychological characteristics of Klinefelter’s syndrome may include:

• Below average reading ability and poor language skills
• Shyness and difficulties with social interaction

Turner’s syndrome

Turner’s syndrome (also known as 45,X) is when a female is born with only one X chromosome and either an absent or partial second X chromosome. It affects roughly one in 5,000 females.

Physical characteristics of Turner’s syndrome may include:

• No menstrual cycle (sterility)
• Undeveloped breasts
• Webbed neck, broad chest, narrow hips
• Shorter height than average females

Psychological characteristics of Turner’s syndrome may include:

• Above average reading abilities
• Below average mathematics abilities
• Social immaturity

Hormones are chemicals produced in the body by glands ( see the biopsychology page for more details ).

All humans produce the same hormones – but males and females produce them in different amounts . For example, men produce much higher levels of testosterone , whereas women produce much more estrogen . In the womb, the different levels of these hormones affect brain development and cause the development of either male or female genitals. At puberty, hormone levels increase, causing the development of secondary sex characteristics (e.g. development of breasts in women, growth of facial hair in men). Hormones are associated with sex-role behavioural stereotypes and so are an important influence on gender development.

Testosterone

During development in the womb, genes in the Y chromosome cause testes, rather than ovaries, to form. At around 8 weeks, the testes start producing testosterone. This testosterone causes physical changes, such as the development of male sex organs, and also psychological ones because prenatal testosterone causes masculinisation of the brain. For example, men typically have greater spatial reasoning than women, with animal studies (e.g. Williams and Meck (1991) ) and studies of females exposed to high levels of prenatal testosterone (e.g. Puts et al (2008) ) suggesting testosterone plays a role in developing these areas of the brain.

After birth, testosterone is associated with stereotypical male behaviours, such as aggression and competitiveness. For example, Albert et al (1989) found injecting female rats with testosterone made them act more aggressively. In humans, Dabbs et al (1995) studied a prison population, finding prisoners with higher testosterone levels were more likely to have committed violent crimes.

In the womb, having an X chromosome instead of Y means ovaries, rather than testes, form. This results in higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels. These higher estrogen levels have feminising effects on brain development. For example, some studies (e.g. Ardekani et al (2013) ) have found women have more neural connections between the left and right hemispheres than men, resulting in more evenly distributed use of both brain hemispheres . Further, women generally have greater verbal fluency than men, with some studies (e.g. Schultheiss et al (2020) ) suggesting this is a result of estrogen exposure.

Estrogen is associated with stereotypical female behaviours, such as compassion and sensitivity. After puberty, estrogen also regulates the menstrual cycle in women. In some women, hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle cause pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) – a condition with psychological symptoms that include stress, anxiety, and irritability. However, some researchers (e.g. Rodin (1992) and Offman and Kleinplatz (2004) ) criticise the characterisation of PMS as a medical disorder.

Oxytocin is sometimes called the ‘love hormone’ because it is associated with bonding, nurturing, trust, and sociability. Oxytocin levels are typically higher in women than men and the effects of oxytocin are amplified by estrogen , so oxytocin contributes to gender differences.

Oxytocin may partly explain sex-role stereotypes to do with childcare, sociability, and relationships. For example, oxytocin levels increase during sex by roughly 5 times – for both men and women – but fall immediately in males after orgasm. This may explain why males are less interested in intimacy after sex. Another example is gender differences in behavioural responses to stress. Typically characterised as ‘ fight or flight ‘, Taylor et al (2000) found the female response to stress is better characterised as ‘tend and befriend’. The researchers suggest these behavioural differences in response to stress are caused by differences in oxytocin activity between men and women. In another study, Zak et al (2007) randomly assigned participants to receive either an oxytocin injection or placebo before getting the participants to take part in a task that involved splitting money with another person. The participants injected with oxytocin were 80% more generous than controls.

Strengths of biological explanations:

• Evidence supporting biological explanations: See studies above for examples of how hormones influence gender development. Another useful example is Van Goozen et al (1995) , who demonstrated that administering cross-sex hormones to transgender people results in gender-stereotypical behavioural changes. For example, FtMs given testosterone act more aggressively and MtFs given estrogen  act less aggressively. Further, atypical sex chromosome patterns – such as Klinefelter’s Syndrome and Turner’s Syndrome – demonstrate how chromosomes also have important effects on gender development. Finally, several studies (e.g. Alexander et al (2009) , Caldera et al (1989) , and Hassett et al (2008) ) have found babies display gender-typical behaviour as early as 3 months old, suggesting some gender-typical behaviours are biologically programmed from birth.

Weaknesses of biological explanations:

• Conflicting evidence: Some studies question the effects of hormones on gender-typical behaviour. For example, Tricker et al (1996) randomly assigned 43 men to receive either 600mg of testosterone per week or placebo but found no differences in aggression between the two groups.
• Other factors: Although there is strong evidence for a biological component to gender, other factors – such as cognitive factors and social learning – likely play a role as well.
• Socially sensitive : A potential negative consequence of biological explanations of gender development is that it could reinforce harmful stereotypes . For example, if males have a slight advantage in spatial reasoning on average, it might cause society to discriminate against women entering fields that require spatial reasoning (e.g. engineering) even if the woman is equally or more able than the average man.
• Methodological concerns: A lot of evidence for the role of hormones in gender development comes from animal studies and so the results might not apply to humans.

Cognitive explanations of gender development

Cognitive explanations of gender development see gender resulting from active changes in thought over time as a child grows up (as opposed to social learning theory , which says gender is just passively observed and imitated). They describe the ways of thinking that contribute to gender development.

The cognitive explanations of gender included in the syllabus are Kohlberg’s theory and gender schema theory .

Kohlberg’s theory of gender development

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development ( see the cognition and development page for more details ) argues that children’s thinking changes as they grow up. Kohlberg’s theory of gender development is based on this model, arguing that gender development occurs alongside general development in thinking that comes with age.

In the case of gender development specifically, Kohlberg (1966) identifies 3 stages: Gender identity , gender stability , and gender constancy .

After the child reaches gender constancy , they seek out and imitate role models who match their gender. For example, a boy may take an interest in football if he identifies with his father who is also interested in football.

Strengths of Kohlberg’s theory:

• Evidence supporting Kohlberg’s theory: Several studies support a pattern of gender development in line with Kohlberg’s theory. For example, Thompson (1975) found that 76% of 2 year olds demonstrated gender identity but that this increased to 90 among 3 year olds, which is consistent with Kohlberg’s timeline. Similarly, Thompson and Bentler (1973) demonstrated that most children have gender stability by 4-6 years old. Finally, Slaby and Frey (1975) found that after children reach gender constancy they pay more attention to same-sex role models, which is in line with Kohlberg’s predictions.
• Holistic : Although Kohlberg’s theory is primarily a cognitive explanation of gender development, it is compatible with biological and social explanations. For example, Kohlberg describes how once a child achieves gender constancy they identify with and imitate same-sex role models, which is compatible with social learning explanations .

Weaknesses of Kohlberg’s theory:

• Conflicting evidence: Some researchers argue that children’s gender development happens earlier than Kohlberg’s theory suggests. For example, gender schema theory argues that children start behaving in gendered ways as early as 2 years old, whereas Kohlberg argues that children only start imitating same-sex role models after achieving gender constancy (at around 6 years old). The earlier development described by gender schema theory has some reseach support. For example, Bussey and Bandura (1992) found that children behave in gender-typical ways regardless of age and level of gender constancy.
• Methodological concerns: Kohlberg’s theory was based on interviews with children as young as 2 years old. However, it may be that the younger children had more sophisticated concepts of gender than they could express due to the fact that children are still learning to talk at that age. This raises questions about the validity of Kohlberg’s theory.
• Other factors: A truly holistic account of gender development will include all factors, such as biological and social influences. For example, Munroe et al (1984) observed a pattern of gender development in line with Kohlberg’s three stages across multiple different cultures, which suggests there are common biological processes underpinning these changes in thought.

Gender schema theory

This gender schema theory differs from Kohlberg’s theory in that it argues children behave in gendered ways from a much earlier age. Whereas Kohlberg argues that children start imitating gender-appropriate role models at around 6 years old (after reaching gender constancy ), gender schema theory proposes that children start developing gender schemas from around age 2.

Over time, gender schemas develop along with other developments in thinking. For example, early schemas focus on the child’s own gender only, but by around age 8 children develop schemas for the opposite gender as well. Later, by the time the child is a teenager, they realise that a lot of the so-called rules about boys and girls are just social customs and so their gender schema become more flexible.

Strengths of Gender schema theory:

• Evidence supporting gender schema theory: Martin and Little (1990) observed that children aged 3-5 have stereotypical beliefs about which toys and clothes go with each gender, which suggests they have already developed gender schema by this age.
• Predictive power: In general, people are biased towards information that fits their pre-existing schema . So, if gender schema theory is correct, you would expect children to be biased towards information that fits their gender schema. Martin and Halverson (1983) found that children aged 5-6 were more likely to accurately remember gender-typical pictures (e.g. a boy playing with a train) and more likely to misremember non-stereotypical pictures (e.g. a girl sawing wood), which is in line with the predictions of gender schema theory.

Weaknesses of Gender schema theory:

• Conflicting evidence: Several studies suggest children demonstrate gender-typical behaviour before forming gender schema. For example, Alexander et al (2009) found boys aged 3-8 months looked at toy trucks more than toy dolls and that girls aged 3-8 months looked at toy dolls more than toy trucks. Similarly, Caldera et al (1989) found that children as young as 18 months display preferences for gender-typical toys. Further, Hassett et al (2008) found that rhesus monkeys – animals who clearly do not have gender schema! – also display preferences for gender-typical toys. These studies suggest factors other than cognitive schema (e.g. biology ) influence gender development and that an interactionist explanation might be more appropriate.
• Schema may not change behaviour: Gender schema theory explains gender-typical behaviour as the result of gender schema but the link between the two is questionable. For example, many couples that value gender equality (i.e. couples without stereotypical gender schema) still typically organise roles according to stereotypes. This suggests that there is more to gender development than simply cognitive beliefs and schema.

Psychodynamic explanations of gender development

Psychodynamic explanations of gender development , like psychodynamic approaches to psychology in general, focus on unconscious conflicts between different aspects of the mind. The main example of this is Freud’s psychoanalytic theory .

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory

According to Freud, childhood development involves resolving five conflicts and passing through five psychosexual stages . It is during the phallic psychosexual stage (3-5 years) where gender develops. This gender development follows a similar pattern for men and women:

• The child develops a sexual attraction to their opposite-sex parent and a dislike of their same-sex parent (for women this is known as the Electra complex and for men the Oedipus complex ).
• The child resolves this conflict by identifying with the same-sex parent.
• By identifying with the same-sex parent, the child internalises the same-sex parent’s personality into their own, which settles their gender.

Oedipus complex

Resolution of the Oedipus complex (named after the mythical Greek king who accidentally killed his father and married his mother) is Freud’s explanation of male gender development.

Prior to the phallic psychosexual stage (3-5 years), a boy has no concept of his gender. Then, during the phallic stage, the boy develops an unconscious sexual desire for his mother. This desire leads to unconscious feelings of jealousy and hatred towards his father, because the father has what the boy desires (the mother). The boy’s id – the unconscious and instinctive part of the mind that is only concerned with pleasure – wants to kill the father in order to have the mother for himself.

But the boy’s ego – the practical part of the mind that mediates between the desires of the id and reality – recognises that the father is stronger than him. This leads to fear of the father. The boy thinks that, if his father discovers that he desires his mother for himself, the father will remove his penis (castration anxiety).

To resolve these conflicting desires and beliefs, the boy abandons the desire for his mother and identifies with the father. By identifying with the father, the boy incorporates and internalises the father’s personality into his superego . Internalising the father’s personality means also internalising the father’s masculine gender. The boy develops his gender by displacing the sexual desire for his mother onto other women.

Electra complex

Resolution of the Electra complex (named (by Carl Jung, not Freud) after the mythical Greek daughter of King Agamemnon who killed her mother) is Freud’s explanation of female gender development.

Prior to the phallic psychosexual stage (3-5 years), a girl has no concept of her gender. After she reaches this stage, the girl believes that the reason she does not have a penis is because she has been castrated. The girl desires a penis (penis envy) and so develops a desire for her father as he has what she wants. The girl also develops a dislike of her mother for two reasons: Firstly, because she blames the mother for taking her penis, and secondly, because she sees the mother as competition for her father’s love. However, the girl also loves her mother and fears losing her love if she discovers her desires for her father.

To resolve these conflicting desires, the girl represses her feelings of dislike for her mother and instead identifies with her. By identifying with the mother, the girl incorporates and internalises the mother’s personality into her superego . Internalising the mother’s personality means also internalising the mother’s feminine gender. The girl develops her gender by substituting her desire for a penis with a desire to have a baby.

Strengths of psychodynamic explanations:

• Evidence supporting psychodynamic explanations: Freud (1909) used the case study of Little Hans as evidence to support the Oedipus complex. Hans saw a horse collapse in the street one day and after that incident developed an intense fear of horses. However, Freud claimed this fear of horses was actually a displaced fear of his father (‘black bits’ around the horse’s mouth representing his father’s moustache) in line with the Oedipus complex. In later therapy sessions, Hans described a dream in which a plumber replaced his penis with a bigger one, which Freud interpreted as Hans identifying with his father and overcoming his Oedipus complex. Hans overcame his fear of horses and went on to become a psychologically healthy adult.

Weaknesses of psychodynamic explanations:

• Methodological concerns: The Little Hans case study is a single example that involves a lot of subjective (and potentially biased) interpretation. It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude from such evidence that the Oedipus complex is a universal process of male gender development.
• Unscientific: Freud’s theories of gender development (as with Freud’s theories in general ) are based on unconscious concepts such as the id. These concepts are difficult, if not impossible, to observe and measure. However, science is concerned with what is observable, measurable, and repeatable , and so by this standard Freud’s theories are unscientific. Further, because these unconscious processes cannot be observed and measured, Freud’s theories are accused of being unfalsifiable : There is no evidence that could disprove them.
• Conflicting evidence: Freud claimed that children have no concept of their gender prior to the phallic stage (3-5 years). However, several studies (e.g. those discussed in the gender schema theory and Kohlberg’s theory AO3 sections above) demonstrate that children are aware of their own gender much earlier than this.
• Gender bias : Freud’s theory is mainly focused on male gender development and can be said to demonstrate an androcentric bias. For example, both the Oedipus complex and the Electra complex assume the male perspective as the default and desirable: Male development focuses on the penis (and fear of losing it) whereas female development is characterised by a lack of and desire for a penis.

Social learning explanations of gender development

Social learning theory ( see the approaches page for more details ) explains gender as resulting from observation and imitation of gender role models. For example, a boy may observe and imitate his father’s behaviour. Gender-typical behaviours may then be reinforced. For example, a boy may be praised for gender-typical behaviour (e.g. “wow, you’re so strong!”) or punished for opposite-gender behaviour (e.g. “stop acting like a girl!”).

Role models can include things like parents, siblings, and peers but the syllabus focuses on gender role models in culture and the media specifically.

There is evidence that these stereotypes influence gender roles. For example, McGhee and Frueh (1980) found a correlation between media exposure and stereotypical views of sex-roles . In other words, the more TV a child watches, the more likely they are to have stereotypical views about gender.

These studies support the social learning theory explanation of gender development: Children observe role models in the media, identify with those of the same gender, and imitate their gender-typical behaviour.

Comparing gender roles among different cultures can provide insights into how much gender is a social construct and how much it is a biological one: If gender roles are biological, you would expect different cultures to have the same gender stereotypes because human biology is basically the same across cultures. But if gender roles are socially constructed, you would expect greater variation between cultures because different cultures would create different social norms and values.

Mead (1935) studied gender roles among 3 different tribes in Papua New Guinea. She observed that many tribes had gender roles that differed from each other and from typical gender roles in Western cultures:

• Arapesh: Both the men and women were caring and peaceful (stereotypically female behaviour in Western cultures).
• Mundugumor: Both the men and women were aggressive and warlike (stereotypically male behaviour in Western cultures).
• Tchambuli (Chambri): Women were the workers (e.g. catching fish) and organised society, while men decorated themselves (opposite gender roles to those typical in Western cultures).

These differences between cultures suggest that gender roles are culturally, rather than biologically, determined.

However, Mead’s interpretations have been criticised. For example, Errington and Gewertz (1989) also studied the Tchambuli (Chambri) tribe but found no evidence to support the gender roles described by Mead. Further, several studies (see AO3 evaluation points below) have found gender roles are generally consistent across different cultures.

Strengths of social learning explanations:

• Media: McGhee and Frueh (1980) and Bandura and Bussey (1999) demonstrate correlations between stereotypical representations of gender in the media and stereotypical views on gender, which suggests the media plays a role in teaching gender stereotypes.
• Culture: Although Mead (1935) supports social learning explanations based on culture, other studies question her findings (see weaknesses below).
• Peer influence: More generally, many studies (e.g. Bussey and Bandura (1992) and Langlois and Downs (1980) ) have demonstrated that young children enforce gender roles (e.g. by bullying children for playing with toys of the ‘wrong’ gender), which supports social learning explanations based on peer influence .
• Explanatory power: Social learning theory is able to explain changing gender stereotypes . For example, a higher percentage of women now work in industries like science and engineering – fields that were once thought of as typically male – than in the past. This could be explained by the media , as women are more likely to be portrayed in such roles than in previous decades.

Weaknesses of social learning explanations:

• Conflicting evidence: Several studies have found similar gender roles exist cross-culturally, contradicting Mead (1935) . For example, Barry et al (1957) looked at 110 different cultures and found almost all of them saw nurturing and obedience as feminine traits and self-reliance and achievement-striving as masculine traits. Similarly, Whiting and Edwards (1988) looked at children in 6 cultures (the USA, Mexico, Japan, India, Kenya, and the Philippines) and found that girls were generally more caring than boys and that boys were generally more aggressive than girls. These studies weaken support for cultural explanations of gender development.
• Questions about temporal validity: The studies described above linking media consumption and gender-stereotypical views were conducted in the 1980’s and 1990’s. However, modern portrayal of men and women in the media is much less gender-stereotypical than it was when these studies were conducted. Further, the types of media that children consume has changed since these studies, with social media likely playing a bigger role than television. As such, the findings of these studies may lack temporal validity , with the role of the media on gender development being much different than it once was.
• Other factors: As always, you can take an interactionist stance and argue that social learning plays a role in gender development but is not a complete explanation of it. For example, you could argue that there is a biological basis to gender roles that gets amplified and exaggerated by social learning.

Atypical gender development

Gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria (previously referred to as gender identity disorder) is a condition where a person’s biological sex does not match their psychological gender. For example, somebody born biologically male (i.e. with XY chromosomes ) may be psychologically female.

Gender dysphoria often begins in childhood. It can cause symptoms such as anxiety and depression as the person feels uncomfortable in a body that is the ‘wrong’ sex. To help reduce these feelings of discomfort, the person may take steps to make their outer appearance align with their inner gender. For example, a male-to-female transgender person may wear gender-typical female clothes, take feminising hormones ( estrogen ), and undergo gender reassignment surgery.

The syllabus looks at biological and social explanations of gender dysphoria.

Biological explanations of gender dysphoria

Biological explanations of gender dysphoria include genetics , hormones , and brain structures . These different biological factors interact with one another and so cannot easily be separated. For example, a person’s genetics influence their brain structure.

As always, twin studies are a useful way to determine the extent to which a condition is caused by genetic factors. If gender dysphoria is more common among both identical twins (who share 100% of their genes) than both non-identical twins (who only share 50% of their genes), this would suggest genetics play a role.

• Diamond (2013) combined a survey of transgender twins with a review of published studies on transgender twins. Concordance rates for gender dysphoria among identical male and identical female twin pairs were 33.3% and 22.8% respectively. In contrast, the concordance rate among non-identical twins (male or female) was only 2.6%. The higher concordance among identical twins than non-identical twins supports the existence of a genetic component to gender dysphoria.
• Coolidge et al (2002) analysed a sample of 314 twin children (96 identical pairs and 61 non-identical pairs) and estimated that gender dysphoria is 62% caused by genetics and 38% by non-shared environmental experience.
• Beijsterveldt et al (2006) analysed a sample of around 14,000 twin children and found concordance rates of cross-gender behaviour were higher among identical than non-identical twins. The researchers estimate that gender dysphoria is 70% explained by genetics.

In general, twin studies support a genetic basis of gender dysphoria. This genetic basis is further supported by gene association studies. For example, Hare et al (2009) analysed gene samples from 112 male-to-female transgender people and 258 controls, finding that gender dysphoria is correlated with differences in AR (androgen receptor) genes. In a gene association study of female-to-male transgender people, Bentz et al (2008) found gender dysphoria was correlated with the CYP17 gene. These studies suggest gender dysphoria is caused by different genes depending on whether the person is born biologically male or female.

Hormonal explanations of gender dysphoria focus on prenatal (i.e. in the womb) hormone levels. It’s difficult to measure (and unethical to alter) prenatal hormone levels, but some evidence suggests prenatal hormones contribute to gender dysphoria. For example:

• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia causes increased testosterone exposure in the womb. Erickson-Schroth (2013) found that at least 5.2% of biological females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia develop gender dysphoria, which is much higher than average. This suggests that prenatal testosterone exposure increases the incidence of gender dysphoria in biological females.
• Some studies suggest prenatal hormone levels affect finger length ratios (2D:4D digit ratio). A meta-analysis by Siegmann et al (2020) found male-to-female transgender people had higher 2D:4D ratios than male controls, but found no differences between female-to-male transgender people and female controls. This suggests prenatal hormones may contribute to gender dysphoria in biological males.

Prenatal hormones affect brain development ( see above for examples ), which may explain the mechanism through which hormones cause gender dysphoria. However, the role of prenatal hormones in gender dysphoria is disputed (see AO3 evaluation points below).

Brain structures

Several studies have found correlations between gender identity and brain structure, suggesting a role in gender dysphoria. In particular, research has focused on an area of the brain known as the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), which is typically 40% larger in males than females. For example:

• Zhou et al (1995) used post-mortems to compare the brains of 6 male-to-female transgender people with cisgender male and female controls. The BSTc regions of the MtFs were closer in size to cisgender females than males, suggesting they had female brain structures.
• Kruijver et al (2000) compared the number of neurons in the BSTc regions of transgender people with cisgender people. The researchers found that MtF trans people had similar numbers of neurons as cisgender females and that FtM trans people had similar numbers of neurons to cisgender males.

Another area of the brain associated with gender identity is the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3). Males typically have twice as many neurons in this region as females, but post-mortems by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008) found MtFs had neuron numbers similar to female controls and FtMs had neuron numbers similar to male controls.

• Evidence supporting biological explanations: See studies above (don’t worry, you don’t have to remember them all – they’re just examples). In general, the studies above support a genetic and neural basis of gender dysphoria, but the exact role of hormones is less clear.
• Genetics: Although twin studies support a role for genetics in explaining gender dysphoria, the fact that concordance rates among identical twins are much less than 100% suggests that other factors (e.g. social explanations ) play a role too.
• Hormones: A meta-analysis by Voracek et al (2018) found differences in 2D:4D ratios between transgender and cisgender people were small or non-existent, contradicting Siegmann et al (2020) and weakening support for the role of prenatal hormone exposure in explaining gender dysphoria.
• Brain structures: Hulshoff Pol et al (2006) used brain scans to measure the brains of transgender people before and after cross-sex hormone therapy. The researchers found that hormone therapy changed the size of the BSTc. This suggests differences in brain structures may be an effect of hormone therapy rather than a cause of gender dysphoria.
• Genetics: Being a twin is somewhat rare and gender dysphoria is rarer still. As such, the sample size for twin studies of gender dysphoria is often small, which means the findings are less likely to be valid . Further, there is the general methodological issue of twin studies that it is difficult to separate genes and environment: Identical twins are more likely to be treated similarly than non-identical twins. This more similar environment may partly explain the higher concordance rates for gender dysphoria among identical twins than non-identical twins, with the role of genetics being overestimated.
• Hormones: The reliability and validity of 2D:4D ratio as a way to measure prenatal hormone levels is disputed. As such, any studies that use 2D:4D ratio to link gender dysphoria with prenatal hormone levels may not be valid .
• Other factors: Reducing gender dysphoria to biology could be overly reductive and may ignore the importance of other factors such as cognitions and social explanations .

Social explanations of gender dysphoria

Social explanations of gender dysphoria explain gender dysphoria as learned from the environment. This includes behaviourist explanations, such as operant conditioning, as well as social learning theory.

Social learning theory would say that gender dysphoria is caused by children observing and imitating role models of the opposite sex. For example, a young boy might observe his mother receiving compliments on her dress (vicarious reinforcement) and imitate this behaviour. This cross-gender behaviour may also be reinforced via operant conditioning . For example, adults may encourage or praise the boy for wearing a dress. This creates a conflict between the boy’s biological sex and psychological gender, leading to gender dysphoria.

Strengths of social explanations:

• Evidence supporting social explanations: Earlier research focused on social explanations of gender dysphoria (e.g. Rekers and Lovaas (1974) ), but the general consensus is that social explanations of gender dysphoria are less important than biological ones. However, social factors still likely play a role, as biological explanations of gender dysphoria are incomplete. For example, concordance rates for gender dysphoria among identical twins are much less than 100%, which opens the door for factors other than biology to explain gender dysphoria.

Weaknesses of social explanations:

• Conflicting evidence: Transgender people often face many social difficulties (e.g. prejudice and bullying) and if social explanations of gender dysphoria are correct this should discourage cross-gender behaviour. However, the fact that many transgender people insist on living as their preferred gender despite these negative consequences suggests there is a deeper, biological , reason for gender dysphoria.
• Other factors: There is quite a lot of evidence supporting biological explanations of gender dysphoria ( see studies above ) and so even if there is a social dimension to gender dysphoria it is likely these other factors play a role too. This suggests an interactionist approach may be more appropriate.

<<<Issues and debates

Schizophrenia>>>, eating behaviour>>>, stress>>>.

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY - GENDER 16 MARK ESSAY PLANS (AQA)

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

7 March 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Here you will find 9 essay plans for the GENDER topic in Psychology A2 (AQA), these plans contain a detailed 16 marker plan including: suitable introduction (keywords), studies, and evaluations. (AO1, AO2, AO3)

These were very useful for a proper 16 mark essay question structure, studies and evaluations (which are super important to get the 16 marks)

Other packs will be available soon.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 33%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY 16 MARK QUESTION PLANS

This contains all the products I currently have available on my page for A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY 16 MARK QUESTION PLANS. You save 20%.

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Language of Gender Identity

More from our inbox:, power over principle in the g.o.p., upgrading our electric grid, shakespeare’s insights, still relevant today.

To the Editor:

Re “ The Problem With Saying ‘Sex Assigned at Birth, ’” by Alex Byrne and Carole K. Hooven (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, April 3):

Mr. Byrne and Ms. Hooven argue that use of “assigned sex” terminology “creates doubt about a biological fact when there shouldn’t be any.” But sex characteristics are not “a biological fact”; they are rather a series of facts — anatomical, hormonal and genetic — that are not always in alignment.

The term “sex assignment” derives from the medical literature of the 1940s and 1950s, in which physicians grappled with what was then called “hermaphroditism” and is now called “intersex” or “D.S.D.,” for disorders or differences of sex development.

To conclude that the words “assigned at birth” are needless is to deny the complexity of biological sex and to erase both the history of intersex conditions and the embodied reality of the people who are born and live with them.

Barbara M. Chubak New York The writer is an associate professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Transgender people like me do not exist as a topic of rational debate, something to be tossed around in discourse; we are people, and our lives exist far beyond your philosophizing. Articles like this are not only unnecessary, but they are also harmful, patronizing and dehumanizing.

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is causing no one any harm, and it is not meant to replace “sex.” We are not advocating the end of “male” and “female.”

“Sex assigned at birth” is simply meant to convey the following notion: This individual was born as one sex, but their current body and/or lived experiences may contradict that. It allows trans people the very medical clarity this article claims to strive for. If I, a trans man far into his medical transition, were to walk into a doctor’s office and claim to simply be “female,” utter confusion could follow.

But we should not have to defend ourselves under the guise of rational discourse. We have bigger issues. In Texas, my parents would be possibly liable for child abuse for allowing me to transition as a teenager — so stop treating us as if we do not know what we are talking about.

When people tell you the language that makes them the most comfortable, you use it and move on. You may believe sex to be black and white, as it may be the most convenient reality for you to live in, but for many of us, our bodies are the gray areas.

Max Greenhill New York

I fully agree with this essay: Biological sex is accurately recorded at birth; it is not arbitrarily “assigned.”

The reason activists are pushing the sex-assigned-at-birth terminology is not simply that they want more empathy and inclusiveness for trans persons, but that they want the public to believe that one’s birth sex was, as the authors say, an educated guess at best. If the public accepts that idea, they will be more agreeable to the idea that one’s misassigned sex needs to be corrected later when the individual is old enough to determine their “true, authentic self.”

Most adults don’t care what gender someone declares, but biological sex is a scientific fact. The range of “genders” now being proclaimed is making the whole concept of gender meaningless. Every behavior, feeling, mood, attribute, sexual orientation or social statement does not constitute a gender.

Mark Godburn Norfolk, Conn.

The problem is not that we are confusing the male/female binary; the problem is that the human gender story is bigger than a simple binary, and our language does not reflect that, but it should.

Intersex people exist and have always existed. People whose gender expression doesn’t match their biological presentation exist and have always existed. The authors are correct that language is powerful, but in this case they have the power dynamic exactly backward.

When we adhere to strict binary language, we are asking gender-abundant people to amputate whole parts of themselves. We need to allow people to flourish in the language that fits them.

As my 9-year-old recently explained to my 6-year-old, “You don’t really know what gender a baby is when it’s born, because you know their parts, but you don’t know their heart.”

Meghan Lin St. Paul, Minn.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for publishing this guest essay by Alex Byrne and Carole K. Hooven. In a society inundated with well-meaning absurdities such as “sex assigned at birth” and “pregnant people,” this message desperately needs to be broadcast, received and acted upon.

Mark Featherstone Alameda, Calif.

Re “ Sununu Says Trump ‘Contributed’ to Insurrection, but Still Has His Support ” (news article, nytimes.com, April 14):

Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire now says he will support Donald Trump for president, even as he concedes that Mr. Trump “absolutely contributed” to an attempted insurrection on Jan. 6. Like many of his fellow Republicans, Mr. Sununu has chosen power over principle.

Ethics don’t flash on and off like neon lights. Integrity cannot be situational. And character isn’t a chameleon that shifts to secure political advantage. History will record all the elected officials who embraced Mr. Trump’s mendacity while looking away from the democratic principles they swore an oath to uphold.

Welcome to the club, Governor Sununu.

Maryellen Donnellan Falls Church, Va.

Re “ The U.S. Urgently Needs a Bigger Grid. Scientists Have a Faster Solution ” (Business, April 10):

The nation’s current power lines that were built in the 1950s and 1960s have a 50-year life expectancy, meaning that they have surpassed their intended life span. As the U.S. evaluates how to meet new electric demand, the materials in the grid must not just be replaced, but also efficiently planned and upgraded.

To lower energy costs and improve reliable access to electricity, we should use new technologies that allow more power to be transported across the same size transmission towers that are currently in use. Further, the same amount of power could be transported across smaller, low-impact towers, which could reduce siting and permitting obstacles — thus saving time and money.

Significant transmission capacity is required to meet rising demands on the electrical system, withstand frequent extreme weather events and balance a changing resource mix. Deploying improved technologies in constructing a nationwide transmission grid is key to meeting these needs — because America needs a modern grid now more than ever.

Christina Hayes Washington The writer is the executive director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid.

With “ O.J. and the Monster Jealousy ” (column, April 14) and “ Trump’s Insatiable Bloodlust ” (column, April 7), Maureen Dowd evokes two of Shakespeare’s greatest characters — Othello and Macbeth — to demonstrate that the playwright’s insights remain as perceptive and significant today as they were more than 400 years ago.

As his friend and fellow dramatist Ben Jonson wrote of Shakespeare, “He was not of an age but for all time!”

Brad Bradford Upper Arlington, Ohio

Final dates! Join the tutor2u subject teams in London for a day of exam technique and revision at the cinema. Learn more →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Issues & Debates: Gender Bias

Last updated 5 Sept 2022

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

The term bias is used to suggest that a person’s views are distorted in some way, and in psychology there is evidence that gender is presented in a biased way. This bias leads to differential treatment of males and females, based on stereotypes and not real differences.

For example, Freud argued that ‘anatomy is destiny’, meaning that there are genuine psychological differences between men and women because of their physiological differences, for example, he claimed young girls suffer from ‘penis envy’, and viewed femininity as failed form of masculinity.

The difficulty lies in distinguishing “real” from culturally created gender differences. Evidence suggests that there are a small number of real gender differences, confirmed through cross-cultural studies. For example, in a review of the research on sex differences, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) concluded that there were only four differences between boys and girls, including:

• Girls have greater verbal ability
• Boys have greater visual and spatial abilities
• Boys have greater arithmetical ability, a difference that only appears at adolescence
• Girls are less aggressive than boys
• Androcentrism

Androcentrism means being centred on, or dominated by males and can be conscious (the individual knows they are behaving this way) or unconscious. In the past most psychologists were male, and the theories they produced tended to represent a male view of the world. Hare-Mustin and Marecek (1988) argued for there being two types of gender bias: alpha and beta bias.

Alpha bias refers to theories which exaggerate the differences between males and females. For example, in his psychoanalytic approach, Freud argued that because girls do not suffer the same oedipal conflict as boys, they do not identify with their mothers as strongly as boys identify with their fathers, so develop weaker superegos.

The evolutionary approach in psychology has also been criticised for its alpha bias. This is because this approach suggests that evolutionary processes in the development of the human species explain why men tend to be dominant, why women have a more parental investment in their offspring, and why men are more likely to commit adultery. However, society has changed considerably over recent years, and it is argued that the evolutionary perspective shouldn’t be used to justify gender differences.

Beta bias theories have traditionally ignored or minimised sex differences. These theories often assume that the findings from males can apply equally to females.

For example, Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development was based on extensive interviews that he conducted with boys aged 10-16. The same all male sample was then re-interviewed at intervals of 3-4 years over a 20- year period. His classification system is based on a morality of justice and some researchers, such as Carol Gilligan (1982), have found that women tend to be more focused on relationships when making moral decisions and therefore often appear to be at a lower level of moral reasoning when using Kohlberg’s system. Therefore Kohlberg’s approach meant that a real difference was ignored.

There is also evidence of beta bias in psychological research. Male and female participants are used in most studies, but there is normally no attempt to analyse the data to see whether there are significant sex differences. Where differences are found, it may be possible that these occur because researchers ignore the differential treatment of participants. For example, Rosenthal (1966) reported that male experimenters were more pleasant, friendly, honest, and encouraging with female than with male participants. This led Rosenthal to conclude: “Male and female subjects may, psychologically, simply not be in the same experiment at all.”

Even some animal research can be argued to suffer from beta bias. For example, biological research into the fight-or-flight response has often been carried out with male animals because they have less variation in hormones than females. It was assumed that this would not be a problem as the fight-or-flight response would be the same for both. However, later stress research by Taylor et al. (2000) has challenged this view by providing evidence that females produce a tend-and-befriend response. The beta-bias in the earlier animal studies meant that for a long time the stress response was not fully understood and a real difference was ignored.

The result of beta bias in psychological research is that we end up with a view of human nature that is supposed to apply to men and women alike, but in fact, has a male or androcentric bias. For example, Asch’s (1955) conformity studies involved all male participants, as did many of the other conformity studies (e.g., Perrin & Spencer, 1980) and therefore it was assumed that females would respond in the same way.

• Issues & Debates

You might also like

Issues & debates: evaluating gender bias, free will vs. determinism: issues & debates webinar video.

Topic Videos

The Nature-Nurture Debate: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Holism & reductionism: issues & debates webinar video, psychology weekly update.

8th January 2017

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Issues & debates: culture bias, issues & debates: evaluating culture bias, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Does Our Approach to Gender Dysphoria Need an Overhaul?

A new review concludes that many gender-related treatments lack strong evidence..

Posted April 15, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• The treatment of gender distress is highly politicized, but scientific evidence is lacking.
• A new review concludes that hormone treatment may not reduce the risk of suicide in gender dysphoric youth.
• The review also finds no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any effects on mental health.
• Blocking puberty may not induce changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction.

"Gender incongruence" is the term used to describe a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and their assigned gender or biological sex. " Gender dysphoria ," which commonly arises after the onset of puberty, happens when gender incongruence is associated with clinically significant distress or functional impairment. Many of those who experience gender dysphoria will end up identifying as transgender (or trans, for short), an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth.

How should children and adolescents who experience gender incongruence and gender dysphoria be treated?

Persistent emotional distress—gender-related or otherwise—is, to an important degree, a health (and healthcare) matter. Yet gender distress has in recent years become politicized, and the lives and health of gender-troubled children and adolescents have become fodder for the political and ideological culture wars. As American politics and ideology often go, this complex and nuanced issue has thus been shoved into a tired, dichotomous formula.

For the progressives, the issue is one of minority rights. Gender dysphoric children and adolescents should thus be supported in their struggle to live as they wish, free of prejudice and discrimination . Early intervention to align the children’s body and appearance with their preferred gender must be encouraged. Those who question this view are typically accused of transphobia.

For conservatives, gender dysphoria is at best a passing individual fancy or troubling societal trend to be mocked and at worst a disease to be cured. Those who want to honor and affirm children’s gender struggles are seen as hopelessly "woke" social justice warriors pushing a radical agenda.

As culture wars go, this one, too, has been generating much heat in recent years, but very little light. Thus, the clinical healthcare services provided to children and adolescents who struggle with gender dysphoria have not been based on a solid foundation of high-quality research evidence.

A move forward from this abysmal state may have just happened, in the form of The Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, commissioned by NHS England in 2019, with the goal of making evidence-based recommendations on the questions relating to the provision of these services. The final report of what is known as the Cass report (for Hilary Cass, the pediatrician who chaired the review team) just dropped in April 2024. It is consequential.

For one, the report is a good example of how such tasks should be approached and executed: a thorough, detailed, evenhanded, and levelheaded examination that puts child welfare front and center and follows the available empirical evidence wherever it leads, while acknowledging—but not succumbing to—the various ideological, political, and societal forces at play.

The review examined the existing formal research as well as receiving input from “people with relevant lived experience,” organizations working with LGBTQ+ children and young people, and medical and mental health professionals who provide care and support to children and young people struggling with gender identity.

Writes Cass: “The aim of this Review is to make recommendations that ensure that children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender dysphoria receive a high standard of care. Care that meets their needs, is safe, holistic, and effective. “

The findings of the review are quite eye-opening.

Cass first attempts to explain the dramatic recent increase in the number of gender dysphoric cases, as well as the recent shift in the gender dysphoric population from male to female majority. She argues that the increased social acceptance of trans phenomena is not a sufficient explanation. “The exponential change in referrals over a particularly short five-year timeframe is very much faster than would be expected for normal evolution of acceptance of a minority group. This also does not adequately explain the switch from birth-registered males to birth-registered females, which is unlike trans presentations in any prior historical period.”

Cass notes that these gender dysphoria trends are immersed in the broader context of increased rates of mental health problems in children and adolescents (particularly females) in the last decade, and a corresponding increase in the number of young people “presenting with other bodily manifestations of distress; for example, eating disorders, tics and body dysmorphic disorder.” Gender identity and expression are determined by a difficult-to-disentangle mix of biological, neurological, psychological, and societal factors. Ostensible gender identity problems may thus be symptomatic of other, underlying and unresolved issues, Cass argues. Gender dysphoria, in other words, is not always about gender, just as germ phobia is not always about germs.

Cass then discusses the role and impact of social transitioning, defined here as “social changes to live as a different gender such as altering hair or clothing, name change, and/or use of different pronouns.” She notes that such transitioning is not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon. “There is a spectrum from young people who make relatively limited gender non-conforming changes in appearance to those who may have fully socially transitioned from an early age and may be living in stealth.”

She notes that a key difference between children and adolescents is that “parental attitudes and beliefs will have an impact on whether the child socially transitions. For adolescents, exploration is a normal process, and rigid binary gender stereotypes can be unhelpful.”

The debate over the benefits and harms of social transitioning is a flashpoint in the culture wars. Cass, however, found “no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence . However, those who had socially transitioned at an earlier age and/or prior to being seen in clinic were more likely to proceed to a medical pathway.”

“Although it is not possible to know from these studies whether earlier social transition was causative in this outcome, lessons from studies of children with differences in sexual development (DSD) show that a complex interplay between prenatal androgen levels, external genitalia, sex of rearing and sociocultural environment all play a part in eventual gender identity… Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.”

She concludes: “Avoiding premature decisions and considering partial rather than full transitioning can be a way of ensuring flexibility and keeping options open until the developmental trajectory becomes clearer.”

Cass then turns to inquire about the evidence regarding medical transitioning (a part of transition in which a transgender person undergoes medical treatments so that their physical and sex characteristics better match their gender identity).

She first addresses the common use of puberty blockers with gender dysphoric children. “The original rationale for the use of puberty blockers,” Cass notes, “was that this would buy ‘time to think’ by delaying the onset of puberty and also improve the ability to ‘pass’ in later life. Subsequently, it was suggested that they may also improve body image and psychological well-being.” The evidence, however, shows that blocking induces “no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction,” she writes.

Evidence as to the effects of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility is found to be “insufficient” and “inconsistent.” Moreover, the fact that a vast majority of young people who are started on puberty blockers proceed to masculinising/feminising hormones suggests that puberty blockers do not in fact “buy time to think” and may rather “change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”

Cass thus proposes that “because puberty blockers only have clearly defined benefits in quite narrow circumstances, and because of the potential risks to neurocognitive development, psychosexual development, and longer-term bone health, they should only be offered under a research protocol.”

The evidence about hormone treatment is examined next. “It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population,” Cass notes, “but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.” Cass notes the lack of high-quality outcome research—short- and long-term—of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence.

Thus, she writes, “No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility. Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardiometabolic, and bone health. There is suggestive evidence from mainly pre-post studies that hormone treatment may improve psychological health, although robust research with long-term follow-up is needed.”

Cass notes that while a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is often considered a prerequisite for hormone treatment, such diagnosis “is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.” Therefore, Cass recommends “an extremely cautious clinical approach and a strong clinical rationale for providing hormones before the age of 18. This would keep options open during this important developmental window, allowing time for management of any co-occurring conditions, building of resilience , and fertility preservation, if required.”

Cass notes the overall dearth of quality long-term outcome data on both medical and non-medical interventions, which means that “young people and their families have to make decisions without an adequate picture of the potential impacts and outcomes.”

In sum, youngsters' gender concerns should not be mocked or denied. Gender curiosity and exploration are common, particularly in adolescence, and should not be unduly pathologized. At the same time, young children should not be hustled onto a path toward gender transition. However well-intentioned, the Cass review suggests that current official guidelines, such as those of The American Academy of Pediatrics, are not rooted in solid evidence.

Likewise, the popular, medicalized approach known as “ gender-affirming care ," which is based on the notion that children’s early declarations of identity must be accepted at face value and their transition aggressively assisted, may not be justified by the evidence. Gender dysphoria may be transitory; it may at times be a symptom of underlying stress unrelated to gender identity. Changing one’s gender affiliation and appearance are often insufficient to resolve the underlying psychological dysfunction and alleviate distress.

Yet for some youngsters, transition is a solution. “Being gender-questioning or having a trans identity means different things to different people. Among those being referred to children and young people’s gender services, some may benefit from medical intervention and some may not. The clinical approach must reflect this.”

Finally, the healthcare we provide to youngsters who are struggling with gender distress should be a means to an end of helping them, rather than a means of winning a battle in the culture wars. Focusing on gender needs to be supplanted by a focus on the person. The care we provide youngsters who struggle with gender distress needs to be based in empirical facts, not merely good intentions or ideological and political theories.

Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Otterbein University and a practicing clinical psychologist in Columbus, Ohio.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

April 19, 2024

How Anti-Trans Efforts Misuse and Distort Science

Three types of misinformation are being used against transgender people: oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research and promoting false equivalences

By Corey S. Powell & OpenMind Magazine

Falsehoods and half-truths obscure the actual science around trans rights.

Jorg Greuel/Getty Images

In 2023 alone, more than 500 anti-trans bills were proposed or adopted in nearly every state in the United States, targeting everything from drag performances to gender-affirming medical care to school inclusion policies for trans people. Support for these measures has been enabled and propelled by scientific misinformation, which has proven to be a distressingly effective tool in outraging a public that might otherwise be broadly empathetic, or at least uncertain about where to stand. In the following Q&A, law professor Florence Ashley and scientist Simón(e) Sun describe to OpenMind co-editor Corey S. Powell how deceptions in science have been used to disenfranchise trans people and other marginalized groups. (This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.)

Anti-trans sentiment has existed for a long time, but it seems like we're at a moment of particularly intense attacks. Why is that?

Florence Ashley : It’s definitely been getting worse. A lot of people who have been out since the '70s and '80s are saying that this is an unprecedented level of public hate. Even if there's been progress around rights for a lot of people, there's a whole lot more hostility. I am located in Canada, where we're starting to have anti-trans bills that would have been mostly unheard of just five years ago. In the U.S., the fact that the courts are so stacked by Trump appointees at the federal level has been particularly daunting. We are seeing alliances between the anti-reproductive justice and anti-trans movements, which is really concerning.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Trans culture is more visible today than it has been in the past. Does that help, or is increased visibility stirring up the anti-trans movement?

Florence Ashley : Visibility is very much a double-edged sword. There are good sides to visibility, of course. It helps people realize that they're trans. You have more access to trans narratives, which gives you more space to understand yourself, and that's very positive. But at the social and political level, it has been quite negative. We're seeing a lot more people who vehemently hate trans people, who are even willing to harm trans people. Whereas people who are favorable to trans people largely just leave us alone. And a lot of reforms that we were able to achieve with relative ease, in a less visible manner, are now being rolled back.

Listen to the Podcast

Simón(e) Sun and Florence Ashley on anti-trans myths

Both of you work within academia, which is regarded, from the outside, as largely progressive. From your inside perspective, has the academic community been helpful and supportive?

Simón(e) Sun : It’s easy to assume, broadly, that academics tend to lean left, or lean progressive, but it’s much more nuanced in terms of what specific issues you're talking about. Often scientists have a false view of themselves as existing outside of social or political issues. Especially in the basic sciences, a lot of scientists feel like they don't have to think about any kind of political question.

Many of the arguments against trans rights center on the idea that transness itself is not legitimate—that there are just two sexes, period. You describe this idea as “sex essentialism.” Can you explain that term, and talk about how it shapes the debate

Simón(e) Sun : Essentialism is the idea that you can take any phenomenon that is complex and distill it down to a particular set of traits. In the case of sex essentialism, the idea is that you can sufficiently describe sex by a few particular characteristics. In this debate, it used to be chromosomes, now it’s gametes (egg and sperm cells). The target is always moving, because if you want to make something binary, then you need to find the most binary characteristic. Today, sex essentialism boils all of sex down to the gametes that a person produces. Then you draw a line from gametes to all of these other characteristics—to sex roles, even to the personality of an entire individual. But biology is just not that simple. The sex essentialist perspective is completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise.

What is the error at the center of sex essentialism and this attempt at a simple, binary definition of sex?

Simón(e) Sun : The error is simply that the gametes are a determining factor of sex—that once you know what gametes a person produces, that’s their sex and nothing about it can change. But biology is a dynamic system where an organism starts in a particular state and grows through life and through development with multiple systems interacting. That is, more precisely, how sex works. Sex essentialism boils all that down to one, immutable characteristic to preclude transness as a biological phenomenon. If you start with a model of sex that is binary, you'll always produce a binary result. And if you insist that it is true, then it is the only answer that you get.

Florence Ashley : There's something to be said about the rhetorical tricks here. The people who use ideas about biological sex against trans people are first appealing to the idea of biology as a description of difference, but then they do a jump and use that conception of biology as a form of meaning. The thing is, we organize society around meaning, not difference. Biology at its core can't tell you what matters to human organizations. So there is a fallacy here of looking at the human difference at the biological level, oversimplifying it, and then saying, “That's what we should organize people around.” We should really be asking what we care about, and then look to see if biology has anything to say about it. If you go through that exercise, then you realize that biology really has very little, if not virtually nothing, to say about things like trans rights.

You use the term “epistemological violence” to describe how people can apply ostensibly neutral scientific ideas in harmful ways. Can you explain that concept

Florence Ashley : Epistemological violence occurs when a researcher or somebody else interprets empirical results in a way that devalues, pathologizes or harms a marginalized group, even though there are equally good or better explanations for the same data. Science is always “under-determined,” a technical term that basically means there are always multiple possible ways to interpret a set of data. That’s where a lot of misinformation and oversimplification comes from, in that gap that's left. The idea of epistemological violence is that it's wrong to interpret data in a way that punches down on marginalized people. We should try to interpret the data in a way that's compatible with their inclusion and well-being, if that's an equally good interpretation. We shouldn't be cherry-picking the data to support prejudice and biased points.

You have written about three broad misinformation techniques in the trans debates: oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research and promoting false equivalences. Are these the same techniques that have been used in science-based arguments about race and other human traits?

Simón(e) Sun : Absolutely. Even in climate change. Perhaps the most salient example is race science. There’s an entire history of asking about the science of racial differences, and how can we describe them in a biological way. That kind of research has been used in the past, and still is to some extent today, to bolster racist arguments. It’s an oversimplification to say that one population exhibits a lower average IQ than another population. That’s just biology, but there’s also social environment, socioeconomic status and other factors that come into play.

Here's a huge question: How do you help the general public recognize legitimate information from BS?

Florence Ashley : We need to get out of the idea that correcting misinformation by itself will convince people. But once you’ve appealed to people's emotions, once you've appealed to people's values and desire to be on your side, then correcting misinformation can make their commitment to equality sustainable. And there’s another gap, which is people who don't really have an opinion. If you already don't have an opinion on the topic, then being exposed to actual, scientifically grounded information can be very helpful. That's often what we see in courts, where even judges who were appointed by Donald Trump will sometimes rule in favor of trans rights when they're presented with information and they don’t have much preconceptions. They realize, oh, there’s so much evidence in favor of trans rights, we’ve got to do something about that. That's possible because we are talking about people who didn't have strong political attachments yet.

OK, so how can we help the general public identify the falsehoods?

Florence Ashley : There's no foolproof way. There is so much noise and misinformation that it's just hard to know even the most basic of facts. And because the problem of epistemological violence, it's not only difficult to find what the science says in terms of data, it’s difficult to interpret it on your own. We need journalists to do a better job and probe some of the basics of what people are saying. They’re legitimating a lot of anti-trans voice without really questioning the basis of their opinions, notably around claims that youth are being fast-tracked through medical transition. There's the other implied claim that if we take things slower, it's going to prevent potential regrets . We just published a review article in Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity where we find that there's no empirical or theoretical basis for that claim. The New York Times has been a particularly bad offender in that regard. For individuals, try to get information from a trans person who actually knows these issues.

What about ordinary people who want to help but don't know where to start—what can they do?

Florence Ashley : Shut down misinformation and hate when you see it crop up around you. Oftentimes we don't like confrontation, so we just let misinformation go. We need people to start speaking up whenever it comes up. And be loud. We’re in an ecosystem where the anti-trans voices are trying to portray themselves as speaking for a silent majority. We need people to be loud enough to counter any impression of a silent majority. You can also help trans people materially. Give them a job, help them get housing, help them pay for transition-related medical care. Share your power with trans people, giving them opportunities to write, opportunities to share with audiences and opportunities to have a say in policy-making. And share your skills.

This Q&A is part of a series of OpenMind essays, podcasts and videos supported by a generous grant from the Pulitzer Center 's Truth Decay initiative.

This story originally appeared on OpenMind , a digital magazine tackling science controversies and deceptions.

Aggression and Social Psychology

This essay about the complexities of aggression in social dynamics explores its multifaceted nature through the lenses of evolutionary, psychological, and sociocultural perspectives. It examines how aggression, deeply ingrained in human behavior, is shaped by both biological predispositions and environmental influences. By tracing its origins from our primal ancestors to contemporary societal structures, the essay highlights the intricate interplay of individual psychology and societal dynamics in shaping aggressive behavior. Through a rich tapestry of theories and research, it emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of aggression to inform strategies for fostering harmony and resolving conflicts within diverse human communities.

How it works

Exploring the labyrinth of human behavior, one cannot overlook the intricate pathways that lead to aggression within social settings. It’s a journey that takes us through the depths of evolutionary history, traversing the terrain of individual psychology, and navigating the complex landscapes of societal structures. In this exploration, we aim to uncover the multifaceted nature of aggression and its profound implications for human interaction and societal harmony.

At the core of our inquiry lies the age-old debate between nature and nurture, a perennial tug-of-war between biological determinism and environmental influence.

From the dawn of humanity, aggression has been woven into the fabric of our existence, serving as both a primal instinct for survival and a social construct shaped by cultural norms and values. As we unravel this intricate tapestry, we find ourselves confronted with a myriad of factors that contribute to the manifestation of aggressive behavior in individuals and groups.

Drawing inspiration from the evolutionary narrative, we embark on a journey through the annals of human history, tracing the origins of aggression back to our primal ancestors. In the struggle for resources and reproductive success, aggression emerged as a potent tool for asserting dominance and securing one’s place within the social hierarchy. Yet, as we delve deeper into the evolutionary narrative, we uncover the nuances of human behavior, where aggression is but one thread in the complex tapestry of adaptive responses to our ever-changing environment.

Turning our gaze to the realm of individual psychology, we encounter a rich tapestry of theories and frameworks that seek to illuminate the inner workings of the human mind. From Freudian psychoanalysis to modern cognitive-behavioral approaches, psychologists have long grappled with the complexities of aggression and its underlying motivations. Here, we confront the interplay between unconscious drives and conscious desires, as individuals navigate the turbulent waters of their emotions and impulses.

Venturing further into the social landscape, we confront the role of societal structures and cultural norms in shaping the expression of aggression within human communities. From the microcosm of interpersonal relationships to the macrocosm of global politics, aggression manifests in a myriad of forms, driven by factors ranging from economic inequality to ideological conflict. In this labyrinth of social dynamics, we are confronted with the stark realities of human nature, where aggression serves as both a catalyst for change and a barrier to peace.

As we navigate the maze of human behavior, it becomes evident that aggression is not a monolithic phenomenon but rather a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors. By unraveling the intricacies of aggression, we gain deeper insights into the nature of human interaction and the challenges of fostering harmony within diverse societies. In this journey of discovery, we are reminded of the profound interconnectedness of all aspects of human existence, where the threads of aggression are but one strand in the rich tapestry of our collective experience.

Cite this page

Aggression and Social Psychology. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/

"Aggression and Social Psychology." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Aggression and Social Psychology . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/ [Accessed: 22 Apr. 2024]

"Aggression and Social Psychology." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/

"Aggression and Social Psychology," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/. [Accessed: 22-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Aggression and Social Psychology . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/aggression-and-social-psychology/ [Accessed: 22-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers