Last lesson ..

2. Pituitary gland

Testis Ovaries

Genes instruct hormones to determine sex of individual e.g. SRY gene on the Y chromosome controls whether gonads become ovaries or testes.. By releasing testosterone/progesterone at week 8 of gestation

1. Week 8 of gestation

Testosterone - instruct gonads form Wolffian ducts - testis + penis

Progesterone – instruct gonads become Mullerian ducts – Fallopian tubes + ovaries + vagina

The BioSocial Explanation of Gender Development

Please note that this is one of those theories explicitly named

in the specification that you really need to know about!

Also note that the majority of research evidence in this area is based on Case studies which can be used in lots of ways.

They can either help you gain AO2 (evaluation) marks or add to the descriptive content of your essay.

ActivityMake a note of four strengths of a case study:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Possible answers

1. The research sample is small which makes it difficult to generalise the results

2. Validity may be questioned as research comes from a variety of sources which may be biased i.e. it relies on the memory of the friend or doctors of those involved…

3. They provide a rich source of data…

4. There provide evidence on unique events…

ACTIVITY: PRESENTATIONS

1. What is a ‘Biosocial’ Theory? – Script + Filmed Report.

2. David Reimer case study example – Role play3. Read theory then produce 1x – PEST Card

each/report4. Clips – David Reimer – Computer/visuals

For info

The BioSocial Theory

The influence of labelling ..

boy girl

Rather than seeing gender differences in terms of either nature or nurture, the approach or theory emphasises the interaction of these two major influences –

nature and nurture

Genes and environment

nature

nurture

A newborn baby is labelled as male or female and this labelling has consequences for how the child will be perceived and treated, with boys and girls being treated differently for example how they are handled.

So gender can be seen as being socially constructed and therefore differing across cultures and over time.

i.e. a

.. Social constructionist theory ..

Two relevant studies on the issue of labelling are :

1. The Condry and Condry (1976) study

A sample of 200 adults (male and female) were shown a videotape of a nine month old baby dressed in neutral colours who was introduced to some as ‘David’ and others as ‘Dana’.

The adults were asked to describe the emotion displayed by the baby when shown a teddy or doll or reacting to a jack in the box or a loud buzzer.

When the baby was introduced as Dana she showed fear when reacting to the loud buzzer or jack in the box but anger when introduced as David. This study shows how we interpret behaviour based on our gender expectations.

AO2:

The results of this study are easy to generalise because the sample size is quite large and the participants are of both genders.

The findings come from a Laboratory experiment and therefore indicate a link between cause and effect i.e. gender of baby and expected behaviour.

SupportSmith and Lloyd (1978)

Smith and Lloyd (1978)

dressed babies in non-specific gender clothes and then either labelled them with a boy or a girl’s name. It was found that people would play with them differently according to their gender label, with boys being treated in a much more physical manner e.g. mothers offered the baby boy a toy hammer and the girl a soft toy. All play was sex-typed.

AO2:

This study provides support for the biosocial theory, showing that people react differently to boys and girls.

The participants in this study may have shown demand characteristics as they could have worked out the purpose of the experiment.

AO2 continued:

Wetherell and Edley (1999) found that several different styles of adult masculinity being exhibited by men such as unconventional, sporty and ‘new man’ indicating that gender role is not fixed exclusively by Biology.

Clip

CLIP PART 2

2. Core Study: Diamond and Sigmundson (1987) or the ‘Money

study’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiRUL_VMo7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OeITsQgKns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37n51ziBBo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soOQj7bCRvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

clips

The biological approach is criticised by a case study reported on by Diamond and Sigmundson in 1987. They aimed to show that a child can be socialised to take on the role of the opposite sex.

Procedure: Diamond and Sigmundson researched the case of a boy who had been raised as a girl. They conducted interviews to help them to describe the life history of this boy.

The boy was one of a pair of twins born in Canada in 1965. When they were 8 months old, the boys went to hospital for a routine circumcision operation. However, one of the twins, Bruce, suffered a terrible accident. During the operation, most of his penis was accidentally burnt off.

At this time, reconstructing a new penis was not an option. So his parents took advice from a number of experts. A psychologist named Money recommended that Bruce was raised as a girl instead. He believed that babies were not born with their gender and that is was upbringing that made them masculine or feminine.

When Bruce was 17 months old, he had his testes removed. He was re-named Brenda by his parents, who then began to treat him as a girl. The plan was that they would bring up Bruce as their daughter, not their son. Brenda was too young to know what had happened. As ‘she’ got older, she was led to believe that she had been born a girl.

Results:

At first, Money was heavily involved in the case. He frequently interviewed and observed Brenda. He reported that she had adapted to her new gender role well. For example, he claimed that she enjoyed playing with girls’ toys and had no reason to believe she was any different from other girls of her age.

However, when Brenda reached puberty, there were some problems. To begin with, she needed to be given hormones to help her to develop a more female shape (e.g. breasts and hips). Despite this, she was said to have quite a masculine appearance and masculine mannerisms.

Brenda later reported that she had felt like a man inside. For example, she found other girls attractive and rejected boys who were interested in her. She preferred more masculine activities such as sports, and wanted to ‘hang out’ with her brother.

At the ages of 13, life had become so difficult for Brenda that her parents decided to tell her the truth about her past. When Brenda found out she had been born a boys she was actually quite relieved. It helped to explain the strange feelings she had about her gender.

Soon after finding out about her true sex, Brenda decided to live the rest of her life as a man. She renamed herself David. Eventually David ended up having a penis reconstructed, married a woman and became a father by adopting her children.

But

• In addition to his lifelong difficult relationship with his parents, Reimer had to deal with unemployment and the death of his brother Brian from an overdose of antidepressants in 2002. On May 2, 2004, his wife Jane told him she wanted to separate. On the morning of May 5, Reimer drove to a grocery store, and shot himself in the head.[6]

Diamond and Sigmundson concluded that the effect of David’s chromosomes had outweighed the attempts to socialise him as a girl. In other words, gender is more of a product of nature than nurture.

However Bradley et al (1998) reported on a similar case of a biological male that after accidental damage to his penis had reassignment surgery and was raised as a girl.

Bradley et al (1998) continued

This individual had exhibited some male behaviour as a child but preferred female company and as an adult felt female and was happy that way. This particular case does suggest that a biological sex does not determine gender identity.

Evaluation:

• Studies of individuals being given re-assignment surgery and raised as the opposite gender to their biology have produced contradictory results and have been prone on occasion to researcher bias.

Evaluation continued:For example Reiner and Gearhart (2003) reported on 16 biological males born without a penis, given re-assignment surgery and raised as females. All exhibited male tendencies and 10 decided to become male again by 16 years of age.

Money (1991)

...however reported on 250 cases of people being happy with gender re-assignment. Clear conclusions therefore have not been possible.

Evaluation continued:Early gender related behaviours appear to be

more biologically directed Kujawski and Bower (1993) found that 1 year olds preferred to watch same gender children suggesting that initially innate factors dominate.

Evaluation continued:The fact that the model (theory) sees gender

behaviour as not solely innate and fixed means that it is possible for an individual to develop their gender identity into new and positive ways.

Evaluation continued:Ideas about gender seem to differ cross-

culturally and this suggests that gender roles and behaviour are a social construction (see pages 66 & 67).

Evaluation continued:This view is supported by Wetherell and Edley

(1999) who found several different styles of adult masculinity being exhibited by men such as unconventional, sporty and ‘new man’ indicating that gender role is not fixed exclusively by gender.

Evaluation continued:The biosocial model is an example of how

psychological approaches can work in unison and should therefore not be seen as a single exclusive explanation of human behaviour.

BDescribe and evaluate the biosocial approach to

gender development? (10 + 14 marks)

Topic SummaryBio- Social Theory

• Rather than seeing gender differences in terms of either nature or nurture, the approach or theory emphasises the interaction of these two major influences.

• A newborn baby is labelled as male or female and this labelling has consequences for how the child will be perceived and treated, with boys and girls being treated differently for example how they are handled. So gender can be seen as being socially constructed and therefore differing across cultures and over time.

Research Evaluation

Contradictory results !! Support - Condry & Condry (1976) Labelling / Smith & Lloyd (1978)

Support - Gender roles are a social construction e.g. Wetherell and Edley (1999)

Nature - Diamond and Sigmundson (1987) - Money study-tried to show labelling support but failed

Nature - Reiner and Gearhart (2003) 16 males

Nature - Money (1991) 250 cases – “happy”however…Nurture - E.g. Bradley et al (1998) biological sex does not determine gender identity

Extension question..Discuss biological explanations of gender roles including the role of hormones and genes and

biosocial explanations (8+16 marks)

Compare Biological vs Biosocial – i.e nature vs nurture