Gender 3

?
View mindmap
  • Gender 3
    • 5A social learning theory applied to gender dev
      • assumes at birth boys and girls the same. learn through observation. gender related behav reinforced vicariously.
      • modelling- high status role model performs gender role behav OR child imitates and observes adult behav
      • 4 mediational processes to learning new behav- 1. attention, 2. retention, 3. motivation, 4. reproduction. if behav repeated becomes internalised. modify our behav based on age, social situation etc
      • AO3- Perry & Bussey- supports SLT, children watch model choose an item, measured preferences of child afterwards, argue learn behav of all models but motivation based on how often see model of our sex
        • 8&9 y/os saw model choose 1/16 pairs of items. IV= degree of sex consensus in models choices. allocated to :A) high sex consensus (4 men and 4 women make same choice), B)moderate (3M and 1W make same choice or vice versa), C)low (2M and 2W choose each item), D)control (no models)
        • high control lab- attempts real life modelling, high ecological validity, possible effects of seeing dif M/Fs in 3:1 condition was counterbalanced, control group increases validity, high cause and effect. age of children- can't tell gender dev of 1&2 y/os, bulk of dev may be by 8/9, dont know how it devlops
        • shown slides of items, asked their preference. DV= similarity in same sex model child. high in high consensus, performance in 2&2 condition similar to control. more likely to imitate response of same sex model when behav signif diverges from choice of opposite sex model
      • Martin et al- effects of labelling toys as boys/girls. liked toys labelled for their own sex and predicted children of the same sex would like them more if they had a label. investigated effects of attractive and unattractive toys-all preferred attractive  toys unless had opposite sex label
        • highlights role of labelling and cog processes over observational learning. draws on schemas not socially sanctioned likings. mainly middle class 4-6y/os, contrived set up
      • Bussey & Bandura- SLT, against Kohlberg and gender schema theory. theory may not explain changes as we get older. argue they've shown change from socially sanctioned behav to self sanctioned
        • SLT flexible, adaptive, explains gender role behav in last 100 yrs with no bio changes. Reimer/ Bastista family show dominance of genetics over learning from role models
    • 5B influence of culture & media on gender roles
      • culture- nature- gender difs innate. interactionism-gender difs innate and modified by enviro. nurture- gender difs result of experiences
      • Malinowski- tribes in New Guinea, difs in Western culture norms. in tribe women hold high status. chastity unknown vs West 192- women passive, chase until marriage
        • may've misunderstood behav. imposed preconceptions. presence of white outsiders may've changed behav
      • Buss- diverse sample, questionnaire for factors in choosing a mate. driven by bio: Fs favour Ms with high providing capacity, Ms value physical attractiveness, 23/37 cultures Ms valued chastity
        • universality of core gender behav. range of behav narrow and only applies to mate choices. lang issues of questionnaire. doesn't resolve nature/nurture debate. labelled as M/F as soon as born
      • McGhee & Frewn- relationship between time watching Tv and knowledge of adult sex role stereotypes. 6012 y/os heavy TV views, high stereotyped views, stereotypical views decrease with age
        • lack of control over social variables e.g. traditional behav of parents. time watching TV isnt attention paid
      • Furnham & Paltzer- literature review show marked difs in countries e.g. difs in M and W in Poland but not spain
        • content analysis= difficult to compare as methodologies could be dif
      • Good et al- basic chem lesson, 3 lone M or 3 lone F scientists, or mixed. did better on test with lone same sex. anxiety may've reduced performance
      • AO3 supports SLT. media provides role models portrayed in stereotypical ways. media gives info about likely success of adopting behav. difficult to establish cause and effect-media may just reflect social norms. no control group
    • 6A atypical gender dev
      • DSM-V see atypical gender as gender dysphoria. mismatch between bio and 'feel' sex. indications early on e.g. not liking clothes of their sex
      • sample diagnostic criteria- incongruence in expressed and assigned gender of at least 6 months, desire/insistence one is the other gender, preference for masc/fem clothing, preference for cross gender role in fantasy play, dislike for own sexual anatomy
      • Drummand et al- girls referred to gender identity clinic from 1974-2004, follow up with cog and psychosexual measures. 60% met DSM criteria as children but 12% at follow up. 24% bi/ homosexual. degree of 'dosage effect'- more severe symptoms=more likely gender dysphoric at follow up
        • idea dysphoria declines with age. impossible to generalise to boys. small sample size- limits generalisations to all girls

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

PSYA3
kolberg
See all Psychology resources »See all Gender resources »