Psychology and Gender Differences
There are a number of perspectives on sex and gender differences, and not surprisingly, each theory selects issues that are deemed to be important and leaves others unexplained. One central issue dividing the different theoretical explanations is the extent to which differences between the sexes are innate and the extent to which they are learned.
This underlying debate about nature and nurture affects the way people view sex differences in their everyday conversations, and how research into sex differences are ultimately interpreted. Depending on our perspective, we are likely to evaluate the same evidence in different ways, or we may choose to ignore the evidence, or further still we might choose to make the evidence to appear more definitive than the actual data suggest. Our decision making will be based on either a Nature or Nurture standpoint. It is said that those who seek to preserve traditional sex roles have used biological findings to argue against the desirability for change, whereas those who advocate change have argued against the relevance of biological considerations.
From a practical standpoint, the question is: How does this impact on the education of boys and girls. Whether we are persuaded by the biological or social argument, we need to acknowledge that from a practical standpoint, the theories produced have affected public and educational policy and thus affected the opportunities of girls and boys in our educational system.
Behavioural differences can be explained through psychological processes. Biological factors are said to determine capability and suitability for certain types of learning (boys good at maths, science; girls more suited to the arts). Within this biological tradition are accounts to explain behavioural differences in terms of physiology, genetic make-up, hormonal changes and structural differences in the brain.
Other theories consider the individual’s experiences during development, particularly in the first few years of development. They seek to demonstrate ways in which young children learn how their sex behaves and thus develop certain ways of thinking and acting. The processes by which such learning is said to take place may differ according to each theory, but they all emphasise environmental aspects as opposed to biological one. The case of David Reimer (born a boy, raised as a girl) could be considered, and given the tragic outcome of the case, it is clear that biological factors should never be ignored – the old nature versus nurture debate.
A further line of argument looks beyond the internal working of the individual for an explanation of differences. Such theories argue that one must see the social system as a determining factor in development. Social institutions, such as the educational and occupational systems, involve different roles and expectations. In order to explain some behavioural differences between males and females one does not have to look within the individual for the answer; instead the answer lies in the organisation of society. The argument is that we can understand behavioural differences by appraising different countries social systems. We do not need to look at the intellectual capacities or temperament of males and females.
For support with understanding Nativism (Nature) and Empiricism (Nurture) see www.studycoach.uk.com
Text adapted from OU resource.
