Role of hormones and chromosomes-EVAL Flashcards
one STRENGTH is that there is RESEARCH SUPPORT for the role of chromosomes and hormones
David Reimer case study: 2 twin boys, one had penis burnt off and so was raised a girl, but reverted back to being male.
This SUPPORTS the role of C+H as he REVERTED back to a male which suggests that BIO influences are MORE important that SOCIALISATION. He was always a male with XY chromosomes and a normal level of testosterone.
Treating him as a female did NOT affect his identity or he would NOT have reverted back to a male.
CASE STUDY produces RICH qualitative in-depth data SPECIFIC to what we’re measuring, therefore this is ECOLOGICALLY valid as it represents REAL-life experiences.
one issue with David Reimer case study is that it is a case study so lacks pop validity
LAcs population validity as findings CANNOT be generalized back to others. Just because DAVID gives support for the role of C+H doesn’t mean that C+H play the SAME role in sex and gender in EVERYONE else in the same way as it LACKS pop-validity.
one STRENGTH is that there is RESEARCH SUPPORT for the role of HORMONES in gender.
Van Goozen studies TRANS individuals who were undergoing hORMONE treatment being INJECTED with hormones of the OPPOSITE sex.
Trans women given FEMALE hormones showed dECREASES in aggression and visuo-spatial skills. Trans MEN ggiven MALE hormones showed the opposite.
Aggression and visuo-spatial skills are traditionally seen as MALE traits when someone was transitioning from male-female they had LESS of these traits and when the opposite, they had MORE of these traits so the HORMONES mathed the gender behaviour.
Therefore this shows an INFLUENCE of hormones on their gender behaviour.
A weakness of the role of C+H is that there’s research AGAINST them.
Tricker did a DOUBLE-BLIND study with 43 males given a WEEKLY injection of testosterone or a PLACEBO, NO significant differences in aggression found after 10 weeks.
this is a weakness as if hormones HAD an influence on gender then we would EXPECT the group given the testosterone to have shown MORE traditionally MALE behaviour and aggression than the control group, but this was NOT the case. Therefore suggests that hormones may NOT have an influence on gender behaviour.
STRENGTH: study was double blind meaning neither ppt or researcher knew who were given what. NO researcher bias or DC’s in terms of EXPECTING one group to be more or less aggressive than the other. So extraneous variables have been CONTROLLED meaning they will NOT become confounding and so the IV of the study is RAISED and we can TRUST the research measuring what it’s supposed to.
WEAKNESS: androcentric study, male ppts, gender bias and beta bias minimising differences btw male and females suggests that HORMONES don’t have an influence on gender behavior.
a weakness of the role of C+H is that it’s BIO reductionist.
takse the COMPLEX issue of gender and reduces it down to JUST your biological hormones and chromosomes. this is a weakness as it means we may MISS other important factors like SOCIAL factors. Research shows that gender roles are a CONSEQUENCE of social norms MORE than biology e..g individualistic cultures which PROMOTE independence and individual competition above the needs of community are more MASC.
Therefore it could be suggested that an INTERACTIONIST approach would be more USEFUL to fully understand the MANY factors which could influence gender r.. an INTERACTION between chromosomes and hormones AND social factors.
HOWEVER, reducing it down may ENABLE to infer cause and effect more easily if we’re looking at just ONE variable and we could say that sex and gender are pureLY down to these causes.
