sex and gender differences Flashcards
Toy preferences
• There is a (statistical!!!) sex difference in toy preferences (Alexander, 2003):
– Boys prefer construction and transportation toys
– Girls prefer toys such as dolls
– Boys engage in more physical play (rough and tumble play)
toys marketed for girls
– Barbie 3-in-1 dream camper
– L.O.L Surprise! O.M.G. Remix Super Surprise
toys marketed to boys
- Laser Battle Hunters
- Harry Potter Hedwig lego
Sex differences classically believed to arise due to social learning
– Modelling and reinforcement of sex typical behaviours
• May promote sex-typical cognitive abilities:
– Empathy in girls – playing with dolls
– Spatial abilities in boys - playing sports / construction
However…
In non-human species, almost all sex differences in play are believed to be innate
•Pheonix et al. (1959):
- Prenatal androgens influence sex-typical play
- In female rodents treated with testosterone injections, offspring show increased rough and tumble play in females
2D:4D ratio10 – Manning (2002)
• The 2D:4D ratio correlates negatively with prenatal androgen exposure and positively with prenatal oestrogen exposure
– Androgens stimulating the growth of fourth digit
– Oestrogen stimulating the growth of the second digit”.
• Male ratio indicates high androgen / low oestrogen exposure
• Female ratio indicates low androgen / high oestrogen exposure.
• Homeobox genes
– Hox a and Hox d
– Involved in the differentiation of the urinary-genital system (and the formation of digits
So how do we address whether toy preferences are learned or innate?
One answer:
• Sex differences in toy preferences among non -human primates
• Alexander and Hines (2002)
Participants (well, kind of…)
•Alexander and Hines (2002) gave human toys to vervets to see how they’d react
•44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys ‘participated’
•Non-invasive research!
– Trying to enrich the environment of animal enclosures
Methodology
• Three types of toys given to the vervets:
• Masculine toys
– Red ball
– Police car
• Feminine toys
– A red cooking pot
– A soft doll
• Neutral toys
– A picture book
– Stuffed dog
•Toys given to the vervets during 2 or 3 trials/sessions:
– First trial/session used to acclimatise the vervets
– Second/third session used for data selection
Approaches
(when a vervet moved towards a toy without actually touching it)
contacts
(when a vervet approached one of the toys and made physical contact with it)
Summary of findings
•Each animal received two scores from 0 – 300 (seconds) to measure how long the vervet spent approaching and contacting each toy
•Approaching behaviour unrelated to sex of the vervet (male and female) of the category of toy (masculine, feminine and neutral)
•Patterns of contact behaviour:
– Male vervets spent longer with masculine toys
– Female vervets spent longer with feminine toys
– Male and female vervets spent equal time with neutral toys
– Parallel findings to human children!
Implications for humans……
•There’s no evidence that vervets have a concept of ‘gender roles’ (societal expectations for the conduct of males and females)
•Even if they did, then they wouldn’t have experience of objects conforming to human gender role; they wouldn’t know:
– Police car toys and balls are masculine
– Dolls and pans are feminine
– Picture books and stuffed dogs are neutral
•Could this instead reflect an innate sex difference:
- Common preferences in different primate species?
- Might predict that other primates show the same preferences?