A03

• What are the strengths of the psychodynamic explanation of gender development?

  1. Research support
• What are the limitations of the psychodynamic explanation of gender development?

  1. Overreliance on case study method
  2. Androcentric theory
  3. Pseudoscientific
• Strength = research support (1)

  • Freud’s explanation of gender development means that for boys ‘normal’ development depends on being raised by at least one male parent
  • Rekers and Morey (1990) rates the gender identity of 49 boys aged 3-11 years based on interviews with their families and the children themselves
  • Of those who were judged to be ‘gender disturbed’, 75% had neither their biological father nor a substitute father living with them
  • This suggests that being raised with no father may have a negative impact upon gender identity - in line with what Freud’s theory would predict
• Strength = research support (2)

  • Additionally there is some evidence to suggest that boys whose fathers are absent during the phallic stage show less sex-typed behaviour than boys whose fathers were present throughout
  • Stevenson and Black (1988) carried out a meta-analysis comparing father-present and father-absent boys
  • Found preschool-aged father-absent boys made less stereotypical choices of toys and activities compared with father-present boys
• Strength = research support (3)

  • Stevenson and Black (1988) also found a significant association between father absence and feminine gender role was strongest in boys under 7 years old
  • Father absence was associated with feminine gender orientation and preference, while it was associated with masculine gender adoption (sons of absent fathers seemed to think in a feminine way but behave in a masculine way)
  • Father-absent boys have a feminine gender identity due to identification with mother in childhood and masculine behaviour as reaction against this socially inappropriate feminine behaviour
• What are the studies which support the psychodynamic explanation of gender development?

  1. Rekers and Morey (1990)
  2. Steven and Black (1988)
• Limitation = overreliance on case study method

  • Much of evidence for the psychodynamic explanation of gender development comes from case studies
  • Evidence for Oedipus complex was based on case study of Little Hans
  • Freud’s observations were detailed and carefully recorded but critics have claimed it’s not possible to claim universality
  • Freud’s interpretations were highly subjective and his analysis of Hans’ behaviour biased (unlikely another psychologist would draw same conclusion)
  • Theories regarding gender identity and development lack reliability and population validity
• Limitation = androcentric theory

  • Produced inadequate account of women’s development
  • Much of the psychodynamic theory surrounding females’ development was undertaken by Carl Jung
  • Freud admitted his perception of women was ‘limited’
  • Karen Horney pointed out that the male-centricity of Freudian theory derived from fact it was developed by men in a time when they had much more social capital that women
  • She rejected idea of penis envy and proposed womb envy
  • Theories take male gender development as the norm, seeing gender development of females founded on desire to want to be like a man
• Limitation = pseudoscientific

  • Psychodynamic theory believes the development of one’s gender is based upon unconscious conflicts (e.g. castrating anxiety / penis envy)
  • However, these conflicts are not open to empirical testing and therefore lack falsification
  • For instance, Freud suggested Little Hans used defence mechanisms during the Oedipus complex yet these mechanisms are unconscious
  • There is no way to objectively verify their existence as they aren‘t directly observable (brings to question validity)
  • Gives psychodynamic theory status of a pseudoscience