A03

• What are the strengths of the social learning explanation of gender?

  1. Research support for modelling
  2. Accounts for cultural / societal change
  3. Support for role played by agents of socialisation
• What are the limitations of the social learning explanation of gender?

  1. Overemphasis on social processes
  2. No developmental sequence
• Strength = research support for modelling

  • Perry and Bussey (1979) showed a group of children aged 8 and 9 film clips that portrayed boys and girls selecting fruit such as an apple or pear, both of which were gender-neutral items
  • When the children were later given the choice of selecting fruit themselves, they chose fruit they had observed their same-gender model choose in the film clips
  • This demonstrates how children will imitate behaviours they observe in gender-appropriate models
• Strength = accounts for cultural / societal change

  • Social learning can explain cultural changes in stereotypically gender-appropriate behaviour
  • The way society views and emphasises stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviour has changed during the 20th and 21st centuries
  • There is a less clear cut distinction between males and females in terms of gender as a construct and socially acceptable behaviour
  • People are embracing the idea of androgyny and gender fluidity more and more
  • No corresponding change in people’s basic biology in this period so better explained by social learning
• Strength = support for role played by agents of socialisation

  • Fagot (1978) conducted a series of 5 one hour long observations of parents and children playing in their homes
  • Found that parents reacted significantly more favourably to the child when the child was engaged in a same-sex-preferred behaviour
  • Boys were encouraged to play with toys such as trucks and building blocks and girls were praised for asking for help when needed and playing with dolls
  • Boys were more actively discouraged (by fathers more than mothers) from playing feminine roles than girls were for masculine roles
• Limitation = overemphasis on social processes

  • Whilst SLT acknowledges the role of innate, biological behaviours, it does not incorporate them into the theory and places too much emphasis on the role of the environment
  • SLT would suggest through the processes of modelling, reinforcement etc. that a child could be raised any gender despite their biological sex
  • Yet, the case study of David Reimer suggests this isn’t possible and chromosomal and hormonal influences can‘t be overridden
  • Modern researchers are more likely to adopt a biosocial theory of gender
• Limitation = no developmental sequence

  • SLT doesn’t provide an adequate explanation of how learning processes change with age
  • General implication of approach is modelling of gender-appropriate behaviour can occur at any age i.e. from birth onwards
  • However, it would be unreasonable and illogical to suggest for instance children who are 2 learn the same as children who are 9
  • Notion glaringly conflicts with Kohlberg’s theory who argues children do not become active in their gender development until gender constancy
  • Ignores influence of age = lowers generalisability and explanatory power