GENDER SOCIALISATION AO3

• Support for gender socialisation is provided by Heidensohn (1996) who suggested gender differences are the most significant feature of recorded crime. 95% of the UK prison population being male, men are cautioned more than women, for example men are 14 times more likely for burglaries and 8x more likely for robbery and drug offences. These results clearly demonstrate the presence of a cognitive bias in criminals, and we may be able to look to these biases to understand the cognitive factors that lead to criminality.
• However, refuting evidence is provided by Dabbs et al. (1987) who found that 9 out of 11 inmates with the lowest testosterone concentrations had committed nonviolent crimes, whereas 10 out of 11 inmates with the highest level of testosterone concentrations had committed violent crimes.
• This criticises gender socialisation explanation as it suggests that testosterone is related to increased aggression and that differences in socialisation and social control may not be the only differences that are responsible for the criminal behaviour of males and females but that biological differences play a significant role.
• An alternative explanation suggesting the statistics of males committing more crimes is the labelling theory. Young males are more likely to be heavily policed, for example stop and searched. This might explain the higher crime rates as they are labelled as criminals therefore more likely to be investigated which leads to increased convictions. This criticises gender socialisation as it implies that men are not committing more crime than women, but that women are not investigated so are less likely to be caught which could account for the lower conviction rates.
• The gender socialisation theory suggests that if you are a male you will be socialised into a life of crime and if you are female you are less likely to. However, everyone that has been exposed or socialised in a particular way commit crime. These explanations ignore the role of free will on our behaviour and these explanations can be criticised for minimising personal responsibility of individuals behaviour.