gender essay plans psychology

Issues and Debates in Psychology (A-Level Revision)

Deb Gajic, CPsychol

Team Leader Examiner (A-Level Psychology)

B.A. (Hons), Social Sciences, Msc, Psychology

Deb Gajic is an experienced educational consultant with a robust history in the education and training field. She brings expertise in Psychology, Training, CPD Provision, Writing, Examining, Tutoring, Coaching, Lecturing, Educational Technology, and Curriculum Development. She holds a Master of Science (MSc) in Psychology from The Open University, a PGCE from Leicester University, and a BA (Hons) 2:1 from Warwick University. She is a Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol) and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society (AFBPsS).

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

What do the examiners look for?

• Accurate and detailed knowledge
• Clear, coherent, and focused answers
• Effective use of terminology (use the “technical terms”)

In application questions, examiners look for “effective application to the scenario,” which means that you need to describe the theory and explain the scenario using the theory making the links between the two very clear.

If there is more than one individual in the scenario you must mention all of the characters to get to the top band.

Difference between AS and A level answers

The descriptions follow the same criteria; however, you have to use the issues and debates effectively in your answers. “Effectively” means that it needs to be clearly linked and explained in the context of the answer.

Read the model answers to get a clearer idea of what is needed.

Gender and Culture in Psychology

Gender bias.

Gender bias results when one gender is treated less favorably than the other, often referred to as sexism, and it has a range of consequences, including:

• Scientifically misleading
• Upholding stereotypical assumptions
• Validating sex discrimination

Avoiding gender bias does not mean pretending that men and women are the same.

There are three main types of gender bias:

Alpha bias – this occurs when the differences between men and women are exaggerated. Therefore, stereotypically male and female characteristics may be emphasized.

Beta bias -this occurs when the differences between men and women are minimized. This often happens when findings obtained from men are applied to women without additional validation.

Androcentrism – taking male thinking/behavior as normal, regarding female thinking/behavior as deviant, inferior, abnormal, or ‘other’ when it is different.

Positive Consequences of Gender Bias

Alpha Bias :

• This has led some theorists (Gilligan) to assert the worth and valuation of ‘feminine qualities.’
• This has led to healthy criticism of cultural values that praise certain ‘male’ qualities, such as aggression and individualism, as desirable, adaptive, and universal.

Beta Bias :

• Makes people see men and women as the same, which has led to equal treatment in legal terms and equal access to, for example, education and employment.

Negative Consequences of Gender Bias

• Focus on differences between genders leads to the implication of similarity WITHIN genders. Thus, this ignores the many ways women differ from each other.
• Can sustain prejudices and stereotypes.
• Draws attention away from the differences in power between men and women.
• Is considered an egalitarian approach, but it results in major misrepresentations of both genders.

Consequences of Gender Bias

Kitzinger (1998) argues that questions about sex differences aren’t just scientific questions – they’re also political (women have the same rights as men). So gender differences are distorted to maintain the status quo of male power.

• Women were kept out of male-dominant universities.
• Women were oppressed.
• Women stereotypes (Bowlby).

Feminists argue that although gender differences are minimal or non-existent, they are used against women to maintain male power.

Judgments about an individual women’s ability are made on the basis of average differences between the sexes or biased sex-role stereotypes, and this also had the effect of lowering women’s self-esteem; making them, rather than men, think they have to improve themselves (Tavris, 1993).

Examples of Gender Bias in Research AO3

Kohlberg & moral development.

Kohlberg based his stages of moral development around male moral reasoning and had an all-male sample. He then inappropriately generalized his findings to women ( beta bias ) and also claimed women generally reached the lower level of moral development ( androcentrism ).

Carol Gilligan highlighted the gender bias inherent in Kohlberg’s work and suggested women make moral decisions in a different way than men (care ethic vs. justice ethic).

However, her research is arguably, also (alpha) biased, as male and female moral reasoning is more similar than her work suggests.

Freud & Psychosexual Development

Freud’s ideas are seen as inherently gender biased, but it must be remembered that he was a product of his time. He saw ‘Biology as destiny’ and women’s roles as prescribed & predetermined.

All his theories are androcentric , most obviously: -‘Penis envy’ – women are defined psychologically by the fact that they aren’t men.

But Freud’s ideas had serious consequences/implications. They reinforced stereotypes, e.g., of women’s moral Inferiority, treated deviations from traditional sex-role behavior as pathological (career ambition = penis envy), and are clearly androcentric (phallocentric).

Biomedical Theories of Abnormality

In women, mental illness, especially depression, is much more likely to be explained in terms of neurochemical/hormonal processes rather than other possible explanations, such as social or environmental (e.g., domestic violence, unpaid labor, discrimination).

The old joke ‘Is it your hormones, love?’ is no joke for mentally ill women!

Gender Bias in the Research Process AO1

• Although female psychology students outnumber males, at a senior teaching and research level in universities, men dominate. Men predominate at the senior researcher level.
• The research agenda follows male concerns, female concerns may be marginalized or ignored.
• Most experimental methodologies are based on the standardized treatment of participants. This assumes that men and women respond in the same ways to the experimental situation.
• Women and men might respond differently to the research situation.
• Women and men might be treated differently by researchers.
• Could create artificial differences or mask real ones.
• Publishing bias towards positive results.
• Research that finds gender differences more likely to get published than that which doesn’t.
• Exaggerates the extent of gender differences.

Reducing Gender Bias in Psychology (AO3)

Equal opportunity legislation and feminist psychology have performed the valuable functions of reducing institutionalized gender bias and drawing attention to sources of bias and under-researched areas in psychology like childcare, sexual abuse, dual burden working, and prostitution.

The Feminist perspective

• Re-examining the ‘facts’ about gender.
• View women as normal humans, not deficient men.
• Skepticism towards biological determinism.
• Research agenda focusing on women’s concerns.
• A psychology for women, rather than a psychology of women.

Learning Check AO2

This activity will help you to:

• Identify gender biases in psychological theories
• Discuss the impact of biased research on society
• Critically assess gender-biased theories

Below are two examples of research that could be considered gender biased. Working in pairs or small groups, you need to do the following:

1. Identify aspects of the research that could be considered gender biased

2. Identify and explain the type of gender bias that is present

3. Suggest the impact that these research examples could have on society

You could look, for example, at how the research might uphold or reinforce gender stereotypes or be used to disempower women in society.

The Psychodynamic View of Personality and Moral Development

Freud and many of his followers believed that biological differences between men and women had major consequences for psychological development. In their view, ‘biology is destiny.’

Freud believed that gender divergence begins at the onset of the phallic stage, where the girl realizes that she has no penis, and starts to feel inferiour to boys (penis envy).

Penis envy becomes a major driving force in the girl’s mental life and needs to be successfully sublimated into a desire for a husband and children if it is not to become pathological.

This view of gender divergence in personality development has implications for other aspects of development. For example, Freud’s view of morality was that it was regulated by the superego, which is an internalization of the same-sex parent that regulates behavior through the threat of punishment.

In boys, immoral behavior is regulated through the mechanism of castration anxiety – men obey the rules because of an unconscious fear that their father will take away their penis.

In the Freudian view, the girl has already had to accept her castration as a fait accompli, which raises important questions about the relative moral strength of men and women.

The Biological View of Mental Illness

The biomedical view of mental illness, which approaches behavioral and psychological abnormality as a manifestation of underlying pathological processes on the biological level, dominates the discussion of mental illness.

In the biomedical view , illnesses such as depression can be explained in terms of chemical imbalances causing malfunction in the parts of the brain associated with emotion.

When explaining why twice as many women as men are diagnosed with depression, adherents of the biomedical view tend to suggest that this is due to hormonal differences and point to the existence of, for example, post-natal depression to show how fluctuations in female sex hormones can lead to abnormalities of mood.

Similarly, sex differences in hormonal processes can be used to explain the existence of disorders that are ‘gender bound,’ such as pre-menstrual syndrome.

Culture Bias

Culture can be described as all the knowledge and values shared by a society.

Cultures may differ from one another in many ways, so the findings of psychological research conducted in one culture may not apply directly to another.

General Background

In order to fulfill its aspiration of explaining human thinking and behavior, psychology must address the huge diversity in people around the globe. Each individual’s behavior is shaped by a huge number of factors, including their genes, upbringing, and individual experiences.

At the same time, people are affected by a range of factors that are specific to the cultural group in which they developed and within which they live. Psychologists should always attempt to account for the ways in which culture affects thinking and behavior.

However, this has not always been the case. Psychology is a discipline that evolved within a very specific cultural context.

Psychology is predominantly a white, Euro-American enterprise: – (i) 64% of psychological researchers are from the US; (ii) in some texts, 90% of studies have US Participants; (iii) samples are predominantly white middle class.

Consequently, it has incorporated a particular worldview (that of the industrialized West) into the ways it tries to understand people. This can have consequences. For example:

• Psychologists may overlook the importance of cultural diversity in understanding human behavior, resulting in theories that are scientifically inadequate.
• They may also privilege their own worldview over those that emerge from other cultures, leading to research that either intentionally or unintentionally supports racist and discriminatory practices in the real world.

We will be looking at how cultural bias can affect psychological theories and research studies and the sorts of things psychologists can do to avoid the worst effects of cultural bias.

Types of Theoretical Constructions for Understanding Cultural Bias AO1

An emic construct is one that is applied only to one cultural group, so they vary from place to place (differences between cultures).

An emic approach refers to the investigation of a culture from within the culture itself. This means that research of European society from a European perspective is emic, and African society by African researchers in Africa is also emic. An emic approach is more likely to have ecological validity as the findings are less likely to be distorted or caused by a mismatch between the cultures of the researchers and the culture being investigated.

Cultural bias can occur when a researcher assumes that an emic construct (behavior specific to a single culture) is actually etic (behavior universal to all cultures).

For example, emic constructs are likely to be ignored or misinterpreted as researchers from another culture may not be sensitive to local emics. Their own cultural ‘filters’ may prevent them from detecting them or appreciating their significance.

An etic construct is a theoretical idea that is assumed to apply in all cultural groups. Therefore, etic constructs are considered universal to all people and are factors that hold across all cultures (similarities between cultures).

Etic constructs assume that most human behavior is common to humans but that cultural factors influence the development or display of this behavior.

Cultural bias can occur when emics and etics get mistaken for each other.

Making the assumption that behaviors are universal across cultures can lead to imposed etics , where a construct from one culture is applied inappropriately to another. For example, although basic human emotional facial expressions are universal, there can be subtle cultural variations in these.

Bias can occur when emics and etics get mistaken for each other.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism occurs when a researcher assumes that their own culturally specific practices or ideas are ‘natural’ or ‘right’.

The individual uses their own ethnic group to evaluate and make judgments about other individuals from other ethnic groups. Research that is ‘centered’ around one cultural group is called ‘ethnocentric.’

When other cultures are observed to differ from the researcher’s own, they may be regarded in a negative light, e.g., ‘primitive,’ ‘degenerate,’ ‘unsophisticated,’ ‘undeveloped,’ etc.

This becomes racism when other cultures are denigrated, or their traditions are regarded as irrelevant, etc.

The antidote to ethnocentrism is cultural relativism, which is an approach to treating each culture as unique and worthy of study.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself.

The principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism.

Culturally Biased Research AO3

Ainsworth’s strange situation for attachment.

The strange situation procedure is not appropriate for assessing children from non-US or UK populations as it is based on Western childrearing ideals (i.e., ethnocentric).

The original study only used American, middle-class, white, home-reared infants and mothers; therefore, the generalisability of the findings could be questioned, as well as whether this procedure would be valid for other cultures too.

Cultural differences in child-rearing styles make results liable to misinterpretation, e.g., German or Japanese samples.

Takashi (1990) aimed to see whether the strange situation is a valid procedure for cultures other than the original. Takashi found no children in the avoidant-insecure stage.

This could be explained in cultural terms as Japanese children are taught that such behavior is impolite, and they would be actively discouraged from displaying it. Also, because Japanese children experience much less separation, the SSC was more than mildly stressful.

IQ testing and Research (e.g., Eysenck)

An example of an etic approach that produces bias might be the imposition of IQ tests designed within one culture on another culture. If a test is designed to measure a European person’s understanding of what intelligence is , it may not be a valid measurement of the intelligence of people from other continents.

IQ tests developed in the West contain embedded assumptions about intelligence, but what counts as ‘intelligent’ behavior varies from culture to culture.

Non-Westerners may be disadvantaged by such tests – and then viewed as ‘inferior’ when they don’t perform as Westerners do.

Task: Try the Chittling IQ Test

Consequences of Culture Bias AO3

Nobles (1976) argues that western psychology has been a tool of oppression and dominance. Cultural bias has also made it difficult for psychologists to separate the behavior they have observed from the context in which they observed it.

Reducing Culture Bias AO3

Equal opportunity legislation aims to rid psychology of cultural bias and racism, but we must be aware that merely swapping old, overt racism for new, more subtle forms of racism (Howitt and Owusu-Bempah, 1994).

Free Will & Determinism

The free will/determinism debate revolves around the extent to which our behavior is the result of forces over which we have no control or whether people are able to decide for themselves whether to act or behave in a certain way.

Free Will suggests that we all have a choice and can control and choose our own behavior. This approach is all about personal responsibility and plays a central role in Humanist Psychology.

By arguing that humans can make free choices, the free will approach is quite the opposite of the deterministic one. Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and dignity and devalues human behavior.

To a lesser degree, Cognitive Psychology also supports the idea of free will and choice. In reality, although we do have free will, it is constrained by our circumstances and other people. For example, when you go shopping, your choices are constrained by how much money you have.

• It emphasizes the importance of the individual and studying individual differences.
• It fits society’s view of personal responsibility, e.g., if you break the law, you should be punished.
• The idea of self-efficacy is useful in therapies as it makes them more effective.
• Free will is subjective, and some argue it doesn’t exist.
• It is impossible to scientifically test the concept of free will.
• Few people would agree that behavior is always completely under the control of the individual.

Determinism

The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is determined and thus predictable. Some approaches in psychology see the source of this determinism as being outside the individual, a position known as environmental determinism.

Others see it from coming inside, i.e., in the form of unconscious motivation or genetic determinism – biological determinism.

• Environmental (External) Determinism : This is the idea that our behavior is caused by some sort of outside influence, e.g., parental influence.

Skinner (1971) argued that freedom is an illusion. We may think we have free will, but the probability of any behavior occurring is determined by past experiences.

Skinner claimed that free will was an illusion – we think we are free, but this is because we are not aware of how our behavior is determined by reinforcement.

• Biological (Internal) Determinism : Our biological systems, such as the nervous system, govern our behavior.

For example, a high IQ may be related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et al. 1998).

• Psychic (Internal) Determinism : Freud believed childhood experiences and unconscious motivations governed behavior.

Freud thought that free will was an illusion because he felt that the causes of our behavior are unconscious and still predictable.

There are different levels of determinism.

Hard Determinism

Hard Determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.

Soft Determinism

Soft Determinism represents a middle ground. People do have a choice, but that choice is constrained by external factors, e.g., Being poor doesn’t make you steal, but it may make you more likely to take that route through desperation.

• Determinism is scientific and allows cause-and-effect relationships to be established.
• It gives plausible explanations for behavior backed up by evidence.
• Determinism is reductionist.
• Does not account for individual differences. By creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their own destiny.
• Hard determinism suggests criminals cannot be held accountable for their actions. Deterministic explanations for behavior reduce individual responsibility. A person arrested for a violent attack, for example, might plead that they were not responsible for their behavior – it was due to their upbringing, a bang on the head they received earlier in life, recent relationship stresses, or a psychiatric problem. In other words, their behavior was determined.

Essay Question : – Discuss free will & determinism in psychology (16 marks)

Nature & Nurture

The central question is the extent to which our behavior is determined by our biology (nature) and the genes we inherit from our parents versus the influence of environmental factors (nurture) such as home school and friends.

Nature is the view that all our behavior is determined by our biology and our genes. This is not the same as the characteristics you are born with because these may have been determined by your prenatal environment.

In addition, some genetic characteristics only appear later in development as a result of the process of maturation. Supporters of the nature view have been called ‘nativists.’

Evolutionary explanations of human behavior exemplify the nature approach in psychology. The main assumption underlying this approach is that any particular behavior has evolved because of its survival value.

E.g., Bowlby suggested that attachment behaviors are displayed because they ensure the survival of an infant and the perpetuation of the parents’ genes. This survival value is further increased because attachment has implications for later relationship formation, which will ultimately promote successful reproduction.

Evolutionary psychologists assume that behavior is a product of natural selection. Interpersonal attraction can, for example, be explained as a consequence of sexual selection.

Men and women select partners who enhance their productive success, judging this in terms of traits that ‘advertise’ reproductive fitness, such as signs of healthiness (white teeth) or resources.

Physiological psychology is also based on the assumption that behavior can be explained in terms of genetically programmed systems.

• Bowlby’s explanation of attachment does not ignore environmental influences, as is generally true for evolutionary explanations. In the case of attachment theory, Bowlby proposed that infants become most strongly attached to the caregiver who responds most sensitively to the infant’s needs.
• The experience of sensitive caregiving leads a child to develop expectations that others will be equally sensitive so that they tend to form adult relationships that are enduring and trusting.
• The problem of the transgenerational effect. Behavior that appears to be determined by nature (and therefore is used to support this nativist view) may, in fact, be determined by nurture! e.g., if a woman has a poor diet during her pregnancy, her unborn child will suffer.
• This means that the eggs with which each female child is born will also have these negative effects. This can then affect the development of her children a whole generation later.
• This means that a child’s development may, in fact, be determined by their grandmother’s environment (transgenerational effect). This suggests that what may appear to be inherited and inborn is, in fact, caused by the environment and nurture.

Nurture is the opposite view that all behavior is learned and influenced by external factors such as the environment etc. Supports of the nurture view are ‘empiricists’ holding the view that all knowledge is gained through experience.

The behaviorist approach is the clearest example of the nurture position in psychology, which assumes that all behavior is learned through the environment. The best-known example is the social learning explanation of aggression using the Bobo doll.

SLT proposes that much of what we learn is through observation and vicarious reinforcement. E.g., Bandura demonstrated this in his Bobo doll experiments. He found that children who watched an adult role model being rewarded for aggression toward an inflatable doll tended to imitate that behavior when later on their own with a Bobo doll.

This supports the idea that personality is determined by nurture rather than nature. This provides us with a model of how to behave. However, such behavior becomes part of an individual’s behavioral repertoire through direct reinforcement – when behavior is imitated, it receives direct reinforcement (or not).

Another assumption of the nurture approach is that there is a double bind hypothesis that explains schizophrenia. They suggest that schizophrenia develops because children receive contradictory messages from their parents.

• Empirical evidence shows that behavior is learned and can be modified through conditioning.
• Behaviorist accounts are all in terms of learning, but even learning itself has a genetic basis. For example, research has found that mutant flies missing a crucial gene cannot be conditioned (Quinn et al., 1979).

Conclusion (AO3)

Instead of defending extreme nature or nurture views , most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating the ways in which nature and nurture interact. It is limiting to describe behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behavior.

For example, in psychopathology, this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

The Diathesis-stress model of Schizophrenia suggests that although people may inherit a predisposition to Schizophrenia, some sort of environmental stressor is required in order to develop the disease.

This explains why Schizophrenia happens in the late teens or early adulthood, times of considerable upheaval and stress in people’s lives, e.g., leaving home, starting work, forging new relationships, etc.

Essay Question : – Describe & evaluate the nature-nurture debate in psychology (16 marks)

Reductionism & Holism

Holism is often referred to as Gestalt psychology . It argues that behavior cannot be understood in terms of the components that make them up. This is commonly described as ‘the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.’

Psychologists study the whole person to gain an understanding of all the factors that might influence behavior. Holism uses several levels of explanation, including biological, environmental, and social factors.

Holistic approaches include Humanism, Social, and Gestalt psychology and make use of the case study method. Jahoda’s six elements of Optimal Living are an example of a holistic approach to defining abnormality.

Imagine you were asked to make a cake .

If I simply told you that you needed 3 eggs, 75 grams of sugar, and 75 grams of self-raising. Would that be enough information for you to make a sponge cake? What else would you need to know?

In this way, a cake is more than the sum of its parts. Simply putting all the ingredients into a tin and sticking them in the oven would not result in a sponge cake!

• Looks at everything that may impact behavior.
• Does not ignore the complexity of behavior.
• Integrates different components of behavior in order to understand the person as a whole.
• It can be higher in ecological validity.
• Over-complicate behaviors that may have simpler explanations (Occam’s Razor).
• Does not lend itself to the scientific method and empirical testing.
• Makes it hard to determine cause and effect.
• Neglects the importance of biological explanations.
• Almost impossible to study all the factors that influence complex human behaviors

Reductionism

Reductionism is the belief that human behavior can be explained by breaking it down into smaller component parts. Reductionists say that the best way to understand why we behave as we do is to look closely at the very simplest parts that make up our systems and use the simplest explanations to understand how they work.

In psychology, the term is most appropriately applied to biological explanations (e.g., genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones) of complex human behaviors such as schizophrenia, gender, and aggression.

Such reductionist explanations can be legitimately criticized as ignoring psychological, social, and cultural factors.

Cognitive psychology, with its use of the computer analogy, reduces behavior to the level of a machine, mechanistic reductionism.

Behaviorist psychology sees behavior in terms of simple stimulus/response relationships. And finally, the psychodynamic perspective reduces behavior to unconscious motivation and early childhood experiences.

• The use of a reductionist approach to behavior can be a useful one in allowing scientific study to be carried out. The scientific study requires the isolation of variables to make it possible to identify the causes of behavior.
• For example, research into the genetic basis of mental disorders has enabled researchers to identify specific genes believed to be responsible for schizophrenia. This way, a reductionist approach enables the scientific causes of behavior to be identified and advances the possibility of scientific study.
• A reductionist approach to studying mental disorders has led to the development of effective chemical treatments
• The disadvantage is that it can be over-simplistic. Humans and their environments are so complex that the reductionist explanation falls short of giving the whole explanation of the behavior. Thus, it lacks ecological validity
• Does not address larger societal issues e.g., poverty.

Reductionism in psychology is useful, as sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Physiological approaches do tend to be reductionist, but as long as we bare these limitations in mind.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to take a completely holistic approach to psychology, as human behavior is so complex. Case studies come closest to taking a holistic approach.

Explaining behavior in a reductionist manner is seen as a low-level explanation, whereas more holistic explanations are high-level explanations.

Essay Question : – Discuss holism and reductionism in psychology (16 marks)

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

Nomothetic approach.

The Nomothetic approach looks at how our behaviors are similar to each other as human beings. The term “nomothetic” comes from the Greek word “nomos,” meaning “law.”

Psychologists who adopt this approach are mainly concerned with studying what we share with others. That is to say, in establishing laws or generalizations. Tend to use quantitative methods.

Personality: – A Nomothetic Approach

The psychometric approach to the study of personality compares individuals in terms of traits or dimensions common to everyone. This is a nomothetic approach, and two examples are Hans Eysenck’s type and Raymond Cattell’s 16PF trait theories.

The details of their work need not concern us here. Suffice it to say they both assume that there are a small number of traits that account for the basic structure of all personalities and that individual differences can be measured along these dimensions.

• The nomothetic approach is seen as far more scientific than the idiographic approach, as it takes an evidence-based, objective approach to formulate causal laws.
• This enables us to make predictions about how people are likely to react in certain circumstances, which can be very useful, e.g., Zimbardo’s findings about how prisoners and guards react in a prison environment.
• Predictions can be made about groups, but these may not apply to individuals.
• The approach has been accused of losing sight of the ‘whole person.’

Idiographic Approach

The Idiographic or individual differences approach looks at how our behaviors are different from each other. The term “idiographic” comes from the Greek word “idios” meaning “own” or “private.” Psychologists interested in this aspect of experience want to discover what makes each of us unique. Tend to use qualitative methods.

Personality: – An Idiographic Approach

At the other extreme, Gordon Allport found over 18,000 separate terms describing personal characteristics. Whilst some of these are common traits (that could be investigated nomothetically), the majority, in Allport’s view, referred to more or less unique dispositions based on life experiences peculiar to ourselves.

He argues that they cannot be effectively studied using standardized tests. What is needed is a way of investigating them ideographically.

Carl Rogers, a Humanist psychologist, has developed a method of doing this, a procedure called the “Q-sort.” First, the subject is given a large set of cards with a self-evaluative statement written on each one. For example, “I am friendly” or “I am ambitious,” etc.

The subject is then asked to sort the cards into piles. One pile contains statements that are “most like me,” one statement that is “least like me,” and one or more piles for statements that are in-between.

In a Q-sort, the number of cards can be varied, as can the number of piles and the type of question (e.g., How I am now? How I used to be? How my partner sees me? How I would like to be?) So there are a potentially infinite number of variations.

That, of course, is exactly as it should be for an idiographic psychologist because, in his/her view, there are ultimately as many different personalities as there are people.

• A major strength of the idiographic approach is its focus on the individual. Gordon Allport argues that it is only by knowing the person as a person that we can predict what the person will do in any given situation.
• The idiographic approach is very time-consuming. It takes a lot of time and money to study individuals in depth. If a researcher is using the nomothetic approach, once a questionnaire, psychometric test, or experiment has been designed, data can be collected relatively quickly.

From these examples, we can see that the difference between a nomothetic and an idiographic approach is not just a question of what the psychologist wants to discover but also of the methods used.

Experiments, correlation, psychometric testing, and other quantitative methods are favored from a nomothetic point of view. Case studies, informal interviews, unstructured observation, and other qualitative methods are idiographic.

There are also broad differences between theoretical perspectives. Behaviorist, cognitive and biological psychologists tend to focus on discovering laws or establishing generalizations: – Nomothetic. The humanists are interested in the individual: – Idiographic.

As always, it is best to take a combined approach. Millon & Davis (1996) suggest research should start with a nomothetic approach and once general ‘laws’ have been established, research can then move to a more idiographic approach. Thus, getting the best of both worlds!

Essay Question : – Discuss idiographic and nomothetic approaches to psychological investigation (16 marks)

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples :

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children put in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children that participated would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, think of the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young charges in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are in no way harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

1) Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.

2) Friends and relatives of those taking part in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.

3) The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.

4) The institution in which the research is conducted.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) also suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• The way in which the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics are able to detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t. When research findings are publicized, people are likely to take them as fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are totally responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how taking part in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls. E.g., The Tuskergee Study which withheld treatment for STIs from black men to investigate the effects of syphilis on the body.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their own interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : If the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits, it is unethical. However, it is difficult to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise: Researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.
• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still carried out on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.
• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

A-Level Psychology Revision Notes

A-Level Psychology Attachment

Psychology Memory Revision Notes

Social Influence Revision Notes

Psychopathology Revision Notes

Psychology Approaches Revision for A-level

Research Methods: Definition, Types, & Examples

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Teaching activity

Exemplar Essays for AQA A Level Psychology - Issues and Debates

17th October 2016

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

In recent weeks we've had many requests for ‘sample essays’, so the tutor2u Psychology team has been working hard to get our new ‘Core Topic Essays’ resource ready for use. We have started with a topic which we know you all love – Issues & Debates – and have produced seven exemplar essays.

Each essay comes in two versions:

(1) With examiner style commentary

(2) Without examiner commentary, so that you can use these in your lessons.

You can download a sample of these essays here

These essays have been checked by examiners and although we are unable to say exactly what mark they would achieve (as there have been no real linear A Level Psychology exams yet), we are confident with the mark band and and that content is correct.

Also we have provided a mixture of mark band 4 and 3 essays so that students can see what they need to do to improve and what the difference is between these two levels.

The seven Issues & Debates Questions are: 1. Discuss gender bias in psychology. (16 marks) 2. Discuss cultural bias in psychology. (16 marks) 3. Discuss free will and determinism in psychology. (16 marks) 4. Describe and evaluate the nature–nurture debate in psychology. (16 marks) 5. Discuss holism and reductionism in psychology. (16 marks) 6. Discuss idiographic and nomothetic approaches to psychological investigation. (16 marks) 7. Discuss the ethical implications of research studies and theory, including reference to social sensitivity. (16 marks)

This resource will be published on 20 October 2016 and can be ordered here from our online store

A School Network Licence - which enables the digital and print distribution of the resource to all your students - costs just £35 (+VAT).

A discount on this price is available to teaching colleagues who are members of the AQA A Level Psychology Teacher Group on Facebook - a posting with the coupon code has been posted to the FB Group.

Joseph Sparks

Joseph is a Subject Advisor for Psychology at tutor2u. He is an experienced Psychology & Music Teacher, Writer, Examiner and Presenter. He is currently completing a Professional Doctorate in Education and is passionate about the impact of technology on teaching and learning.

You might also like

AQA AS (Year 1) Psychology Revision Workshop Booklet 2016

20th February 2016

Limited places available on the 'New to Teaching A Level Psychology in Year 1 (AS)' event

14th June 2016

7 Days left to win a giant psychology timeline poster

3rd July 2016

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with Paper Cups

3rd October 2016

STEM Starter: Explanations of Attachment

12th January 2017

Free Key Term Glossary & Crosswords: Psychopathology

21st September 2017

Results Analysis for A-Level Psychology in 2019

Teaching Activities

Festive Lesson Quiz Pack 2021 - AQA GCSE Psychology

9th December 2021

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member.

Psychology Essay Plans- Gender

Essay plans for possible 24 mark questions.

• Created by: emmaaaaa
• Created on: 15-01-15 16:42

Genes and Hormones

• Chromosomes- determine sex, 23 pairs, ** female, XY male, Y=SRY gene, cause embryo develop testes, not present females so develop ovaries instead.
• Hormones- stimulate growth sex organs e.g. androgens, testosterone boys, oestrogen/progesterone girls, high level male hormone but female result ambiguous genitalia
• Brain Development- hormones affect brain, female brain social skills/empathy, male brain maths skills/systematic, brain sex theory- testosterone lead male behaviour, stimulate area associated spatial skills, Deady et al- fem. high level salivary testosterone, low maternal personality.
• CAH and AIS- usually direct link chromsomal and genitalia, CAH- girl exposed high level testosterone in womb cause act masculine, AIS- genetics male, exterior female insensitive to testosterone.
• Dessons et al.- 250 fem prenatal exposure high level androgen still raise fem, 95% content 5% significant dysphoria- other factor not just biological- reductionism
• Deterministic/Nature- assigned gender must stick due to biology- genes/hormones not social
• David Reimer- supports- circumcision wrong raised as girl, Brenda originally went well, but unhappy- teased at school, revert to male despite raised girl.
• Batista Family- mutant gene cause genetic male look fem until puberty, change to male due to high level teststerone- show hormones affect gender development
• Gender Dysphoria- not fully explain- some bio basis not all cases AIS sometimes result in it
• Reiner and Gearhart- 16 bio male, 14 raised as girl, at 16, 8 of 14 reassigned as male- support but small sample, only male not generalise
• Olympics- olympic committee ruled ** must compete fem, XY must compete male, 1991 ruled genetic sex no longer determine entry- gender identify with
• Generalisability- most research conducted people intersex, different development to typical

Evolutionary Explanations

• Biological approach- gender evolved means survival, allow genes pass on to offspring, exhibit same characteristics- repeated roles
• ES theory- Baron-Cohen- female empathetic- good childcare, males systematic- hunting strategies, evolutionary advantage- more likely survive reproduce pass on traits
• Buss (1989, 1992)- mate choice important reproductive success, males- physical attractive, youth- healthy offspring, females- high status, resources- provide for offspring
• Taylor et al. (2000)- stressful situation females protect, males fight/flight- modern day men defensive, female tend to befriend
• Kuhn and Stiner (2006)- Neanderthals died out- not split gender roles, has evolutionary advantage- could be down to climate change at time
• Deterministic- Genes code behaviour- no choice, igonre free will choose gender role e.g. Kathoey in Thailand- not generalisable to all, inaccurate
• Cultural Bias- most research typical western cultures- not generalise all cultures e.g. some idenfity 3rd gender, or tribes where gender roles reversed
• Not Cultural bias- Buss (1989, 1992)- cross cultural support- show theory can be generalised across cultures- increase external validity
• Wayforth and Dunbar- content analysis personal ads, attractive wanted 44% males, 22% fem, attractive advertiesd 50% fem, 34% males- increase validity of Buss
• Archer and Lloyd (2002)- non-hunt species still have gender role differences- male not hunt, no evo advantage- why exist
• Archer and Lloyd (2002)- use one species disprove theory- unrepresentative sample, different species evolve differently- cannot apply all species- lack external validity
• Reductionist/nature- reduce complex behaviour to natural selection/passing on genes- ignore social factors e.g. abilit learn/internalise gender roles- also support nature over nurture

Biosocial Approach

• Bio-social- consider both biological and social factors- babies innate behaviour cause parents respond certain way lead form gender identity/roles
• Money and Ehrhardt (1972)- biological sex baby cause interact differently, subject social labelling, steers development- determine gender identity, therefore gender role
• Smith and Lloyd (1978)- 32 mothers interact with "boy" or "girl" baby- play more vigorous with boy, offered sex typed toyes- sex of baby influence parents interaction with them
• Eagly and Wood (1999)- Social Role Theory- evolution cause physical differences- psychological emerge due to social assignment- men strong, assigned hunter, develop systematic, women pregnant, assigned homemaker, develop empathy
• Rubin et al.- interview 30 parents, adjectives describe babies- no mesurable differences- consistently boy better coordinated, stronger, more alert than girl
• Wallen et al. (2008)- male rhesus monkeys prefer play wheeled over plush toys- no social expectation- likely biological tendency amplified by society- Alexander
• David Reimer- challenge theory- raised as girl but unhappy, revert back to male- biological only not matter how raised- not generalisable
• Not as reductionist- both bio and social views- less reductionist, such as evo/cognitive- only focus one viewpoint- more accurate?
• Luxen (2007)- selective pressure on men/fem, create psychological and physical sex differences, contradict SRT- both down to evolution
• Intersex conditions- some research done people intersex conditions- not generalise to all of population- lack external validity
• Eagly and Wood- Gender Empowerment Measure- places women higher status, less pronounced labour division had less pronounced differences in mating preference- social roles driving force of psychological sex differences
• Gangestad et al. (2006)- re-analyse data from Eagly and Wood- found gender equality not related to sex differences- evolutionary theory better?

Gender Dysphoria

• Gender Dysphoria- individual uncomfortable with gender assigned at birth, may want change gender
• Genetic link- Green (2000) 10 sibling/parent-child pairs, 7 concordant- MZ twins, 3 non-twin brothers, brother-sister, father-daughter, father-son pairs
• Brain development- Kruijver et al. (2000)- atypical development hypothalamus- post morten mtf show brain pattern identical to normal fem. and vice versa with ftm- male brain female body- AIS also
• Psychological cause- Freud- normal psychological development identification same-sex parent in phallic stage psycho-sexual development- lack of parent could cause GD- Rekers (1995)- examine over 70 boys with GD- no evidence of biological cause- general absence of appropriate male role models
• Gordon and Rottery (1992)- 3yr old MZ twin girls- one trans-gender other no problems- not entirely genetic- gender bias not generalisable to rest of the population
• Swaab et al. (1993)- Mtf smaller brain area- occur in fem due to rapid cell decrease at 4 not occur males
• Swaab et al. (1993)- Problems both studies- not assume abnormal brain cause GD,  occur by taking on identity
• Small scale studies- Not cover all cultures, cannot generalise - Individual differences- no studies 100% concordance
• Jones and Tinker (1982)- 14 families interviewed- parents not worry over inappropriate behaviour, some encourage, later discourage- parents influence cause GD - Biological factors not account, methodological issues- interviews not say all wanted to- inaccurate
• Coates and Pearson (1985)- High incidence separation anxiety in samples boys with GD- restore fantasy tie to absent mother - Not generalisable to whole population- gender bias
• Males 5x likely- Socially more rigid gender roles- girls tomboys, not accepted boys girly
• Cause unknown- Research support nature/nurture- thought more biological basis some environment factors - Supports nature more - Most theories tend reductionist- biological or social rather than a mix

Cognitive Developmental theory

• Cognitive theory- Internal thought process, understand/respond stimuli- Based Piagets theory cognitive development- children lack internal logic-3 stages- involve active participation in understanding-self socialisation- selective attention, imitation, participation in particular activities
• Basic Gender identity- 2-3 yrs- awareness of sex, believe change - identify boy/girl in photo only stereotyped - struggle see girl short hair is girl- say is boy
• Gender stability- 3-4 yrs- sex stable over time not situation - girl- understand mother in future- see girl dressed as a boy, struggle to see girl - Boy with long hair, struggle see boy
• Gender Constancy- 4-7+ yrs- sex remain constant regardless time/situation- girl short hair is a girl- actively seek role models of same sex to imitate/internalise behaviours and views
• Typical development- not explain atypical- e.g. GD- little clinical value- not resolve issues
• Deterministc- stages followed in order by alll, no choice/free will- individual difference- some mature faster develop different order
• Slaby and Frey- 55 children 2-5yrs found stages goo,d children advanced constancy selective attention same sex role model- age range not match- need 7yrs also
• Ruble and martin/et al.- martin- understand gender role earlier than suggsest- meta analysis, et al.- constancy earlier appear
• Gender schema- account early ages- reach basic identity  age 2-3yrs- awareness gender/specific behaviours- better explanation
• Nurture- depend heavily environment/how interpret info- cognitive development- progressive reorg. of mental processes as result bio maturation and environmental expereince- mix
• Reductionist- not consider other factors, ignore bio/evo- split roles to survive
• Research accuracy- most research western culture- little cross cultural support- cannot generalise entire population

Gender Schema theory

• Schemas- Bem- based schemas- knowledge past used organise/process new info- also include what means be male/fem.- stereotypes, boy- sport, cars, girl- pink dolls
• Gender Identity- basic reached 2-3yrs- aware gender/specific behaviour, not need permanent to get initial understanding- differ Kohlberg- 4-7yrs gender constancy
• Powerful Schema- affect children interpret gender info, actively seek appropriate behaviour for own, igonre not fit
• Martin and Halverson (1981)- 2 key schemas: in/out group- broad category behaviour/attribute related to boys/girls- ingroup- group person identifies with, outgroup- people outside of ingroup, negatively evaluated by ingroup, own sex- relate to in-group/ own gender
• Typical development- not explain atypical e.g. GD, no clinical value- not resolve issues
• Reductionist- gender form to schemas/interact environment- not consider bio/evo theories- gender roles innate for survival
• Martin and Little- children only need gender identity for preferece/knowledge influence- support
• Eisenberg- children choose toys on preferred activity not stereotypes- contradict
• Nurture- schemas develop due to surroundings, how interpret info over genes etc..
• Free will/determinism- deterministic- follow schemas develop gender, free will- schemas differ people, free will what in schema
• Bussey and Bandura (1992)- 3-4yrs act gender stereotypical way to inappropriate behaviour, despite many not have identity/constancy- support
• Kohlberg's theory- gender roles 3 stages- exist Slaby and Frey, but ages wrong- accounted for by schema theory- better explanation?

Social influences

• SLT- Bandura- explain social influence take effect- learn indireclty how behave observe behaviours of others/imitate them- aquire gender roles by observation role models reinforced/punished for behaviour- want same reward
• Parents - See parents rewarded/punished for behaviour so either copy or not depending if punished- From birth children exposed ideas male/female, percieved differently from birth by parents- Langolis et al. And Downs- parents reward same-sex toy play through attention/interaction punish play cross-sex toy through teasing- fathers more punishing older boys
• Peers/Schools- Way respond to other children act inappropriately, girls reward/punish, boys punish- Schools influence as spend lots time there- contintue as get older to occupational choice- Dewitt- surveyed 116 school girls age 11-14 evidence under pressure conform to gender roles in particular looks and maths/science unsuitable for girls
• Media- Adverts for boys- dark, violent, adverts for girls- flowers, passive- focus on these things children copy behaviour via SLT as want same rewards as people on TV- males/females portrayed gender stereotypical ways- men dominant, aggressive, independent, women, submissive, nurturing, dependent- In music men musicians, women singers
• Reed (1998)- Children willing transgress gender roles if encouraged to do so by same-sex peers- females significantly more ready to transgress than males- reflect rigid male gender roles- more punishment than rewards for behaviours- fathers more punishing
• Bee- Differences in TV ads noticed by 6yr olds- Gender role portraylas influential for young children as age where gender roles are developing
• Rubin et al.- Parents describe babies, minimal differences sons still strong, active, coordinated but daughters beautiful, little, delicate, weak- From birth parents have expecation of child based on sex
• Cultural bias- Studies conducted mostly western culture- some cultures stricter parents, not as accepting of deviance- Some cultures not everyone at school/have easy access to media
• Chan- In kindergartens traditional gender role held/acted by teacher/children
• Johnston and Ettema (1982)- Showed 12yr olds episodes of TV show designed counter gender stereotypes, both genders reduced sterotyping- media used in positve light
• Lytton and Romney- Meta analysis- 172 studies only significant effect was encouragement of sex-typed activities from parents- this effect also not that strong- size of study more impressive
• Reductionist- Focus on social influence no consideration of innate behaviour in genes/hormones that has occurred due to evolution/survival

Cultural influences

Culture- “a set of cognitions and practices that identify a specific social group and distinguish it from others”- Hogg and Vaughn (2005)- Gross (1999)- culture 2 main aspects:- Objective- aspects can be seen- buildings, music, food- Subjective- beliefs, values, social norms- regulate behaviour in groups

Nature/Nurture- If same gender traits found in all cultures- evidence nature- If different gender traits exist- evidence for nurture- Many factors could have an effect on gender roles- politics, religion, socio-economic status, age, geography

• Margaret Mead- One first people look into gender roles across cultures - studied 3 tribes in Papua New Guinea- Araphesh- co-operative- little distinction- both share domestic responsibility, some work done by women- naturally strong forehead for carrying weight- Mundugamur- hostile, little distinction- children disregarded, infanticide common- Tchambuli- women aggressive- support family, man dress up, gossip, shop- all believe determined by biology- natural
• 3rd/4th genders- Some cultures accept third even fourth gender- Hijras in India- transgender recognised on official documents as a separate third gender- Kathoeys in Thailand- widley accepted as a third gender- some models, actresses etc..- All socially constructed, some cultures gender not biology
• Tager and Good (2005)- Italian and American men complete conformity to masculine norms inventory- italians score lower 9 of 11, north/central lower south, lower Americans
• Western perspective- Cannot generalise- ethnocentric- value impose other cultures
• Translations- Things lost in translation- interpret in way needed to fit research- may confound results
• Observer effects- Although observed long time- demand characteristics- cause behaviour to change- could wear off, observe without knowing ethical issue- consent not given
• Culture universal- Certain characteristics of gender roles similar irrespective of culture- more likely biological basis- Better understand of nature/nurture by studying cultures
• Acculturation- Cultural modification of individual/group/people by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture
• Van der Vijver (2007)- 1 st gen. Immigrants to Netherlands from Turkey, Morocco, Surinam traditional gender roles, 2 nd gen- moved towards norms of host country
• Tiggerman and Ruutel (2004)- 394 Australians, 415 Estonian students complete sex role concerns inventory- significant national differences on traditional gender role aspirations- Estonians rate mother higher than Australians, no difference on professional success

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

psychological androgny essay plan 0.0 / 5

biological influences into gender development essay plan 0.0 / 5

Psychological explanations of Schizophrenia (example essay) - GRADE A 1.0 / 5 based on 7 ratings

gender dysphoria essay plan 0.0 / 5

Gender Revision Notes AQA A2 Unit 3 0.0 / 5

"Outline and Evaluate the Biological Approach in Psychology" 16 mark essay plan 4.5 / 5 based on 15 ratings

Events In Middle Adulthood 0.0 / 5

PSYA4 Depression Essay 4 - Psychological Explanations 4.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Schizophrenia essay plans 0.0 / 5

DECISION MAKING OF JURIES 0.0 / 5

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Gender in a social psychology context.

• Thekla Morgenroth Thekla Morgenroth Department of Psychology, University of Exeter
•  and  Michelle K. Ryan Michelle K. Ryan Dean of Postgraduate Research and Director of the Doctoral College, University of Exeter
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.309
• Published online: 28 March 2018

Understanding gender and gender differences is a prevalent aim in many psychological subdisciplines. Social psychology has tended to employ a binary understanding of gender and has focused on understanding key gender stereotypes and their impact. While women are seen as warm and communal, men are seen as agentic and competent. These stereotypes are shaped by, and respond to, social contexts, and are both descriptive and prescriptive in nature. The most influential theories argue that these stereotypes develop in response to societal structures, including the roles women and men occupy in society, and status differences between the sexes. Importantly, research clearly demonstrates that these stereotypes have a myriad of effects on individuals’ cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors and contribute to sexism and gender inequality in a range of domains, from the workplace to romantic relationships.

• gender stereotypes
• gender norms
• social psychology
• social role theory
• stereotype content model
• ambivalent sexism
• stereotype threat

Introduction

Gender is omnipresent—it is one of the first categories children learn, and the categorization of people into men and women 1 affects almost every aspect of our lives. Gender is a key determinant of our self-concept and our perceptions of others. It shapes our mental health, our career paths, and our most intimate relationships. It is therefore unsurprising that psychologists invest a great deal of time in understanding gender as a concept, with social psychologists being no exception. However, this has not always been the case. This article begins with “A Brief History of Gender in Psychology,” which gives an overview about gender within psychology more broadly. The remaining sections discuss how gender is examined within social psychology more specifically, with particular attention to how gender stereotypes form and how they affect our sense of self and our evaluations of others.

A Brief History of Gender in Psychology

During the early years of psychology in general, and social psychology in particular, the topic gender was largely absent from psychology, as indeed were women. Male researchers made claims about human nature based on findings that were restricted to a small portion of the population, namely, white, young, able-bodied, middle-class, heterosexual men [see Etaugh, 2016 ; a phenomenon that has been termed androcentrism (Hegarty, & Buechel, 2006 )]. If women and girls were mentioned at all, they were usually seen as inferior to men and boys (e.g., Hall, 1904 ).

This invisibility of women within psychology changed with a rise of the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. Here, more women entered psychology, demanded to be seen, and pushed back against the narrative of women as inferior. They argued that psychology’s androcentrism, and the sexist views of psychologists, had not only biased psychological theory and research, but also contributed to and reinforced gender inequality in society. For example, Weisstein ( 1968 ) argued that most claims about women made by prominent psychologists, such as Freud and Erikson, lacked an evidential grounding and were instead based on these men’s fantasies of what women were like rather than empirical data. A few years later, Maccoby and Jacklin ( 1974 ) published their seminal work, The Psychology of Sex Differences , which synthesized the literature on sex differences and concluded that there were few (but some) sex differences. This led to a growth of interest in the social origins of sex differences, with a shift away from a psychology of sex (i.e., biologically determined male vs. female) and toward a psychology of gender (i.e., socially constructed masculine vs. feminine).

Since then, the psychology of gender has become a respected and widely represented subdiscipline within psychology. In a fascinating analysis of the history of feminism and psychology, Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, and McHugh ( 2012 ) examined publications on sex differences, gender, and women from 1960 to 2009 . In those 50 years, the number of annual publications rose from close to zero to over 6,500. As a proportion of all psychology articles, one can also see a marked rise in popularity in gender articles from 1960 to 2009 , with peak years of interest in the late 1970s and 1990s. In line with the aforementioned shift from sex differences to gender differences, the largest proportion of these articles fall into the topic of “social processes and social issues,” which includes research on gender roles, masculinity, and femininity.

However, as interest in the area has grown, the ways in which gender is studied, and the political views of those studying it, have become more diverse. Eagly and colleagues note:

we believe that this research gained from feminist ideology but has escaped its boundaries. In this garden, many flowers have bloomed, including some flowers not widely admired by some feminist psychologists. (p. 225)

Here, they allude to the fact that some research has shifted away from societal explanations, which feminist psychologists have generally favored, to more complex views of gender difference. Some of these acknowledge the fact that nature and nurture are deeply intertwined, with both biological and social variables being used to understand gender and gender differences (e.g., Wood & Eagly, 2002 ). Others, such as evolutionary approaches (e.g., Baumeister, 2013 ; Buss, 2016 ) and neuroscientific approaches (see Fine, 2010 ), focus more heavily on the biological bases of gender differences, often causing chagrin among feminists. Nevertheless, much of the research in social psychology has, unsurprisingly, focused on social factors and, in particular, on gender stereotypes. Where do they come from and what are their effects?

Origins and Effects of Gender Stereotypes

A stereotype can be defined as a “widely shared and simplified evaluative image of a social group and its members” (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011 , p. 51) and has both descriptive and prescriptive aspects. In other words, gender stereotypes tell us what women and men are like, but also what they should be like (Heilman, 2001 ). Gender stereotypes are not only widely shared, but they are also stubbornly resistant to change (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016 ). Both the origin and the consequences of these stereotypes have received much attention in social psychology. So how do stereotypes form? The most widely cited theories on stereotype formation—social role theory (SRT; Eagly, 1987 ; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000 ) and the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, J., 2002 )—answer this question. Both of these models focus on gender as a binary concept (i.e., men and women), as does most psychological research on gender, although they could potentially also be applied to other gender groups. Both theories are considered in turn.

Social Role Theory: Gender Stereotypes Are Determined by Roles

SRT argues that gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of men and women into distinct roles within a given society (Eagly, 1987 ; Eagly et al., 2000 ). The authors note the stability of gender stereotypes across cultures and describe two core dimensions: agency , including traits such as independence, aggression, and assertiveness, and communion , including traits such as caring, altruism, and politeness. While men are generally seen to be high in agency and low in communion, women are generally perceived to be high in communion but low in agency.

According to SRT, these gender stereotypes stem from the fact that women and men are over- and underrepresented in different roles in society. In most societies, even those with higher levels of gender equality, men perform less domestic work compared to women, including childcare, and spend more time in paid employment. Additionally, men disproportionately occupy leadership roles in the workforce (e.g., in politics and management) and are underrepresented in caretaking roles within the workforce (e.g., in elementary education and nursing; see Eagly et al., 2000 ). Eagly and colleagues argue that this gendered division of labor leads to the formation of gender roles and associated stereotypes. More specifically, they propose that different behaviors are seen as necessary to fulfil these social roles, and different skills, abilities, and traits are seen as necessary to execute these behaviors. For example, elementary school teachers are seen to need to care for and interact with children, which is seen to require social skills, empathy, and a caring nature. In contrast, such communal attributes might be seen to be less important—or even detrimental—for a military leader.

To the extent that women and men are differentially represented and visible in certain roles—such as elementary school teachers or military leaders—the behaviors and traits necessary for these roles become part of each respective gender role. In other words, the behaviors and attributes associated with people in caretaking roles, communion, become part of the female gender role, while the behaviors and attributes associated with people in leadership roles, agency, become part of the male gender role.

Building on SRT, Wood and Eagly ( 2002 ) developed a biosocial model of the origins of sex differences which explains the stability of gendered social roles across cultures. The authors argue that, in the past, physical differences between men and women meant that they were better able to perform certain tasks, contributing to the formation of gender roles. More specifically, women had to bear children and nurse them, while men were generally taller and had more upper body strength. In turn, tasks that required upper body strength and long stretches of uninterrupted time (e.g., hunting) were more often carried out by men, while tasks that could be interrupted more easily and be carried out while pregnant or looking after children (e.g., foraging) were more often carried out by women.

Eagly and colleagues further propose that the exact tasks more easily carried out by each sex depended on social and ecological conditions as well as technological and cultural advances. For example, it was only in more advanced, complex societies that the greater size and strength of men led to a division of labor in which men were preferred for activities such as warfare, which also came with higher status and access to resources. Similarly, the development of plough technology led to shifts from hunter–gatherer societies to agricultural societies. This change was often accompanied by a new division of labor in which men owned, farmed, and inherited land while women carried out more domestic tasks. The social structures that arose from these processes in specific contexts in turn affected more proximal causes of gender differences, including gender stereotypes.

It is important to note that this theory focuses on physical differences between the genders, not psychological ones. In other words, the authors do not argue that women and men are inherently different when it comes to their minds, nor that men evolved to be more agentic while women evolved to be more communal.

Stereotype Content Model: Gender Stereotypes Are Determined by Group Relations

The SCM, formulated by Fiske and colleagues ( 2002 ), was not developed specifically for gender, but as an explanation of how stereotypes form more generally. Similar to SRT, the SCM argues that gender stereotypes arise from societal structures. More specifically, the authors suggest that status differences and cooperation versus competition determine group stereotypes—among them, gender stereotypes. This model also suggests two main dimensions to stereotypes, namely, warmth and competence. The concept of warmth is similar to that of communion, previously described, in that it refers to being kind, nice, and caring. Competence refers to attributes such as being intelligent, efficient, and skillful and is thus different from the agency dimension of SRT.

The SCM argues that the dimensions of warmth and competence originate from two fundamental dimensions—status and competition—which characterize the relationships between groups in every culture and society. The degree to which another group is perceived to be warm is determined by whether the group is in cooperation or in competition with one’s own group, which is in turn associated with perceived intentions to help or to harm one’s own group, respectively. While members of cooperating groups are stereotyped as warm, members of competing groups are stereotyped as cold. Evidence suggests that these two dimensions are indeed universal and can be found in many cultures, including collectivist cultures (Cuddy et al., 2009 ). Perceptions of competence, however, are affected by the status and power of the group, which go hand-in-hand with the group’s ability to harm one’s own group. Those groups with high status and power are stereotyped as competent, while those that lack status and power are stereotyped as incompetent.

Groups can thus fall into one of four quadrants of this model. Members of high status groups who cooperate with one’s own group are seen as unequivocally positive—as warm and competent—while those of low status who compete with one’s own group are seen as unequivocally negative—cold and incompetent. More interesting are the two groups that fall into the more ambivalent quadrants—those who are perceived as either warm but incompetent or competent but cold. Applied to gender, this model suggests—and research shows—that typical men are stereotyped as competent but cold, the envious stereotype, while typical women are stereotyped as warm but incompetent, the paternalistic stereotype.

However, these stereotypes do not apply equally to all women and men. Rather, subgroups of men and women come with their own stereotypes. Research demonstrates, for example, that the paternalistic stereotype most strongly applies to traditional women such as housewives, while less traditional women such as feminists and career women are stereotyped as high in competence and low in warmth. For men, there are similar levels of variation—the envious stereotype applies most strongly to men in traditional roles such as managers and career men, while other men are perceived as warm but incompetent (e.g., senior citizens), as cold and incompetent (e.g., punks), or as warm and competent (e.g., professors; Eckes, 2002 ). The section “Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism” discusses the consequences of these stereotypes in more detail.

The Effects of Gender Stereotypes

SRT and the SCM explain how gender stereotypes form. A large body of work in social psychology has focused on the consequences of these stereotypes. These include effects on the gendered perceptions and evaluations of others, as well as effects on the self and one’s own self-image, behavior, and goals.

Gendered Perceptions and Evaluations of Others

Our group-based stereotypes affect how we see members of these groups and how we judge those who do or do not conform to these stereotypes. Gender differs from many other group memberships in several ways (see Fiske & Stevens, 1993 ), which in turn affects consequences of these stereotypes. First, argue Fiske and Stevens, gender stereotypes tend to be more prescriptive than other stereotypes. For example, men may often be told to “man up,” to be tough and dominant, while women may be told to smile, to be nice, and to be sexy (but not too sexy). While stereotypes of other groups also have prescriptive elements, it is probably less common to hear Asians be told to be better at math or African Americans to be told to be more musical. The consequences of these gendered prescriptions are discussed in the section “Gender Stereotypes Affect the Evaluation of Women and Men.” Second, relationships between women and men are characterized by an unusual combination of power differences and close and frequent contact as well as mutual dependence for reproduction and close relationships. The section “Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism” discusses the effects of these factors.

Gender Stereotypes Affect the Evaluation of Women and Men

The evaluation of women and men is affected by both descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes. Research on these effects has predominantly focused on those who occupy counterstereotypical roles such as women in leadership or stay-at-home fathers.

Descriptive stereotypes affect the perception and evaluation of women and men in several ways. First, descriptive stereotypes create biased perceptions through expectancy confirming processes (see Fiske, 2000 ) such that individuals, particularly those holding strong stereotypes, seek out information that confirms their stereotypes. This is evident in their tendency to neglect or dismiss ambiguous information and to ask stereotype-confirming questions (Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994 ; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994 ). Moreover, people are more likely to recall stereotypical information compared to counterstereotypical information (Rojahn & Pettigrew, 1992 ) Second, descriptive gender stereotypes also bias the extent to which men and women are seen as suitable for different roles, as described in Heilman’s lack of fit model ( 1983 , 1995 ) and Eagly and Karau’s role congruity theory ( 2002 ). These approaches both suggest that the degree of fit between a person’s attributes and the attributes associated with a specific role is positively related to expectations about how successful a person will be in said role. For example, the traits associated with successful managers are generally more similar to those associated with men than those associated with women (Schein, 1973 ; see also Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011 ). Thus, all else being equal, a man will be seen as a better fit for a managerial position and in turn as more likely to be a successful manager. These biased evaluations in turn lead to biased decisions, such as in hiring and promotion (see Heilman, 2001 ).

Prescriptive gender stereotypes also affect evaluations, albeit in different ways. They prescribe how women and men should behave, and also how they should not behave. The “shoulds” generally mirror descriptive stereotypes, while the “should nots” often include behaviors associated with the opposite gender. Thus, what is seen as positive and desirable for one gender is often seen as undesirable for the other and can lead to backlash in the form of social and economic penalties (Rudman, 1998 ). For example, women who are seen as agentic are punished with social sanctions because they violate the prescriptive stereotype that women should be nice, even in the absence of information indicating that they are not nice (Rudman & Glick, 2001 ). These processes are particularly problematic in combination with the effects of descriptive stereotypes, as individuals may face a double bind—if women behave in line with gender stereotypes, they lack fit with leadership positions that require agency, but if they behave agentically, they violate gender norms and face backlash in the form of dislike and discrimination (Rudman & Glick, 2001 ). Similar effects have been found for men who violate prescriptive masculine stereotypes, for example, by being modest (Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010 ) or by requesting family leave (Rudman & Mescher, 2013 ). Interestingly, however, being communal by itself does not lead to backlash for men (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010 ). In other words, while men can be perceived as highly agentic and highly communal, this is not true for women, who are perceived as lacking communion when being perceived as agentic and as lacking agency when being perceived as communal.

Gender Stereotypes Affect Emotions, Behavior, and Sexism

Stereotypes not only affect how individuals evaluate others, but also their feelings and behaviors toward them. The Behavior from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) map (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007 ), which extends the SCM, describes the relationship between perceptions of warmth and competence of certain groups, emotions directed toward these groups, and behaviors toward them. Cuddy and colleagues argue that bias is comprised of three elements: cognitions (i.e., stereotypes), affect (i.e., emotional prejudice), and behavior (i.e., discrimination), and these are closely linked. Groups perceived as warm and competent elicit admiration while groups perceived as cold and incompetent elicit contempt. Of particular interest to understanding gender are the two ambivalent combinations of warmth and competence: Those perceived as warm, but incompetent—such as typical women—elicit pity, while those perceived as competent, but cold—such as typical men—elicit envy.

Similarly, perceptions of warmth and competence are associated with behavior. Cuddy and colleagues ( 2007 ) argue that the warmth dimension affects behavioral reactions more strongly than competence because it stems from perceptions that a group will help or harm the ingroup. This leads to active facilitation (e.g., helping) when a group is perceived as warm, or active harm (e.g., harassing) when a group is perceived as cold. Competence, however, leads to passive facilitation (e.g., cooperation when it benefits oneself or one’s own group) when the group is perceived as competent, and passive harm (e.g., neglecting to help) when the group is perceived as incompetent.

How these emotional and behavioral reactions affect women and men has received much attention in the literature on ambivalent sexism and ambivalent attitudes toward men (Glick & Fiske, 1996 , 1999 , 2001 ). According to ambivalent sexism theory (AST), sexism is not a uniform, negative attitude toward women or men. Rather, it is comprised of hostile and benevolent elements, which arises from status differences between, and intimate interdependence of, the two genders. While men possess more economic, political, and social power, they depend on women as their mothers and (for heterosexual men) as romantic partners. Thus, while they are likely to be motivated to keep their power, they also need to find ways to foster positive relations with women.

Hostile sexism combines the beliefs that (a) women are inferior to men, (b) men should have more power in society, and (c) women’s sexuality poses a threat to men’s status and power. This form of sexism is mostly directed toward nontraditional women who directly threaten men’s status (e.g., feminists or career women), and women who threaten the heterosexual interdependence of men and women (e.g., lesbians)—in other words, toward women perceived to be competent but cold.

Benevolent sexism is a subtler form of sexism and refers to (a) complementary gender differentiation , the belief that (traditional) women are ultimately the better gender, (b) protective paternalism , where men need to cherish, protect, and provide for women, and (c) heterosexual intimacy , the belief that men and women complement each other such that no man is truly complete without a woman. This form of sexism is directed mainly toward traditional women.

While benevolent sexism may seem less harmful than its hostile counterpart, it ultimately provides an alternative mechanism for the persistence of gender inequality by “keeping women in their place” and discouraging them from seeking out nontraditional roles (see Glick & Fiske, 2001 ). Exposure to benevolent sexism is associated with women’s increased self-stereotyping (Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010 ), decreased cognitive performance (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007 ), and reduced willingness to take collective action (Becker & Wright, 2011 ), thus reinforcing the status quo.

With perceptions of men, Glick and Fiske ( 1999 ) argue that attitudes are equally ambivalent. Hostile attitudes toward men include (a) resentment of paternalism , stemming from perceptions of unfairness of the disproportionate amounts of power men hold, (b) compensatory gender differentiation , which refers to the application of negative stereotypes to men (e.g., arrogant, unrefined) so that women can positively distinguish themselves from them, and (c) heterosexual hostility , stemming from male sexual aggressiveness and interpersonal dominance. Benevolent attitudes toward men include maternalism , that is, the belief that men are helpless and need to be taken care of at home. Interestingly, while such attitudes portray women as competent in some ways, it still reinforces gender inequality by legitimizing women’s disproportionate amount of domestic work. Benevolent attitudes toward men also include complementary gender differentiation , the belief that men are indeed more competent, and heterosexual attraction , the belief that a woman can only be truly happy when in a romantic relationship with a man.

Cross-cultural research (Glick et al., 2000 , 2004 ) suggests that ambivalent sexism and ambivalent attitudes toward men are similar in many ways and can be found in most cultures. For both constructs, the benevolent and hostile aspects are distinct but positively related, illustrating that attitudes toward women and men are indeed ambivalent, as the mixed nature of stereotypes would suggest. Moreover, ambivalence toward women and men are correlated and national averages of both aspects of sexism and ambivalence toward men are associated with lower gender equality across nations, lending support to the idea that they reinforce the status quo.

Gender Stereotypes Affect the Self

Gender stereotypes not only affect individuals’ reactions toward others, they also play an important part in self-construal, motivation, achievement, and behavior, often without explicit endorsement of the stereotype. This section discusses how gender stereotypes affect observable gender differences and then describes the subtle and insidious effects gender stereotypes can have on performance and achievement through the inducement of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995 ).

Gender Stereotypes Affect Gender Differences

Gender stereotypes are a powerful influence on the self-concept, goals, and behaviors. Eagly and colleagues ( 2000 ) argue that girls and boys observe the roles that women and men occupy in society and accommodate accordingly, seeking out different activities and acquiring different skills. They propose two main mechanisms by which gender differences form. First, women and men adjust their behavior to confirm others’ gender-stereotypical expectations. Others communicate their gendered expectations in many, often nonverbal and subtle ways and react positively when expectations are confirmed and negatively when they are not. This subtle communication of expectations reinforces gender-stereotypical behavior as people generally try to elicit positive, and avoid negative, reactions from others. Importantly, the interacting partners need not be aware of these expectations for them to take effect.

The second process by which gender stereotypes translate into gender differences is the self-regulation of behavior based on identity processes and the internalization of stereotypes (e.g., Bem, 1981 ; Markus, 1977 ). Most people form their gender identity based on self-categorization as male or female and subsequently incorporate attributes associated with the respective category into their self-concept (Guimond, Chatard, Martinot, Crisp, & Redersdorff, 2006 ). These gendered differences in the self-concepts of women and men then translate into gender-stereotypical behaviors. The extent to which the self-concept is affected by gender stereotypes—and in turn the extent to which gendered patterns of behavior are displayed—depends on the strength and the salience of this social identity (Hogg & Turner, 1987 ; Onorato & Turner, 2004 ). For example, individuals may be more likely to display gender-stereotypical behavior when they identify more strongly with their gender (e.g., Lorenzi‐Cioldi, 1991 ) or when their gender is more likely to be salient, which is more likely to be the case for women (Cadinu & Galdi, 2012 ).

However, many different subcategories of women exist—housewives, feminists, lesbians—and thus what it means to identify as a woman, and behave like a woman, is likely to be complex and multifaceted (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002 ; van Breen, Spears, Kuppens, & de Lemus, 2017 ). Moreover, research demonstrates that the salience of gender in any given context also determined the degree to which an individual displays gender-stereotypical behavior (e.g., Ryan & David, 2003 ; Ryan, David, & Reynolds, 2004 ). For example, Ryan and colleagues demonstrate that while women and men act in line with gender stereotypes when gender and gender difference are salient, these differences in attitudes and behavior disappear when alternative identities, such as those based on being a student or being an individual, are made salient.

Gender Stereotypes Affect Performance and Achievement

The consequences of stereotypes go beyond the self-concept and behavior. Research in stereotype threat describes the detrimental effects that negative stereotypes can have on performance and achievement. Stereotype threat refers to the phenomenon whereby the awareness of the negative stereotyping of one’s group in a certain domain, and the fear of confirming such stereotypes, can have negative effects on performance, even when the stereotype is not endorsed. The phenomenon was first described by Steele and Aronson ( 1995 ) in the context of African Americans’ intellectual test performance, but has since been found to affect women’s performance and motivation in counterstereotypical domains such as math (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008 ) and leadership (Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005 ). This affect holds true even when minority group members’ prior performance and interest in the domain are the same as those of majority group members (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999 ). Moreover, the effect is particularly pronounced when the minority member’s desire to belong is strong and identity-based devaluation is likely (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002 ).

Different mechanisms for the effect of stereotype threat have been proposed. Schmader, Johns, and Forbes ( 2008 ) suggest that the inconsistency between one’s self-image as competent and the cultural stereotype about one’s group’s lack of competence leads to a physiological stress response that directly impairs working memory. For example, when made aware of the widely held stereotype that women are bad at math, a female math student is likely to experience an inconsistency. This inconsistency, the authors argue, is not only distressing in itself, but induces uncertainty: Am I actually good at math or am I bad at math as the stereotype would lead me to believe? In an effort to resolve this uncertainty, she is likely to monitor her performance more than others—and more than in a situation in which stereotype threat is absent. This monitoring leads to more conscious, less efficient processing of information—for example, when performing calculations that she would otherwise do more or less automatically—and a stronger focus on detecting potential failure, taking cognitive resources away from the actual task. Moreover, individuals under stereotype threat are more likely to experience negative thoughts and emotions such as fear of failure. In order to avoid the interference of these thoughts, they actively try to suppress them. This suppression, however, takes effort. All of these mechanisms, the authors argue, take working memory space away from the task in question, thereby impairing performance.

The aim of this article is to give an overview of gender research in social psychology, which has focused predominantly on gender stereotypes, their origins, and their consequences, and these are all connected and reinforce each other. Social psychology has produced many fascinating findings regarding gender, and this article has only just touched on these findings. While research into gender has seen a great growth in the past 50 years and has provided us with an unprecedented understanding of women and men and the differences (and similarities) between them, there is still much work to be done.

There are a number of issues that remain largely absent from mainstream social psychological research on gender. First, an interest and acknowledgment of intersectional identities has emerged, such as how gender intersects with race or sexuality. It is thus important to note that many of the theories discussed in this article cannot necessarily be applied directly across intersecting identities (e.g., to women of color or to lesbian women), and indeed the attitudes and behaviors of such women continue to be largely ignored within the field.

Second, almost all social psychological research into gender is conducted using an overly simplistic binary definition of gender in terms of women and men. Social psychological theories and explanations are, for the most part, not taking more complex or more fluid definitions of gender into account and thus are unable to explain gendered attitudes and behavior outside of the gender binary.

Finally, individual perceptions and cognitions are influenced by gendered stereotypes and expectations, and social psychologists are not immune to this influence. How we, as psychologists, ask research questions and how we interpret empirical findings are influenced by gender stereotypes (e.g., Hegarty & Buechel, 2006 ), and we must remain vigilant that we do not inadvertently seek to reinforce our own gendered expectations and reify the gender status quo.

• Barreto, M. , Ellemers, N. , Piebinga, L. , & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles , 62 , 532–544.
• Baumeister, R. F. (2013) Gender differences in motivation shape social interaction patterns, sexual relationships, social inequality, and cultural history. In M. K. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
• Becker, J. C. , & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 62–77.
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review , 88 , 354–364
• Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire . In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science . Cham, SZ: Springer.
• Cadinu, M. , & Galdi, S. (2012). Gender differences in implicit gender self‐categorization lead to stronger gender self‐stereotyping by women than by men. European Journal of Social Psychology , 42 , 546–551.
• Cuddy, A. J. C. , Fiske, S. T. , & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92 , 631–648.
• Cuddy, A. J. C. , Fiske, S. T. , Kwan, V. S. Y. , Glick, P. , Demoulin, S. , Leyens, J.-P. , . . . & Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology , 48 , 1–33.
• Dardenne, B. , Dumont, M. , & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 , 764–779.
• Davies, P. G. , Spencer, S. J. , & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 , 276–287.
• Deaux, K. , & Major, B. (1987) Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review , 94 , 369–389.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Eagly, A. H. , Eaton, A. , Rose, S. , Riger, S. , & McHugh, M. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist , 67 , 211–230.
• Eagly, A. H. , & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. Psychological Review , 109 , 573–598.
• Eagly, A. H. , Wood, W. , & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles , 47 , 99–114.
• Etaugh, C. (2016). Psychology of gender: History and development of the field. In N. Naples , R. C. Hoogland , M. Wickramasinghe , & W. C. A. Wong (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies , (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
• Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference . New York: Norton.
• Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 299–322.
• Fiske, S. T. , Cuddy, A. J. C. , Glick, P. , & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 , 878–902.
• Fiske, S. T. , & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 491–512.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 , 519–536.
• Glick, P. , & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist , 56 , 109–118.
• Glick, P. , Fiske, S. T. , Mladinic, A. , Saiz, J. L. , Abrams, D. , Masser, B. , . . . & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (5), 763–775.
• Glick, P. , Lameiras, M. , Fiske, S. T. , Eckes, T. , Masser, B. , Volpato, C. , . . . & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 (5), 713–728.
• Guimond, S. , Chatard, A. , Martinot, D. , Crisp, R. J. , & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90 , 221.
• Haines, E. L. , Deaux, K. , & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing . . . or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 40 (3), 1–11.
• Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education . New York: D. Appleton.
• Hegarty, P. , & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology , 10 (4), 377.
• Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 10 , 3–26.
• Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 657–674.
• Hogg, M. , & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology , 26 , 325–340.
• Leyens, J-Ph. , Yzerbyt, V. , & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes, social cognition, and social explanation . London: SAGE.
• Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1991). Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups. European Journal of Social Psychology , 21 (5), 403–417.
• Maccoby, E. E. , & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Macrae, C. N. , Milne, A. B. , & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 37–47.
• Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 , 63–78.
• Moss-Racusin, C. A. , Phelan, J. E. , & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash toward modest men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 11 , 140–151.
• Nguyen, H. D. , & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 1314–1334.
• Onorato, R. S. , & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 257–278.
• Rojahn, K. , & Pettigrew, T. F. (1992). Memory for schema-relevant information: A meta-analytic resolution. British Journal of Social Psychology , 31 , 81–109.
• Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 629–645.
• Rudman, L. A. , & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 743–762.
• Rudman, L.A. , & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues , 69 , 322–340.
• Ryan, M. K. , & David, B. (2003). Gender differences in ways of knowing: The context dependence of The Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey. Sex Roles , 49 , 693–699.
• Ryan, M. K. , David, B. , & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Who cares?: The effect of context on self-concept and moral reasoning. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 28 , 246–255.
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , Hersby, M. D. , & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis—think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager—think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 , 470–484.
• Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology , 57 , 95–100.
• Schmader, T. , Johns, M. , & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review , 115 , 336–356.
• Spencer, S. J. , Steele, C. M. , & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 35 , 4–28.
• Steele, C. M. , & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 797–811.
• Steele, C. M. , Spencer, S. J. , & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
• Van Breen, J. A. , Spears, R. , Kuppens, T. , & de Lemus, S. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1019.
• Vaughan, G. M. , & Hogg, M. A. , (2011). Introduction to Social Psychology (6th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Australia.
• Weisstein, N. (1968). “Kinder, kuche, kirche” as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female . Boston, MA: New England Free Press.
• Wood, W. , & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin , 128 , 699–727.

1. Psychology largely conceptualizes gender as binary. While this is problematic in a number of ways, which we touch upon in the Conclusion section, we largely follow these binary conventions throughout this article, as it is representative of the social psychological literature as a whole.

Related Articles

• Gender and Cultural Diversity in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
• Social Categorization
• Self and Identity

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 05 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Gender Essays - AQA A-Level Psychology

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

4 August 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

• AQA A-level Psychology Essays - Instant Download
• Comprises of 16-mark essays at A* standard (Level 4) for the AQA A-level Psychology specification

Includes the following essays:

• Discuss the role of hormones in sex and gender. [16]
• Outline and evaluate atypical sex chromosome patterns. [16]
• Describe and evaluate Kohlberg’s explanation of gender development. [16]
• Outline and evaluate the gender schema theory. [16]

Your files will be available to download once payment has been confirmed. Returns will not be accepted as the files are digital downloads.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Gender Bias In Psychology

March 17, 2021 - paper 3 issues and options in psychology | issues & debates, gender bias in psychology:.

The Two Main Forms of Gender Bia s

(1) Beta-Bias:

Often occurs when female participants are not included as part of the research process and then it is assumed that the findings apply equally to both sexes.

Example:  Taylor et al (2000), has pointed out that early research into the ‘fight or flight’ response focused mainly on male participants, later research that has adopted a more female focus has highlighted that females react in a different way to stress, adopting a more ‘tend and befriend’ approach.

(A)  Androcentrism:

(b) gynocentrism, (2) alpha bias:.

AO3: Implications Of Gender Bias In Research

(1) Implications of Gender Bias:  Gender bias research may;  create misleading assumptions about female behaviour, fail to challenge negative stereotypes and validate discriminatory practice.

Why could such findings have a negative impact on females?  Such research findings paint women to be volatile individuals who are victims of their own biological makeup holding little control/free will over their own behaviour. Research findings could also cause women to be discriminated against in the work place (for example), employers who believe women are more likely to have accidents/reduced IQ scores could favour male applicants for jobs assuming that they would be a more competent member of the workforce.

For example, research has suggested that males appear to be less sensitive than females and display more aggressive tendencies.

(3) Bias in Research Method s: The way in which research is carried out can also create gender bias assumptions (that don’t really exist). For example, male researchers tend to be nice, friendly and more welcoming the female participants rather than male participants. This often leads to female participants performing better than male participants in certain research tasks.

Why could this lead to bias conclusions being drawn?  Such practice indicates experimenter/investigator effects and would therefore lead to bias results being obtained. Due to the presence of the EV, experimenter/investigator effect, the IV would not be the sole variable affecting the DV and therefore a cause and effect relationship would be unable to be established and internal validity would be low.

Many individuals argue that the lack of females in the ‘higher’ research roles within psychology is due to the fact that women are usually seen to lack leadership qualities (in comparison to men).  Eagly (1978)  acknowledged that women may be less effective leaders than men but argued that such knowledge should be used to remove gender bias and redress the imbalances in theory and research in psychology.

Gender Bias & Culture Bias ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

Gender Bias

What is bias.

• Bias refers to any factor (e.g. attitudes, behaviours, beliefs) that interferes with the validity (i.e. the ‘truth’) of the research process
• Bias may produce attitudes and behaviours which favour universality
• Adopting a universal approach can result in research that is subjective and laden with value-judgments (e.g. ‘ X behaviour is abnormal because it does not align with the behaviour I am familiar with ’)

Gender bias:

• Gender bias occurs when one gender is either favoured over another gender or one gender is discriminated against e.g. via prejudicial attitudes or behaviour
• Alpha bias occurs when researchers over-emphasize differences between males and females
• Beta bia s occurs when researchers ignore of downplay differences between males and females

An example of alpha bias

Which studies show gender bias?

• Paper 1 content – Social Influence: research by Milgram (1963), Asch (1951, 1955) and Zimbardo (1973) used all-male samples to draw conclusions about the nature of, respectively, destructive obedience, normative conformity and conformity to social roles
• By not using a gender-balanced sample each study could be accused of gender bias, specifically beta bias
• Kohlberg’s (1973) theory has been criticised by Gilligan (1981) for taking a male-focused approach to moral development

The possible consequences of gender bias:

• Prejudice, discrimination and sexism are viewed as normal and acceptable
• Female researchers may receive less funding as their role as serious psychologists may be questioned

Asch’s (1951) research is an example of beta bias as it ignores the role of females in measuring conformity: how can an all-male sample represent a general population?

Culture bias

• Culture bias occurs when one culture prevails over others so that the beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviours of that culture are viewed as the norm
• Ethnocentrism is an example of culture bias
• When ethnocentrism goes unchecked it can produce an imposed etic )
• Cultural relativism is the idea that cultures can only be understood from within that culture i.e. by taking an emic approach

Culture bias occurs when one culture is considered the norm over others

Which studies show culture bias?

• Paper 1 content – Attachment: research by Ainsworth (1970) assumed that attachment could be measured and categorised using the norms and values of her own culture (individualistic, American)
• By ignoring the influence of culture on attachment style Ainsworth (1970) takes an etic approach 
• Duck’s (2007) phase model of relationship breakdown is only applicable to individualistic cultures wherein divorce, separation and freedom of choice re one’s relationship is easily attainable

The possible consequences of culture bias:

• Prejudice, discrimination and racism are viewed as normal and acceptable
• Researchers who are from collectivist, non-Westernised cultures may receive less funding as their role as serious psychologists may be questioned
•   The individualistic, Westernised viewpoint/behaviour becomes the ‘norm’ or the model for behaviour generally which could lead to non-Westernised, collectivist behaviour being viewed as ‘abnormal’

Ainsworth (1970): an example of culture bias due to the ethnocentric sample and individualistic attitudes inherent in the resulting attachment types

How can researchers avoid gender and culture bias?

• Use a representative sample in their research: stratified sampling would achieve this aim as it reflects the gender and culture demographic within the target population
• Conduct research within the context of the group itself so that there is meaningful participation from women/cultural groups
• Ensure that female and ethnic minority researchers are given funding equal to the dominant group and that published research is given equal status to the dominant group

When writing about gender or culture bias you have a wealth of recent, global events and movements to draw from to enhance your critical thinking (AO3). Campaigns such as Black Lives Matter (culture bias) and the Me Too movement (gender bias) can be used to highlight the dangers of allowing bias to invade and take root in the attitudes and behaviours held about people of colour and women. Using these current (and extremely important) issues in your AO3 will help to elevate your exam response and demonstrate that you are aware of how issues in psychology are relevant beyond the classroom.

Worked example

Dr. White has conducted a study in which a sample of Caucasian participants was tested on their concentration levels. 

Explain how Dr. White’s conclusion may be an example of cultural bias .  [2] AO2 = 2 marks

Suggested 2-mark response : The findings of the study can only be generalised to Caucasians due to the homogenous, ethnocentric nature of the sample e.g. one ethnicity only used.

Briefly suggest one way in which psychologists could address the issue of cultural bias in research.  [1] AO3 = 1 mark

Suggested 1-mark response : Psychologists could use an emic approach in which a culture is studied from the ‘inside’ so as to avoid creating an imposed etic on the findings.

You've read 0 of your 0 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Claire Neeson

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

• Post-Election

What is Project 2025 And Why Is It Alarming?

By Matt Cohen

June 28, 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

The general election is still about four months away and, with the latest polls showing an incredibly tight race , anything can happen in that time. But that hasn’t stopped former President Donald Trump who, in concert with top Republicans and conservative figures and organizations, already sketched out a plan to reshape the federal government in their image. 

The plan is called Project 2025 — a collection of policy transition proposals that outline how, should Trump win the November election, he can vastly remake the federal government most effectively to carry out an extremist far-right agenda. 

“It is not enough for conservatives to win elections,” the project’s website states. “If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration. This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project.”

What, exactly, is Project 2025?

Simply put, Project 2025 is a massive, 920-page document that outlines exactly what the next Trump presidency would look like. This doesn’t just include policy proposals — like immigration actions, educational proposals and economic plans — but rather a portrait of the America that conservatives hope to implement in the next Republican administration, be it Trump or someone else. The document is a thorough blueprint for how, exactly, to carry out such a vision, through recommendations for key White House staff, cabinet positions, Congress, federal agencies, commissions and boards. The plan goes so far as to outline a vetting process for appointing and hiring the right people in every level of government to carry out this vision. 

The opening essay of the plan, written by Heritage Project President Kevin D. Roberts, succinctly summarizes the goal of Project 2025: a promise to make America a conservative nation. To do so, the next presidential administration should focus on four “broad fronts that will decide America’s future.”

Those four fronts include:

• Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
• Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
• Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
• Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”

The rest of the document sketches out, in detail, how the next Republican administration can execute their goals on these four fronts. That includes comprehensive outlines on what the White House and every single federal agency should do to overhaul its goals and day-to-day operations — from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Defense, Small Business Administration and Financial Regulatory Agencies. Every sector of the executive branch has a detailed plan in Project 2025 that explains how it can carry out an ultra-conservative agenda. 

Project 2025 is supported by the same right-wing groups bringing dozens of anti-democracy lawsuits that will impact the outcome of this year’s election.

Democracy Docket is the only news outlet tracking and reporting on these cases — sign up for our free daily and weekly newsletters to get the latest updates sent straight to your inbox.

Why should we be worried about Project 2025?

As The New Republic notes , Project 2025 is “a remarkably detailed guide to turning the United States into a fascist’s paradise.” The primary document of Project 2025, the magazine explains, lays out what is essentially a “Christian nationalist vision of the United States, one in which married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity; all pregnancies would be carried to term, even if that requires coercion or death; and transgender and gender-nonconforming people do not exist.”

It’s a terrifying vision of what American life could look like, but what’s most concerning about Project 2025 is its playbook for the first 180 days of a hypothetical second Trump term. “The time is short, and conservatives need a plan,” the playbook states. “The project will create a playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies.”

Among the numerous troubling suggestions laid out in the playbook is a detailed plan to essentially purge the federal workforce of tens of thousands of workers in favor of hiring ones who will adhere to the conservative principles of Project 2025. Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official who’s director of Project 2025’s Presidential Transition Project, told the Associated Press the 180 day transition plan is a “clarion call to come to Washington… People need to lay down their tools, and step aside from their professional life and say, ‘This is my lifetime moment to serve.’”

Much of the 180-Day Playbook reads like a cult’s recruiting pamphlet, explaining how department and agency heads should be vetting potential candidates. “This book is functionally an invitation for you the reader—Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, and Ms. Smith—to come to Washington or support those who can,” Dans writes in the intro to the Playbook . “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.”

Who’s behind Project 2025?

Project 2025 is the brainchild of The Heritage Foundation , the 50-year-old conservative think tank that’s among the most influential right-wing organizations in the country. 

In its nearly half century of existence, The Heritage Foundation has used its resources, influence and money to push its conservative agenda in just about every facet of American life: anti-abortion advocacy , voter suppression , anti-climate policies , and anti-LGBTQ advocacy . 

Though The Heritage Foundation organized Project 2025 , the initiative is actually a coalition made up of more than 100 right-wing groups, including notorious groups like America First Legal , the Public Interest Legal Foundation and Moms For Liberty . According to NBC News , a huge web of right-wing dark money groups connected to Project 2025, led by the Leonard Leo-connected Donors Trust, has seen a large bump in donations since the project was announced. 

The chapters in the Project 2025 plan and 180-Day Playbook were written by “more than 400 scholars and policy experts from across the conservative movement and around the country,” the group says. That includes former Trump administration officials and notable right-wing figures, like former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller , former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli , and Peter Navarro , a former top trade advisor to Trump.

Read the full 2025 Project plan here.

Sunak addresses nation for final time outside Downing Street before Starmer moves in - latest updates

Sir Keir Starmer will be the new prime minister this lunchtime after his party won a landslide. Top Tories Liz Truss, Penny Mordaunt and Grant Shapps have been kicked out, with the Lib Dems gaining record seats and Nigel Farage becoming an MP for the first time - one of four for Reform.

Friday 5 July 2024 10:55, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

• Labour win landslide - Sir Keir Starmer declares: 'Change begins now'
• Sam Coates analysis : This is 'loveless landslide'
• Sunak says sorry in final speech | Resigns as Tory leader
• Tory wipeout: Liz Truss's shock loss | Hunt's great escape | 12 cabinet ministers cabinet booted out
• Record 70-plus seats for Lib Dems - as SNP collapse
• Nigel Farage becomes MP as Reform third in vote share and have four seats
• When does Starmer become PM? Key timings today
• Live reporting by Faith Ridler, Katie Williams and Brad Young, and (earlier) Ollie Cooper, Ben Bloch and Jess Sharp
• Who is favourite to be next Tory leader?
• Michael Thrasher analysis: Record-shattering election carries lessons for all parties
• Labour's vote share declines in areas with large Muslim populations amid Gaza anger - with Jonathan Ashworth ousted
• How night unfolded in eight videos - from exit poll to defeated Rees-Mogg's film quote
• Ed Conway : The political geography has changed
• Politics At Jack And Sam's: Labour's landslide - can it get any worse for Tories?
• Results in every constituency as they come

Our political editor Beth Rigby is now giving her immediate reaction to Rishi Sunak's speech, which she described as a "moving moment" outside Number 10.

She says it was "a moving moment when he thanked his wife and their beautiful daughters - and he looked quite emotional".

"That speech from the prime minister, or former prime minister, as he goes to the Palace full of emotion and decency.

"Actually praising Starmer as a decent, public spirited man who he respects, apologising to the country - I am sorry - and apologising to his colleagues."

Beth says Mr Sunak is "taking it on the chin", "accepting responsibility, offering a hand to Keir Starmer and urging the country to get behind" the Labour leader.

"It is such a crushing defeat" for the prime minister, Beth explains.

She says Mr Sunak has been successful in life - educated privately, working in a hedge fund, becoming an MP, chancellor and PM - but now leaves Downing Street "as the least successful prime minister at the ballot box that the Conservative Party has ever seen".

"That is going to be psychologically crushing for him."

Beth says the country "was united in their dislike" for the Tories and "voted them out in the starkest of terms".

"I think the Conservative Party is going to feel shell-shocked today and wondering how on Earth they even begin to rebuild."

Rishi Sunak has arrived at Buckingham Palace to meet the King and offer his resignation.

It marks his last journey as prime minister of the United Kingdom.

The bookies have made Kemi Badenoch the favourite to be the next leader of the Conservative Party.

Rishi Sunak has announced he will quit after losing the election.

As business secretary, Ms Badenoch rarely missed an opportunity to play to the more right-wing Tory gallery.

She ran for party leadership following the demise of Boris Johnson, but failed to make the final three (Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss).

At 13/8, Sky Bet has her more likely to be the next leader than Tom Tugendhat , in second on 7/2.

The former security minister, who previously served in the British Army, has been considered by some as "one to watch" since he first walked into the Commons in 2015.

He was knocked out of the race before Ms Badenoch in 2022, throwing his support behind Liz Truss.

Mr Tugendhat was regarded highly in the One Nation group of moderate Tory MPs.

Coming in third is Priti Patel , at 9/2.

The former home secretary blamed the "centre of the party" for the Conservatives' heavy losses in the last local elections, possibly indicating her direction of political travel if she beats the odds.

Another notable name in the bookies top 10 is Boris Johnson , at 10/1 - but he is not an MP, a prerequisite by convention.

Few images from this election were as defining as Rishi Sunak announcing the 4 July date in the rain.

Commentators were quick to ask why he chose to start the campaign in the poor weather without an umbrella.

Mr Sunak may have lost the election, but he clearly learned a lesson.

While making his resignation speech moments ago, his wife, Akshata Murty, could be seen holding an umbrella - just in case.

Rishi Sunak acknowledges that Sir Keir Starmer will soon take over his role as prime minister of the UK, and wishes him well.

"Whatever our disagreements in this campaign, he is a decent, public spirited man who I respect," he says.

Mr Sunak said Sir Keir and his family "deserve the very best of our understanding as they make the huge transition to their new lives" in Number 10.

As he comes to the end of his final speech as prime minister, he thanks his colleagues, cabinet and the civil service, before expressing "gratitude" for his wife and daughters.

"I can never thank them enough for the sacrifices they have made so that I might serve our country," he says.

'This is the best country in the world'

Mr Sunak touches on the fact that it was "unremarkable" that he was elected prime minister two generations after his grandparents came to Britain.

"We must hold true to that idea of who we are that vision of kindness, decency and tolerance that has always been the British way," he says.

"This is a difficult day at the end of a number of difficult days, but I leave this job honoured to have been your prime minister. 

"This is the best country in the world. And it is thanks entirely to you, the British people, the true source of all our achievements, our strength and our greatness. Thank you."

Rishi Sunak begins his farewell speech by saying: "I'm sorry."

He says he has given the job his "all" but voters have "sent a clear signal that the government of the United Kingdom must change".

Mr Sunak says the judgement of the public is the only judgement that matters.

He says he has heard the "anger" and "disappointment" of voters and adds that he takes responsibility for the Tories' crushing loss.

The outgoing prime minister apologises to Conservative candidates and campaigners, saying: "I'm sorry that we could not deliver on what your efforts deserved."

Rishi Sunak has confirmed he will resign as Conservative Party leader, after a wipeout result for the party in last night's general election.

He says this will not be "immediately", but after a replacement is in place. 

Mr Sunak says: "Following this result, I will step down as party leader, not immediately, but once the formal arrangements for selecting my successor are in place."

He adds it is important that the Conservative Party rebuilds to be an effective opposition.

The former prime minister goes on to list his achievements, including falling inflation and leading global efforts to support Ukraine in its war with Russia.

That's what this Number 10 social media post could be suggesting, describing the imminent address as a "resignation speech".

It could, of course, simply refer to him leaving Number 10 - but he isn't "resigning" as PM, he's been voted out.

Ahead of his address, Rishi Sunak himself also posted on X, saying he's "given this job my all" but voters "have sent a clear message".

He added: "I leave this job honoured to have been prime minister of the best country in the world."

"It is such a crushing defeat" for the prime minister, says our political editor  Beth Rigby   ahead of his final address to the nation.

She says Rishi Sunak has been successful in life - educated privately, working in a hedge fund, becoming an MP, chancellor and PM - but now leaves Downing Street "as the least successful prime minister at the ballot box that the Conservative Party has ever seen".

In the next 20 minutes, Rishi Sunak will address the UK for the final time as prime minister outside Number 10 Downing Street.

We'll have live updates in the Politics Hub - stay tuned.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free