Gender Differences In Children's Play Essay

Socialisation can potentially explain all of the gender/sex differences related to children’s play. Critically evaluate this statement.

In the eyes of most psychologists, there is little doubt that children’s play differs in accordance to their gender. This difference is noted in three main ways: toy choice, sex of play partner and social play (Hines, 2004). Boys appear to prefer toys like weapons and vehicles whereas girls choose cooking toys and dolls (Berenbaum and Hines, 1992). In play choice, there is evidence for girls and boys preferring playmates of their own sex and in social play boys spend more time play fighting than girls (Hines and Kaufman, 1994). Before evaluating the statement, it is important to put this essay into context. Firstly - that the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are used interchangeably. It used to
be that ‘sex’ was a word primarily used to note biologically caused variations in human, and ‘gender’ was a term describing those traits that were socially determined. However, as this essay will go on to describe, the believed aetiology of sex/ gender differences is so diverse, and a product of such complex interactions of factors, that surely we are unable to distinguish between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’? (Wood, 2008). The second contextual element is that gender traits, like most behavioural groups, can by no means be separated into distinct categories. They are in fact on a sliding scale, with ‘male’ and ‘female’ falling towards the extremes, with individuals scattered along the line. In this way we can find averages and generalisations as to the tendencies of the sexes but there will also be girls who enjoy more traditionally male pursuits, such as play fighting, and vice versa (Hines, 2004).

Socialisation (the process through which an individual acquires the knowledge, values, and social skills that allow them to integrate into their society) is a process thought to develop gender. This development is shaped by many social influences, such as parents, peers and the media, and is lifelong (Allen, Reber & Reber, 2009). Parents are a main influence on the primary socialisation of children according to Lytton & Romney (1991). This is mainly because the child’s gender role identity is learnt early by the same mechanisms that most social behaviours are learnt according to the social view through modelling (in this case the parents) and reinforcement. Albert Bandura first developed the social learning theory (1963) in the context of aggression, but this theory has now been established as an explanation of gender development (Bandura, 1977).
This theory proposes that a child watches a role model that is perceived as similar to itself (i.e. same-sex) and sees the situations in which they are rewarded or punished. They encode this behaviour, and then later attempt the acts they saw receive positive sanctions. If the child is also rewarded for the behaviour, this reinforces the benefits of the conduct, and the child will continue to do it. The parental reinforcement in children’s play seems great, mainly because people in general have quite fixed opinions about what is appropriate for boys and girls play, which tends to form from preconceived ideas of the different traits of the genders. An example for this is that birth parents view their sons as bigger and stronger (Rubin, Provenzano, & Luria, 1974, cited by Spelke, & Pinker, 2005) and this is reflected in how they treat the child. For instance, Smith and Lloyd (1978) gave mothers ‘masculine’, ‘feminine’ and ‘neutral’ toys and found that when a baby was dressed as a boy the mothers encouraged masculine behaviour such as motor activity play. Lytton and Romney (1991) also found further evidence to support
the effects of parents on gender socialisation, which was evident in their rewarding of their child’s alignment with traditionally sex-typed play activities and toy choice. It appears possible however that direct tuition and reinforcement are more powerful an influence over modelling. Martin et al (1995) demonstrates this in finding that preschool boys would play with toys labelled ‘boy’s toys’ (and so being directly told what is expected of their gender) even after having seen them been played with by girls, and didn’t play with ‘girl’s toys’ even when played with by boys. This suggests that direct learning is more influential in shaping gender differences in child’s play than by vicarious learning. This is confirmed by research finding that when reviewing 81 studies on the ‘same-sex hypothesis’ that in only 18 did same-sex behaviour modelling occur (Barkley, Ullman, Otto & Brecht, 1977). As a child develops, their social word expands outside the family and thus the media and peers additionally appear to reinforce ‘sex-appropriate’ play. Peers offer a model of gender-linked behaviours and provide rewards and punishments when the individual plays, (Bandura, 1977). Research seems to support this evidence, such as that of Lamb and Roopnarine (1979) who found that children would criticise sex-inappropriate play (negative reinforcement) whilst reinforcing same-sex appropriate play. The media is an important socialising agent because, even from a young age, children are watching and listening to mediums like television, music and the radio. When these consistently portray each gender as receiving pleasure from playing with certain types of toys, this provides vicarious reinforcement, and the child will attempt to copy. Huston et al (1984) found when conducting research into advertisements that, firstly, children could identify which advertisements were aimed at which gender (and therefore know which role model to copy) and secondly that they’d assert that specific toys were either appropriate for their gender identity of for the opposite gender. This seems to imply that toys are gender stereotyped and that the media portrayal of them is incorporated into a child’s belief as how they ought to play.

However, the social approach to gender differences in play cannot explain the whole story, for if a boy is consistently praised for playing ‘like a girl’, he is not likely to adopt feminine behaviours, and so it seems the approach is undeniably linked to the cognitive perspective. This view discusses the role of cognition in developing a child’s sense of their gender, and so the acquisition of gender behaviours such as appropriate child play. Kohlberg (1966) argues that gender identity is a combination of social learning, controlled by development and cognitive factors. Initially, children base their own and others genders on outwardly appearance e.g. the wearing of a dress. This labelling develops as the child grows, and in the final stage of gender development (around six years old) they realise that gender is consistent across all situations and times. Children then pay more attention to gender -appropriate models once they realise their own identity, and thus mimic their behaviour, such as who they socialise with or what toys the play with. However, it has now been demonstrated that children show sex differences before their knowledge of gender consistency arises - toy choices differ from as young as 12 months (Snow et al, 1983). This evidence therefore makes it very problematic to conclude whether cognition has any role in ‘creating’ gender differences in play or is solely an after affect or preconceived gender identities. This limitation may be resolved by an alternative cognitive approach known as gender schema theory (Martin and Halverson, 1981). They argue that a child only needs a basic concept of gender identity (which occurs before gender consistency) for them to be driven to acquire information about their own gender. The children then develop a schema (clusters of information) about which toys are appropriate for them and will block about information that contradicts with this schema, such as a boy playing with a doll. Martin and Halverson’s (1983) research supports the existence of schemas. They showed 5 and 6 year old children pictures of schema-consistent activities and schema-inconsistent activities (e.g. a girl sawing wood) and found those consistent with ‘appropriate play’, such as a boy playing with a truck, were better recalled. This theory therefore has explanatory power, for it is able to explain how gender stereotypes in play persist - children are more likely to remember information that is consistent with their schemas. Through this it also is able to offer a middle ground between social learning and cognitive-developmental theories, for cognition causes a child to focus on their gender appropriate behaviours, but the socialization causes them to actually appropriate the behaviours.
On the other hand, there is a strong case for the role of hormones and genes in gender differences in children’s play. In general, the majority of people associate their core gender identity with their genetic biology (XX for men and XY for women), with only a small percentage experiencing gender identity disorder - 1 in 20,000 men and 1 in 50,000 women (Gooren, 1990). However, the direct effects of genetics on human gender related behaviours aren’t known, the only link to sex differences in play is that of gonadal hormones (Hines, 2004). Prenatally, male fetuses (those with XY chromosomes) produce far higher levels of androgens such as testosterone which is thought to make permanent organizational modifications of the brain and body. It is suggested these cause fundamental differences between boys and girls which provides the basic foundations as to why there are such large sex-differences in child play, (Hines, 2004). Evidence for the effects on androgens on play comes from girls exposed to high levels of androgens prenatally. These cases allow a more direct comparison to boys, who are almost inevitably exposed to high levels of androgens as a part of their development. Ehrhardt and Baker (1974) reported that these girls were described as having preferences for boys’ toys, rough outdoors play, and having boys as playmates - all of which is identical to the traits that boys are found to have. These girls were exposed to high androgen levels, either because their mothers (whilst pregnant) had been prescribed synthetic progestins that stimulated androgen receptors, or because they suffered from CAH, (congenital adrenal hyperplasia – a condition associated with high blood levels of androgens). The reverse also seems to stand true, for those exposed to antiandrogens appear to have reduces masculine typical play, (Ehrhardt et al, 1977). These effects seem less extreme than in girls exposed to high androgens, most likely due to the fact girls initially have low levels of male-typical play in the first place. In boys, the less dramatic effects are proposed to be down to the fact that boys already have a too high endogenous level of androgens to be over ridden. Because of the variation in causes of high prenatal androgens, both genetic and artificial hormone exposure, this strongly seems to support that androgens provide some form of influence on human’s gender-differences in child play. Further support for a biological aetiology to sex-differences in play comes from research on non-human animals. Male monkeys choose to play with trucks, while females play with other toys such as dolls. (Alexander and Hines, 2002, Hassett, Siebert, & Wallen, 2008). These studies suggest that there is an evolutionary explanation for variation in toy preference which isbiologically determined preferences, and not socially driven.
In conclusion, the evidence does seem to imply that sex differences in children’s play can be affected by socialisation, however, it does not explain whether these differences are caused by social factors, or simply influenced from an already pre-existing disposition. It seems likely that gonadal hormones, primarily testosterone, are key in providing a basic gender but that socialisation amplifies and directs the effects. For instance, in Alexander and Hines’ 2002 study, the vervet monkeys showed much less aversion to playing with toys ‘not appropriate’ for their gender. This implies the effects of socialization on children’s’ play do influence their toy choice. Therefore, is seems probable that childhood play behavior is formed from a dynamic system of interacting factors, that are established at birth but develop as the child gains a cognitive understanding of their gender identity and is socialized accordingly.

References

Alexander GM, Hines M. (2002) Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus) Evolution and Human Behavior.; 23:467–479. Allen, R. Reber, A, S. & Reber, E, S. (2009). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (4th Edition).
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Barkley, R.A., Ullman, D.G., Otto, L. and Brecht, J.M (1977). The effects of sex typing and sex appropriateness of modelled behaviour on children’s imitation. Child Development. 48, 721-5
Berenbaum,S. A and Hine, M. (1992). Early androgens are related to sex-typed toy preference. Psychological Science, 3, 203-06
Ehrhardt, A. A and Baker S.W (1974). Fetal Androgen, human central nervous system differentiation, and behavior sex difference. In R. C. Friedmam, R. M. Richart, and R. L. can de Wiele (Eds), Sex differences in behavior (pp.33-52)
Ehrhardt, A. A and Baker, S. W. (1977), Males and females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia: A family study of intelligence and gender-related behavior. In P. A, Lee. L P. Plotnick, A. A. Kowarski and C.J. Migeon (Eds) Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (pp 447-461)
Gooren, L.J.G., (1990) The endocrinology of transsexualism. Psychoneuroencrinology, 15, 3-14.
Hassett, J. M., Siebert, E. R. & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormonal Behaviour, 54, 359–364.
Hines, M and Kaufman, F.R, (1994). Androgen and the development of human sex-typical behaviour: Tough=and-tumble play and sex of preferred playmates in children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Child Development, 65, 1042-1053
Hines, M (2004). Brain Gender. Oxford University Press, New York
Huston, A. C., Greer, D., Wright, J. C., Welch, R., & Ross, R. (1984). Children’s comprehension of televised formal features with masculine and feminine connotations. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 707–16.
Lamb, M.E. and Roopnarine, J.L. (1979). Peer influences on sex-role development in pre-schoolers. Child Development, 50, 1219-22. Lytton H, Romney DM. (1991) Parents ' differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 109:267-296
Martin, C.L., and Halverson, C.F. (1981) A schematic processing model of sex-typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119-34.
Martin, C.L., Eisenbud, L. and Rose, H. (1995) Children’s gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development, 61. 1427-39
Smith, C and Lloyd B. (1978). Maternal behaviour and perceived sex of infant: Revisited. Child Development, 49, 1263-5.
Snow, M. E., Jacklin, C. N,. and Maccoby, E. E. (1983) Sex of child differences in father-child interactions at one year of age. Child development, 54 227-232.
Spelke, E. S. & Pinker, S. (2005). The Science of Gender and Science. Pinker vs. Spelke: A Debate. From: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html.
Wood, G (2008) "Gender stereotypical attitudes: Past, present and future influences on women 's career advancement", Equal Opportunities International, 7, pp.613 - 628