Author: Andre Coleman

Birth Order Theory

The birth order theory was first coined by Alfred Adler. This is a theory that often refers to the order of birth in which one was born in. He was the first to say that “not only the parents but also the siblings influence the child’s behavior characteristics” (Leman, 2000).

It is often believed that the order in which a child is born plays a significant role in how the child will be able to have life and all of the problems that life will bring such as relationships, work ethic, and just life in general. The birth order theory consists of 4 birth order theory personalities: first born, second born, the only child and youngest all of which will have a list of traits, a list of strengths and a list of weaknesses that each child should possess.

The birth order personality of an individual relates to both their working style, which is how a person works and their relationship style. For many people that means working along different birth order lines. The first born is generally the leader of the family, and tends to be the most responsible of the siblings. These people like to be in charges of other people and love to be in control. They feel uncomfortable with surprises or being out of familiar surroundings.

Their ability to focus on a goal and their propensity to organize others means they can achieve whatever they put their minds to. They are also perfectionist. Approval of authority is important for this group. Second born’s the compromisers, and flexible. They have to be motivated by a cause and will enjoy working with people. They tend to be involved in projects that will give them a sense of belonging.

The second born child will treasure friendships they are generally always the one that will get along with everyone and be the peacekeeper. Hey generally will always put others first. The only child is the one that expects nothing less than the best. They will always be the one and only to raise the bar for everyone else to reach this will generally push those around them to do their best. One of their best strengths is the fact that they are able to work on their own for long periods of time.

They make great project finishers and strategic thinkers but they can be secretive and don’t deal well with conflict. Ciadvertising.org says that “Recognition is important to this group”. The youngest are the initiators; they have great ideas and like to challenge people. They are very creative and are full of fun. They like to do things on the spur of the moment. They also like to be the center of attention.

As for my family there are 3 of us so this is perfect to analysis us. I am the oldest, and then there is my brother Don Jr., and my sister Jessica. I am definitely a leader and I love being in control. I remember bossing my brother around, but there always seemed to be some tension between us there was definitely sibling rivalry. I never liked being surprised and to this day if I suspect a surprise I will try to find out what it is and do my best to mess it up.

For my brother he was rebellious and always said that he did not fit in the family. He still has the same close group of friends that he had in high school. He wasn’t the stubborn one I was so he always seemed to get along with everyone in the family but me. My little sister who is the youngest is manipulative, even a little flaky. She is too slick and sneaky and a bit unbelievable, even though she was likeable, fun to be around, easy to talk to.

She is definitely gullible, and has been easily taken advantage of a lot. She has made some decisions based too much on her feelings and did no give enough thought to her decisions. One thing that was and is still very true is that she is the favorite. So while looking into the birth order theory I realized that some of the traits are true about be and my siblings and I find it to be funny it makes you want to stop and take a good look at the type of person that you are. Ezinearticles.com states that “Most of us have a dominant birth order personality that matches our birth position.

But that personality is influenced by variables such as temperament, gender and other family circumstances. So it is not so much where you are born in your family but how you function that counts. How a person functions generally correlates with birth position”. When you have a good understanding of who you are, what makes you strong what your weaknesses are, what you like what you dislike then and only then will you be in a position to maximize your strengths. This will allow you to be able to make up for any weaknesses that you may have by changing the things that you can and be able to accept what you can’t change.

Works Cited
http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/spring_03/382J/kjoco/conclusions.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Birth-Order—Understand-How-It-Affects-Your- Personality&id=45481
Leman, Kevin. The New Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. Minnesota: Baker Book House Company, 2000.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE BIOMEDICAL MODEL OF HEALTH AND HOW IT AFFECTS WOMEN’S HEALTH

Biomedicine has been around since the middle of the nineteenth century as the major model used by health practitioners to detect diseases (Nettleton, 1995).This biomedical model of health have centred on how the human body functions and how diseases can be stopped, or healed through medical intervention(Taylor and field 2003). This model continues to be the bedrock in which foundation of health care system is based in the western societies, but there has being a lot of queries concerning its influence on the general pattern of health, since majority of health determinant are social and environmental. Arkinson (1988 p.180)claimed that the biomedical model, which as taken over the formal health care system in the West since the last two centuries view health along the reductionist approach. In this approach illness is said to be caused by injury or infections and there is neglect to the psychological, socio-economic and environmental influences (Taylor and field 2003).

Over the last two centuries the biomedical model has being greatly challenged by scholars in the medical (Engel, 1981) and sociological field. This criticism was brought about by the drastic increase in the medical expenses. Engel (1981) stated that the effectiveness of the medical model has been over emphasized. Mc Keown (1976) also argued that the reduction in the death rate which happened some years back within the developed world was influenced by good eating habit and proper hygiene than it was with immunisation, and other health care intervention. This view was supported by Powles (1973) by re-emphasizing that spending money on health care system had led to nothing but wastage. Illich (1990) also argued that instead of medicine providing a curative assistance to the populace, it added more to their problem by introducing what is called iatrogenesis which means “Doctor-caused illness”,for example, the aftermath effect of using drug and some harmful effect of surgery. Illich(1990) blamed the health care providers and the pharmaceutical companies of inventing the social iatrogenesis .This brought into limelight consumption of health care product which was caused by increase health need. He also testified that the system of medicalisation also brought about what we call cultural iatrogenesis, which means that the medical industry has robbed people off the ability to cope with pains and illness .Illich (1990) argued that human being should try to avoid the control of medicine over their lives. He claimed that the monopoly of medicine over cure should be stopped, so that people can make decision on their way of life.

Stryer and Clancy (2005) reported that in Britain it was estimated that around 10% of people hospitalised undergo some kind of iatrogenisis, which is equivalent to roughly 850.000 occurrence per year. Health is said to be highly medicalised in this model which led to a general view of human beings (Illich, 1976).Oakley, 1976 and Donnison, 1977 reported this fact about medical jurisdiction by citing an example of childbirth. This was taken away from women by the institute of medicine by ensuring that by the 1970s all child delivery took place in the hospital (Tew, i990).This action made pregnant women to be handled like a sick person. In this respect a normal life experience was turned into a medical problem, which requires the assistance of the medical team (Martin, 1989).

The model focuses mainly on the healing process which is at a disadvantage to prevention and health promotion care closer to the populace (Taylor and field 2003). Engel (1981) stated that biomedicine has refused to acknowledge the fact that the human body is linked with the social environment. Nettleton (1995) reiterated that the biomedical model neglected the presence of the social inequalities in health. He also argued that for effective treatment, the lay people experience about health and illness must be acknowledged.

According to the perspective of Marxists, he argued that doctors encourage the production rate of the society by explaining health as the potential to work, he also disseminated that “working is better than idleness”(Waitzkin, 1989).It was emphasized that the health professionals are blamed of medicalisation if they consider the societal influence of patient and if they ignore, the accusation still holds (Nettleton, 1995).

The gender bias within the biomedical domain was clearly emphasized from the conflict perspective (Nettleton,1995).It was cited by Nettleton from the feminist point of view that sexist ideologies of the medical profession present women as a second class citizen, compared to the men folks(Scully and Bart,1978;Martin,1989).For example, it was related by (Nettleton,1995)that the frequent female visit to the hospital and clinics compared to their male counterpart is because of the way their body is designed for childbearing and also for the care they provide for other family members.

Foster (1989) stated that there are many ways in which the feminist criticize how the medical practitioners interact with patient. She reiterated that most of the female problems from the medical point of view need to be questioned. She supported are evidence by citing an example of menstrual pain among women. She said that some female overstretch the severity of the pain, while most ignores it(Foster,1989 p.339).She also mentioned that the medical practitioners considers male as first class citizen in the ways they interact with them compared to their female folks.

Gendered nature of power in biomedical research and clinical practice was related in the US Public Health Service Task Force (Patricia and Chiloe 1999).This was written in 1985 on women’s health issue. It was stated in it that there was neglect in the way women’s health was being handled .They argued that the biomedical research laid more emphasis on diseases that can cause high risk of mortality in men compared to the women despite that the diseases were not sex-specific like “breast cancer”. Robert (1990, 1992) also supported this fact by accepting that male gender still stands as a measure to evaluate the status of health of both sexes, despite the clamour to broaden people’s knowledge about women’s health. Patricia and Chiloe (1999) reported that a social policy was promulgated by the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 1993.This was brought about to put a stop to the incessant use of women as research animals and to decrease the problem that could occur if foetus is exposed to research.

Women’s health was endangered through abortion brought about by the biomedical model. This view was supported by Foster (1989)by relating that the doctors assist the male by encouraging the female to undergo tuba ligation which is a form of family planning that make women sterile forever. This action favours the male, but detrimental to the female forever because of inability to get pregnant. This shows that the men has really dominated the world and do not care about the well being of women. The radical feminist cited by Nettleton (1995) accepted that the western medicine have given men too much opportunity compared to the women. This has allowed men to take over the women’s bodies. It was suggested that this process can be controlled by ensuring that women doctors treat the sick women within the society that is antiracist, anti-sexist, and anti-heterosexist (Williams,1989;Abbott and Wallance,1990).This idea was also argued from another point of view by the reformist that the health system need to be changed from within .This is to ensure that female doctors are also employed in greater number and also enforcing accountability by the medical practitioners.

The bio-medical and social models of health offer different views of health and disease. Outline the main characteristics of each model and assess their strengths and weakness in explaining health and disease.”

Health can be viewed as the state of being fit and well, as well as a state of mental sanity (WHO 2005). According to Blaxter (2004), if a person can perform daily functions such as going to work, taking care of the household, etc he/she is healthy. Many studies have found that lay people define health as the absence of illness (Williams 1983, Calnan 1987, Hughner & Kleine 2004). However being healthy means different things to different people as much have been said and written about people’s varying concepts of health. Some lay perceptions are based on pragmatism where health is regarded as a relative phenomenon, experienced and evaluated according to what an individual finds reasonable to expect, given their age, medical condition and social status. For them being healthy, may just mean not having a health problem, which interferes with their everyday lives (Bury 2005).

Some taxonomies have evolved in attempt to define health. In this work, health has been considered from the perspective of biomedical and social models.

According to Baggott (2004) the biomedical model of health looks at individual physical functioning and describes bad health as the presence of disease and illness symptoms as a result of physical cause such as injury or infections and attempts to ignore social and psychological factors. Baggott (2004) states that the features of biomedical model rest mainly on biomedical changes, which can be defined, measured and isolated. In effect this is directed towards the dysfunction of the organs and tissues of the body rather than the overall condition of the patient.

Biomedical treatments often involve the removal of the cause, for instance the virus or bacteria. The biomedical model is based on the belief that there is always a cure and the idea that illness is temporary, episodic and a physical condition.

The basic values of the biomedical model of health consist of the theory called doctrine of specific aetiology, which is the idea that all disease is caused by theoretically identifiable agents such as germs, bacteria or parasites (Naidoo & Wills 2004).

The advantage of biomedical model shows disease as representing a major public health problem facing our society. This model sees disease state as an issue that needs to be treated, and that disease can be readily diagnosed and quantified (Ewles & Simnett 2003 & 2010). This approach appears narrow, negative and reductionist. In an extreme case, it implies that people with disabilities are unhealthy and that health is only about the absence of morbidity. Further, this model is limited in its approach by its omission of a time dimension.

Modern biomedicine rests upon two major developments, both of which remain influential to this day. It is first important to consider the Cartesian revolution after the seventh century French philosophy Rene’ Descarts. The Cartesian revolution encouraged the idea that the body and mind are independent or not closely related (NRC 1985). In this mechanistic view, the body is perceived to function like a machine with its various parts individually treatable, and those that treat them considered engineers (Naidoo & Wills 2004). Biomedical also concentrates on the individual unlike the social model. Biological model adopts a negative perspective on health as it views health more in terms of the absence of disease than the possession of healthy attributes (Baggott 2004). This model stresses the importance of advancing technology both in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, an approach that has undoubtedly improved both the knowledge and understanding of numerous diseases. Biomedical model has led to the improvements in the treatment of patients, which has favoured gains both in the length and quality of life of people. Despite the aforementioned feats, the biomedical model has received considerable criticism, as many writers have argued that it was inappropriate to modern, complex health problems (Inglis 1981).

The medical model, in terms of specific health risks, does not encompass all of what health means to an individual. For instance, a physician speculating on what, based on current knowledge at the time, would be the composite picture of an individual with a low risk of developing coronary artery disease.

Further criticisms of this theory focused principally on the suggestion that it over simplified biological processes now known to be very intricate. For many diseases there are multiple and interacting causes. Moreover, such a theory looks only to the agent of disease, and ignores the host, and the possibilities of biological adaptation. The theory is much more easily applicable to acute conditions than to chronic ill-health and is difficult to apply to mental disorders.

The second theory of the biomedical model is called the assumption of generic disease. This is when each disease has its own distinguishing features that are universal, at least within the human species. These will be the same in different cultures and at different times, unless the disease-producing agent itself changes. Criticisms of this focus on the rather obvious point that diseases are differently defined in different cultures and that medical definitions of disease have clearly changed over time. Each new advance in knowledge of physiology and each new wave of technology have added new definitions of ill health to the accepted canon. Despite the doctrine of specific aetiology many conditions, which are still only symptoms or syndromes, are recognized within medicine as diseases. Generally, it can be seen that what is viewed as illness in any particular society and at any historical time depends on cultural norms and social values (Naidoo & Wills 2004).

Thus new diagnoses such as alcohol, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue syndromes are born through an interaction of new knowledge about both their possible causes and how they might possibly be helped. As a definition of disease what doctors treat has obvious problems, however, it implies that no one can be ill until recognised as such and leaves the concept at the mercy of idiosyncratic individual medical decisions.

The third theory is the scientific biomedicine, which accepts the model of all ill-health as deviation from the normal especially the normal range of measurable biological variables. There is an association with the definition of health as equilibrium and disease as a disturbance of the body’s function, with the purpose of medical technology the restoration to equilibrium. The immune or endocrine, or neuropsychological systems attempt to restore the normal and the purpose of medicine is to instigate or assist this process. But medical science now realizes that the human organism has no set pattern for structure and function, and it is often unclear where normal variation ends and abnormality begins.

The fourth theory of medical model is based on the principles of scientific neutrality. Medicine adopts not only the rational method of science but also its values – objectivity and neutrality on the part of the observer, and the view of the human organism as simply the product of biological processes over which the individuals themselves have little control. The reply to this is that the practice of medicine, whatever its theory, is always deeply embedded in the larger society. It cannot be neutral, for there are wider social, political and cultural forces dictating how it does its work and how the unhealthy are dealt with.

Biomedicine now admits multiple and interactive causes, and that the whole may be more than simply the sum of the parts. Social and psychological causes of ill health- stress, unhappiness, life events- are admitted as agents of disease or contributing factors, but they are not themselves defined as ill health. Modern medicine has moved on, to incorporate elaborate ideas about the various and interrelated causes of ill health. Studies of the way in which doctors make diagnoses demonstrate this, while at the same time lip service is paid to the importance of the social. Moreover, even when social and psychological influences are admitted this is still a very negatively oriented approach to health.

The social model came about in mid twentieth century when there was increasing dissatisfaction with the dominant model of health offered by biomedicine. The preoccupation with disease and illness made it less able to deal with any positive concept of health. The ideology, which viewed the individual in mechanistic ways justified ever-increasing use of medical technologies, precluding the exercise of other therapies and diminishing the importance attached to positive health or preventive medicine.

Since the last decade medical professional practice has become a major threat to health. Depression, infection, disability and other specific estrogenic disease now cause more suffering than all accidents from traffic or industry by transforming pain, illness and death from a personal challenge into a technical problem, medical practice expropriates the potential of people to deal with their human condition in an autonomous way and becomes the sources of a new kind of un-health. The emphasis on health as simply the absence of disease encouraged thinking about only two categories the health and the disease. As we are meant to believe that science can produce a utopia of disease free and lengthy life meaning scientists only look for their magic bullet. There is a feeling that the most angry critiques of the biomedical model was wilfully ignoring the contributions of modern science to human welfare. But claims to the unique truth of biomedicine were weakened by some loss of faith in scientific objectivity and a distrust of a Frankenstein technology that could run out of control, and this was part of the modern movement towards a new model usually called social health.

Social model of health imbibes social constructs and relativity in its approach to health. It tends to define and redefine health in a continuous manner, and views health differently between individuals, groups, times and cultures. Some supporters of Social model have written extensively about sickness having a role to play in various societies (Parsons 1951) as this helps to determine the structure of and functionality of the society.

The concept of social health incorporates many differences of emphasis though it has to be noted that it is more than simply the recognition that social factors such as poverty have to be included in a model of the causes of ill health. The social model is a different construction, locating biological processes within their social contexts and considering the person as a whole rather than a series of distinct bodily systems.

The social model is organic and holistic rather than reductionist mechanical method. A mechanical system acts according to its programming, its instructions, or natural laws.

The social model allows for mental as well as physical health and wider sphere of taking part in active life. This model also allows for more subtle discrimination of individuals who succeed in leading productive lives in spite of a physical impairment. Another disadvantage of this model is that the conception runs the risk of excessive breadth and of incorporating all of life. Thus they do not distinguish clearly between the state of being healthy the consequences of being healthy nor do they distinguish between health and the determinants of health (Ewles & Simnett 2010).

The medical profession is a social institution, which cannot be separated from the values, pressures and influences of the society in which it practices. As health has been defined in various ways, most part rests on the ideas of the normal and of seeing health as opposed to disease or illness. In practice, the definition of health has always been the territory of those who define its opposite: healers, or practitioners of medicine as a science or a body of practical knowledge. Since medicine is one of society’s major systems, it is obvious that it is these definitions which will be institutionalised and embodied in law and administration, though the extent to which lay models adds to or diverge from this body of ideas is significant to the individual in respect of their perception of health.

Whilst the medical model built on the Cartesian theory of the body as a machine disorders can be corrected by repairing or replacing parts of the organism, holism describes the view that the whole cannot be explained simply by the sum of the parts, just as healthiness cannot be explained by a list of risk factors. Every disturbance in a system involves the whole system. Human beings are living networks formed by cognitive processes, values, and purposive intentions, not simply interacting components (Blaxter 2004). The development of this social model has been accompanied among the public, by a growing enthusiasm for alternative therapies, which tend to rest on holistic theories. Gradually, these too have been integrated to some extent into the mainstream model.

In order to have a comprehensive understanding of health, one has to look at the phenomenon from various premise of health definition, as just one aspect may not provide complete answer to the enquiry about our health at a particular given time. It is therefore important to consider the various aspects of health when making judgement and decision about the health status of an individual.

In summary, the biomedical model of health is obviously most easily defined by the absence of disease, though the model is also compatible with more positive definitions in terms of equilibrium of normal functioning. In the social model health is a positive state of wholeness and well being associated with but not entirely explained by the absence of disease, illness or physical and mental impairment. The concepts of health and ill-health are unbalanced. The absence of disease may be part of health but health is more than the absence of disease.

When a baby is born, the main question asked is, “Is it a boy or a girl?” As the baby develops, the ways in which it is treated are influenced by its sex. In time, the growing child’s thoughts about himself/herself and his/her place in the world are likely to depend, in part, on its biological sex. However they may also depend on other environmental factors that play a part in determining his/her gender.

This research paper has sought to explore: to what extent does biological nature determine gender identity formation? Three theories of gender development i.e. sociobiological, biosocial and social learning were analysed and evaluated in order to establish how gender identity differences are initiated and to what extent each variable, biological nature or nurture environment, drives and influences the cognitive development of a child.

In summary, it is the interaction of these variables that helps shape a child’s cognitive development. While biological nature does certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs. So, biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a certain extent as the theories give multiple explanations as to the cause of gender identity formation, not just one.

Word Count: 213

Table of Contents

Title Pageaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦………………….1

Abstractaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦..2

Table of Contentsaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦……3

Introductionaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦…aˆ¦4

Extended Essayaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦……..5-12

Gender Roles and Differencesaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.5-6

Sociobiological Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..6-7

Biosocial Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.7-9

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychologyaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦9-10

Social Learning Theoryaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..10-11

Concluding Commentsaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦.aˆ¦11-12

Works Citedaˆ¦………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

Introduction

For decades the nature-nurture debate has raged among the policy-makers, educationalists and scientists of our time. Each raises the question about how a child’s gender identity is formed. Most theorists do not see biological nature and the nurture environment as being independent of one another, but choose to focus on the interaction between these variables and how this manifests in the formation of gender identity. To what extent biological factors determine gender formation and development differs however, and forms the basis from which most research is undertaken.

In order to examine the interaction between these variables and gender identity, we first need to take a look at what they actually mean:

Biological nature represents an individual’s biological status and refers to their biological sex (i.e., sexual characteristics, female or male) and their genetic makeup (i.e., inherited characteristics such as academic intelligence, physical traits and a propensity for illness whether physical or mental). The nurture environment is the sum of environmental factors that influence a person’s traits and behaviours. An individual’s gender identity refers to the psychological characteristics associated with feeling male or female (i.e., femininity, masculinity and androgyny) expressed as an active, cognitive process that is defined as a person’s internal experience of gender.

This interaction of biology and environment on an individual’s internal experience of gender is therefore significant and worthy of investigation. We have been witnessing a worldwide shift in social attitudes to the question of gender stereotyping, with previous assumptions of gender identity now under review, the current dichotomy between the sexes could one day become a relic of the past. However, in order to generate a paradigm shift within all levels of society toward a more neutral standpoint where all gender roles are seen as equally valid, we must first ask the question: to what extent does biological nature determine gender identity formation?

Extended Essay

The ‘nature-nurture’ debate is of consequence to developmental psychology. That is, to what extent is behavioural development influenced or controlled by biological factors or experiential factors, and how do these factors interact with each other? The approaches to gender development can be summarized as the biological (nature) and socialization (nurture) (Ruble et al., 2006).

This psychological approach suggests that young children become increasingly aware of the standard characteristics and behaviours associated with each sex, they begin to form gender schemas with are self-constructed schemas about the traits and behaviours of males or females. As these schemas are self-constructed, their content varies considerably from individual to individual.

Gender development is very complex, and there are no simple relationships among its various components. The several theoretical perspectives highlight different parts of the process of gender development: how they influence and drive a child’s cognitive development and how they interact with one another, sometimes amplifying each other’s effects.

In order to come to its conclusions, the essay examines the two approaches to gender development. The first approach is biological, whereby two theories will be examined: sociobiological theory and biosocial theory. The second approach is socialization, whereby one theory will be examined: social learning theory.

The biological approach of gender development examines the influence of genes and chromosomes, sex hormones, and brain organization on sex differences in physical functioning and behaviour (Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1993); it including the evolutionary theory, which examines the influence of human beings’ evolutionary history on sex differences in behaviour (Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Kenrick & Luce, 2000).

The socialization approach emphasizes the differential treatment of children by parents, family members, peers, teachers and others (Fagot, Rodgers, & Leinbach, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006). The socialization approach is rooted in the tradition of learning theory, which examines the influence of reinforcements, punishments, and observational learning on behaviour (Bandura, 1977).

Gender Roles and Differences

Physical development, as a male or female is merely one aspect of sexual development, it should be noted that social development is likewise important. Gender roles are “cultural expectations about the way in which men and women should think and behave” [1] , and relating to this, gender stereotypes are “beliefs about differences in the behaviours, abilities and personality traits of males and females” [2] .

The origin and nature of gender differences has been a controversial topic in psychology (Eagly, 1995; Shibley Hyde and Plant, 1995). Part of this stems from the way the differences between males and females are measured, how great those differences appear to be, and part of it from the socio-political implications of these differences; for instance, sexism.

Sociobiological Theory

Sociobiologists argue that gender has gradually evolved over the course of human development, as part of our broader adaptation to the environment (Lumsden & Wilson, 1983). Both sexes have developed different roles as a function of their respective contributions to reproduction and domestic labour (Wilson, 1978; Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1979).

More precisely, according to this school of thought, traditional gender roles provide the basis for the forming of an individuals’ gender identity. A male, due to his larger and stronger physique was regarded apt for hunting and defending; whereas a female, due to her child-rearing obligations, pregnancy and menstruation, was seen as being better suited to taking on domestic responsibilities (Betz, 1993). This distinctive division of labour has resulted in higher rates of survival, according to Murdock (1937) and hence maximised reproductive potential.

According to the parental investment theory (Kenrick, 1994) in sociobiological approaches, females invest considerably more into reproduction than males do. Society evolved to be organised in sexually exclusive domestic partnerships as a way of meeting both sexes’ needs. The consequence of this was the evolution of different courtship displays and corresponding gender roles.

We draw upon the work of anthropologists of gender relation such as Mead (1935) (who’s book ‘Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies’ became a cornerstone of the feminist movement, discussed later on) to consider this tension in sociobiological approaches. Cross-cultural studies have supplied evidence that there are universal similarities in gender behaviour, which supports the sociobiological theory. For example, Mead’s (1935) study of three cultural groups in New Guinea indicated that while some differences between the genders remained constant across cultures, in many ways gender roles differed widely in different cultures.

According to Margaret Mead [3] , among the Arapesh, both sexes were “peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war”, but that amongst the Mundugumor, “the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament” and that the Tchambuli gender roles were the opposite of roles in Mead’s own home culture – early 20th century America. We might understand from this evidence, that there are genders which could be explained by experiential factors as opposed to biological, inherited ones.

However, Mead herself reported higher levels of aggression among males within each cultural group. Even in the Tchambuli, where gender roles were seemingly reversed to the Western eye, it was the males who fought primarily in war. In addition, the findings lack consistency. Deborah Gewertz (1981) studied the Tchambuli (1974-1975), and found no evidence of such reversed gender roles; stating that all the historical evidence available (dating back to the 1850s) suggests that Tchambuli males dominated over females. Her study supports the idea of inherited gender role behaviours.

However, in contrast to this, Williams and Best (1992) found that such consensus was strongest in collectivist societies and weaker in individualist societies where gender equality is more influential. This again, suggests a cultural difference – the effect of different socialisation practises.

The overt, naturalistic observations conducted by Mead took an etic approach to studying the natives; the researcher utilised her distinct Western background to investigate other cultures i.e. notions of masculinity and femininity prevalent in the West, to document gender roles in Non-Western cultures. When describing the Arapesh as feminine, she attaches a western construct to their set of behaviours; this may be unique to the Arapesh.

It has strong ecological validity, as the research was not conducted in an artificial environment i.e. the conditions were not controlled and extraneous variables (potentially confounding) were not eliminated; so the participants’ behaviours were less likely to change.

But it lacks in population validity, a type of external validity, i.e. the results were not representative of the general population, at the time. Meaning she looked at a discrete tribal hierarchy, in a fixed, isolated location. This acts as a limitation, when trying to generalize the sample.

The study might also lack in internal validity, i.e. there could be other cause that explains her observations such as social influences. Since all the tribal women assumed the same role, and there were no deviations noted, this suggests that their behaviour might have been as a result of conforming to a defined social construct.

This could be explained by Piaget’s theory of moral development. Moral behaviour is behaviour that “conforms to a generally accepted set of rules”, which in this case is gender identity. He suggests that children got through two stages: moral realism and morality of cooperation. Of particular interest is the first stage, mortal realism, consisting of egocentrism and blind adherence to the rules i.e. assuming gender roles in accordance with that culture. Children have not yet understood that many of these rules are social conventions that may be altered by mutual consent.

In addition, Mead was criticized for reporting findings that seemed custom-built for her theory; whereby she assumed each culture represented a different type within her theory, and she disregarded or downplayed information that might have made her classifications untenable.

So, one could argue, in accordance with Mead’s study, that some aspects of gender identity formation are biologically induced, such as the differing levels of aggression in both sexes. One could also note that biological nature may not be the sole factor influencing gender identity formation and that any differences between the sexes are more complex than simple biological make-up, as suggested by Williams and Best.

However, due to the lack of internal and external validity and Gewertz and Bamberger’s contradictive findings, the evidence appears to support gender identity formation as a biological process, which is represented across every culture.

Biosocial Theory

Biosocial theory, in contrast to Sociobiological theory, attempts to combine elements of biological and socialization approaches. It maintains that the biological traits are the basis of gender identity differences and that they have a significant impact upon its formation. The theory argues that both sexes are ‘genetically programmed’ for particular gender-roles, consistent with conventional sex-roles.

An ideal way of testing this approach would be to study individuals in whom there is a clear distinction between sexual identities i.e. male or female and the way in which they were treated socially. Thus, for example, if an individual was born a boy but was treated as a girl, would biological or social factors be more important in their gender identity formation?

The categorisation of both sexes as having their own masculine and feminine behaviours is so heavily laden with value judgments and stereotyping that considering cross-gender behavioural patterns in children, as abnormal may seem unjustified. But some data suggests suggest that these patterns can come from a physical disturbance. Specifically, evidence indicates that gender identity is influenced by hormones.

One study demonstrating this point was conducted by John Money [4] , and the subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer. Born a healthy male, Reimer was sexually reassigned and raised as a female after his genitals were severely damaged during circumcision. Dr Money oversaw the case and described the gender reassignment as successful; using it to evidence gender identity formation as primarily learned, not an innate process.

Dr Diamond later stated that Reimer had failed to identify as a female since the age of nine, and had begun living as a male by age fifteen. Later, Reimer went public with his story in order to discourage comparable medical practices in the future. In 2004 he committed suicide, after suffering years of depression.

Clearly, this case demonstrates a strong biological underpinning for gender identity; despite undergoing gender reassignment surgery, being encouraged to behave in a feminine way, and developing breasts as a result of hormone therapy, John never developed a female gender identity (Colapinto, 1997). The case was fundamentally flawed.

It can be criticized on several ethical grounds. According to the British and American Psychological Associations, informed consent must be obtained from all those who wish to participate and deception must be avoided. Neither of these guidelines were followed; Reimer was only told the truth about his actual biological sex at age fifteen, and suffered psychological harm as a result.

However, the importance of this controversial study cannot go unmentioned; it has increased our knowledge of processes relating to development and the biological significance of behaviour. The research has also benefitted the scientific community in terms of humane treatment of human participants inside the context of research.

Of particular interest is the fairly direct conflict between biological and social factors; it seems as if biological nature outweighs environmental nurture. However, evidence in support of the biological approach to gender development has been obtained from animal studies.

For instance, Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964) gave doses of testosterone to pregnant monkeys; this male sex hormone produced greater aggressiveness and higher frequency of rough-and-tumble play in the mothers’ female offspring

It needs to be remembered that, similar to Mead’s (1035) study, the relevant evidence supporting the socialization approach (Dr Money) has been obtained from a very unusual case, with sample size being so small, unreliable conclusions might be drawn as the findings can be generalised to the average population.

In addition, the research carried out on animals (Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964)) was done so because it was considered unethical to conduct the same research on humans; for the reason that, there is an assertion that animals and humans are fundamentally different in terms of consciousness or ability to feel pain. So surely, due to the difference, it is not valid to generalise from animals to humans.

The biological approach thus links any sex differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) to genetics. In this instance, one can conclude that, according to the biosocial theory and as evidenced by Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964), biological nature has a significant impact upon gender identity differences.

Due to the lack of ecological validity and reliability in Imperato-McGinley et al.’s (1979) study, one could argue that, on average, nurture environment has very little or no effect on gender identity formation.

However, it is important to note that biological theories cannot provide more than a partial explanation. Such theories do not explain the impact of social factors on gender identity formation and they do not account for the substantial changes in gender roles that have occurred in Western societies in recent decades.

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychology

As part of normal sexual functioning, each individual has sexual preferences and fantasies. However, when our desires begin affecting us and/or others in unwanted and/or harmful ways, they qualify as abnormal. A range of human sexual thoughts, feeling, and actions are considered dysfunctional and listed by DSM-IV [5] as sexual and gender identity disorders.

A point that contradicts the social learning theory relates to sexual identity. Paraphilia [6] such as fetishism, voyeurism and exhibitionism, are not socially constructed and are therefore not considered normative behaviour. Thus, it implies a hereditary influence.

However, feminist interpretations (e.g. Unger, 1979) of sex differences share the belief that social, political, economic and cultural factors determine gender, our awareness and understanding of the differences of distinguishing males from females. This view is directly opposed to sociobiological theory.

In 1979, Rhoda Unger published ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender in Psychology’, a paper that formally introduced psychologists to distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Feminist psychologists argue that gender is socially constructed within a culture of patriarchy, and is hence deeply political, rather than individual or personal. This contributed to the argument that gender identity is not biologically determined by gender per se, but is socially produced.

It has roots in Sigmund Freud’s work, whereby gender is not a biologically determined phenomenon. This psychosexual development leads to the gender role adoption. Childhood experiences are accountable for making males believe that they are masculine and females believe that they are feminine; this subsequently leads to gender inequality. The situation is a result of a male dominated society.

It strives to explain how socio-political structures interrupt the engendering process, whereby we become more complicit with and resistant to cultural norms. It argues that sexual differences are not biological ‘givens’ or social roles, but that they occur as a result of the contested terrain of human subjectivity.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory, the development of gender occurs as a result of the child’s social experiences; suggesting that the sexes behave differently as a result of direct tuition (sex typing) by their parents, while young (Smith & Lloyd, 1978). It emphasises the roles of observational learning and reinforcement (Bandura, 1997) and attempts to explain how social structures, raised by psychoanalytic feminism, influences gender identity formation.

In the ‘Baby X’ study (Smith & Lloyd, 1978), babies were dressed in unisex outfits and given names which, at times matched their correct sex and at other times didn’t. When adults played with them, they treated the babies according to the sex they believed them to be. This indicates that a person’s (perceived) biological make-up becomes part of his/her social environment through others’ reactions.

Sears et al (1957) found that parents allowed sons to be more aggressive in their relationships than with their daughters. Although parents believe that they respond in the same way to aggressive acts committed by both sexes, they actually intervene more frequently and quickly with girls.

In contrast, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) suggest there are no consistent differences in the extent to which both sexes are reinforced for aggressiveness. Rather, there appears to be remarkable consistency in the sexes’ socialisation.

Boys are more likely to imitate aggressive male models than are girls (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963). Children are also more likely to imitate a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model, even if the behaviour is ‘sex-appropriate’.

However, the evidence concerning imitation and modelling is actually inconclusive, and some studies have failed to find that children are more likely to imitate same-sex models than opposite-sex models. Indeed, children have been shown to prefer imitating behaviour that is ‘appropriate’ to their own sex regardless of that of their models’ (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

Further, Sears et al (1957) and Bandura et al (1961, 1963) conducted laboratory experiments, whereby there was a lack of internal and ecological validity. It may have been inappropriate to generalise from the artificial environment to the real-life one, where the results apply.

For instance, the parents (Sears et al) may have changed their behaviour, as a result of the situation and this may have resulted in the Hawthorne effect whereby participants act in a way they think meets the expectations of the researcher.

One of the strengths of the social learning theory is that it takes into account the social context in which the development occurs. However, the theory has several limitations. Durkin (1995) stated that research has “not lead led consistently to the conclusion that they have a major influence”. Secondly, far from children passively acquiring through reward and punishment, they are actively involved in their development (Bandura, 1986). And finally, it also assumes learning processes are the same across all age groups, which is incorrect as they vary (Kohlberg, 1966).

We can see that a child’s behaviour, environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other. The findings support the role of environmental nurture, in the form of reinforcement, in gender identity formation. However, it somewhat dismisses the influence of biologically nature by not addressing it.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, in accordance with the sociobiological theory, biosocial theory and abnormal psychology, there appears to be a fundamental biological component to gender identity formation that underpins gender development. However, the social learning theory and psychoanalytic feminism suggests that there are alternative factors that play crucial roles in this developmental process such as social, political, economic and cultural experiences.

There is evidence of extensive theory, data and researcher triangulation; whereby different theoretical approaches, researchers and different sources of data, are used to address a single situation, in this case, to what extent biological nature determines gender identity formation. These multidimensional perspectives enhance the credibility of the conclusions, the trustworthiness of the claims and eliminates threats of bias.

This knowledge could benefit the education system and help improve cognitive development in young children; for instance, it could assist educators in promoting equality in the classroom environment, by being attentive to their own stereotyping, by presenting non-stereotypical instructional material and by constructing learning activities that allow both genders to flourish.

All of these theoretical approaches have an important role to play in understanding the roots of children’s gender development. We should not regard one as right, or better than the others, nor should they be seen as necessarily in conflict with one another (Maccoby, 2000). However, to what extent cognition itself, impacts upon gender identity formation has not been addressed; this is an unresolved question and would form future research to address this void.

It may be the case that some aspects of gender development have their roots in evolutionary processes, some in the effect of hormones on the developing brain, some in the reinforcement provided by others, and some in the observation and imitation of gendered behaviour. There is no reason to think that biological nature and environmental nurture are not both involved in the process of a child’s gender identity development.

Overall, one can see that gender identity formation is not solely caused by biological nature, another non-biological variable impacts on the forming of an individual’s gender identity, environmental nurture. All of these explanations help shape our understanding of gender identity formation; they are all equally valid, and show us that it is the interaction of these variables that helps form gender identity.

It is the opinion of the author that biological factors establish the foundations upon which the gender identity is formed; whether this is as a result of extraneous environmental factors or social and cultural influences; it remains to be demonstrated with any conviction.

While biological factors do certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs.

From this, I conclude that biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a limited extent as the theories explored above have given us multiple explanations as to the ultimate formation of gender identity formation, not just one.

The ‘nature-nurture’ debate is of consequence to developmental psychology. That is, to what extent is behavioural development influenced or controlled by biological factors or experiential factors, and how do these factors interact with each other? The approaches to gender development can be summarized as the biological (nature) and socialization (nurture) (Ruble et al., 2006).

This psychological approach suggests that young children become increasingly aware of the standard characteristics and behaviours associated with each sex, they begin to form gender schemas with are self-constructed schemas about the traits and behaviours of males or females. As these schemas are self-constructed, their content varies considerably from individual to individual.

Gender development is very complex, and there are no simple relationships among its various components. The several theoretical perspectives highlight different parts of the process of gender development: how they influence and drive a child’s cognitive development and how they interact with one another, sometimes amplifying each other’s effects.

In order to come to its conclusions, the essay examines the two approaches to gender development. The first approach is biological, whereby two theories will be examined: sociobiological theory and biosocial theory. The second approach is socialization, whereby one theory will be examined: social learning theory.

The biological approach of gender development examines the influence of genes and chromosomes, sex hormones, and brain organization on sex differences in physical functioning and behaviour (Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1993); it including the evolutionary theory, which examines the influence of human beings’ evolutionary history on sex differences in behaviour (Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Kenrick & Luce, 2000).

The socialization approach emphasizes the differential treatment of children by parents, family members, peers, teachers and others (Fagot, Rodgers, & Leinbach, 2000; Ruble et al., 2006). The socialization approach is rooted in the tradition of learning theory, which examines the influence of reinforcements, punishments, and observational learning on behaviour (Bandura, 1977).

Gender Roles and Differences

Physical development, as a male or female is merely one aspect of sexual development, it should be noted that social development is likewise important. Gender roles are “cultural expectations about the way in which men and women should think and behave” , and relating to this, gender stereotypes are “beliefs about differences in the behaviours, abilities and personality traits of males and females” .

The origin and nature of gender differences has been a controversial topic in psychology (Eagly, 1995; Shibley Hyde and Plant, 1995). Part of this stems from the way the differences between males and females are measured, how great those differences appear to be, and part of it from the socio-political implications of these differences; for instance, sexism.

Sociobiological Theory

Sociobiologists argue that gender has gradually evolved over the course of human development, as part of our broader adaptation to the environment (Lumsden & Wilson, 1983). Both sexes have developed different roles as a function of their respective contributions to reproduction and domestic labour (Wilson, 1978; Hoyenga & Hoyenga, 1979).

More precisely, according to this school of thought, traditional gender roles provide the basis for the forming of an individuals’ gender identity. A male, due to his larger and stronger physique was regarded apt for hunting and defending; whereas a female, due to her child-rearing obligations, pregnancy and menstruation, was seen as being better suited to taking on domestic responsibilities (Betz, 1993). This distinctive division of labour has resulted in higher rates of survival, according to Murdock (1937) and hence maximised reproductive potential.

According to the parental investment theory (Kenrick, 1994) in sociobiological approaches, females invest considerably more into reproduction than males do. Society evolved to be organised in sexually exclusive domestic partnerships as a way of meeting both sexes’ needs. The consequence of this was the evolution of different courtship displays and corresponding gender roles.

We draw upon the work of anthropologists of gender relation such as Mead (1935) (who’s book ‘Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies’ became a cornerstone of the feminist movement, discussed later on) to consider this tension in sociobiological approaches. Cross-cultural studies have supplied evidence that there are universal similarities in gender behaviour, which supports the sociobiological theory. For example, Mead’s (1935) study of three cultural groups in New Guinea indicated that while some differences between the genders remained constant across cultures, in many ways gender roles differed widely in different cultures.

According to Margaret Mead , among the Arapesh, both sexes were “peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war”, but that amongst the Mundugumor, “the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament” and that the Tchambuli gender roles were the opposite of roles in Mead’s own home culture – early 20th century America. We might understand from this evidence, that there are genders which could be explained by experiential factors as opposed to biological, inherited ones.

However, Mead herself reported higher levels of aggression among males within each cultural group. Even in the Tchambuli, where gender roles were seemingly reversed to the Western eye, it was the males who fought primarily in war. In addition, the findings lack consistency. Deborah Gewertz (1981) studied the Tchambuli (1974-1975), and found no evidence of such reversed gender roles; stating that all the historical evidence available (dating back to the 1850s) suggests that Tchambuli males dominated over females. Her study supports the idea of inherited gender role behaviours.

However, in contrast to this, Williams and Best (1992) found that such consensus was strongest in collectivist societies and weaker in individualist societies where gender equality is more influential. This again, suggests a cultural difference – the effect of different socialisation practises.

The overt, naturalistic observations conducted by Mead took an etic approach to studying the natives; the researcher utilised her distinct Western background to investigate other cultures i.e. notions of masculinity and femininity prevalent in the West, to document gender roles in Non-Western cultures. When describing the Arapesh as feminine, she attaches a western construct to their set of behaviours; this may be unique to the Arapesh.

It has strong ecological validity, as the research was not conducted in an artificial environment i.e. the conditions were not controlled and extraneous variables (potentially confounding) were not eliminated; so the participants’ behaviours were less likely to change.

But it lacks in population validity, a type of external validity, i.e. the results were not representative of the general population, at the time. Meaning she looked at a discrete tribal hierarchy, in a fixed, isolated location. This acts as a limitation, when trying to generalize the sample.

The study might also lack in internal validity, i.e. there could be other cause that explains her observations such as social influences. Since all the tribal women assumed the same role, and there were no deviations noted, this suggests that their behaviour might have been as a result of conforming to a defined social construct.

This could be explained by Piaget’s theory of moral development. Moral behaviour is behaviour that “conforms to a generally accepted set of rules”, which in this case is gender identity. He suggests that children got through two stages: moral realism and morality of cooperation. Of particular interest is the first stage, mortal realism, consisting of egocentrism and blind adherence to the rules i.e. assuming gender roles in accordance with that culture. Children have not yet understood that many of these rules are social conventions that may be altered by mutual consent.

In addition, Mead was criticized for reporting findings that seemed custom-built for her theory; whereby she assumed each culture represented a different type within her theory, and she disregarded or downplayed information that might have made her classifications untenable.

So, one could argue, in accordance with Mead’s study, that some aspects of gender identity formation are biologically induced, such as the differing levels of aggression in both sexes. One could also note that biological nature may not be the sole factor influencing gender identity formation and that any differences between the sexes are more complex than simple biological make-up, as suggested by Williams and Best.

However, due to the lack of internal and external validity and Gewertz and Bamberger’s contradictive findings, the evidence appears to support gender identity formation as a biological process, which is represented across every culture.

Biosocial Theory

Biosocial theory, in contrast to Sociobiological theory, attempts to combine elements of biological and socialization approaches. It maintains that the biological traits are the basis of gender identity differences and that they have a significant impact upon its formation. The theory argues that both sexes are ‘genetically programmed’ for particular gender-roles, consistent with conventional sex-roles.

An ideal way of testing this approach would be to study individuals in whom there is a clear distinction between sexual identities i.e. male or female and the way in which they were treated socially. Thus, for example, if an individual was born a boy but was treated as a girl, would biological or social factors be more important in their gender identity formation?

The categorisation of both sexes as having their own masculine and feminine behaviours is so heavily laden with value judgments and stereotyping that considering cross-gender behavioural patterns in children, as abnormal may seem unjustified. But some data suggests suggest that these patterns can come from a physical disturbance. Specifically, evidence indicates that gender identity is influenced by hormones.

One study demonstrating this point was conducted by John Money , and the subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer. Born a healthy male, Reimer was sexually reassigned and raised as a female after his genitals were severely damaged during circumcision. Dr Money oversaw the case and described the gender reassignment as successful; using it to evidence gender identity formation as primarily learned, not an innate process.

Dr Diamond later stated that Reimer had failed to identify as a female since the age of nine, and had begun living as a male by age fifteen. Later, Reimer went public with his story in order to discourage comparable medical practices in the future. In 2004 he committed suicide, after suffering years of depression.

Clearly, this case demonstrates a strong biological underpinning for gender identity; despite undergoing gender reassignment surgery, being encouraged to behave in a feminine way, and developing breasts as a result of hormone therapy, John never developed a female gender identity (Colapinto, 1997). The case was fundamentally flawed.

It can be criticized on several ethical grounds. According to the British and American Psychological Associations, informed consent must be obtained from all those who wish to participate and deception must be avoided. Neither of these guidelines were followed; Reimer was only told the truth about his actual biological sex at age fifteen, and suffered psychological harm as a result.

However, the importance of this controversial study cannot go unmentioned; it has increased our knowledge of processes relating to development and the biological significance of behaviour. The research has also benefitted the scientific community in terms of humane treatment of human participants inside the context of research.

Of particular interest is the fairly direct conflict between biological and social factors; it seems as if biological nature outweighs environmental nurture. However, evidence in support of the biological approach to gender development has been obtained from animal studies.

For instance, Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964) gave doses of testosterone to pregnant monkeys; this male sex hormone produced greater aggressiveness and higher frequency of rough-and-tumble play in the mothers’ female offspring

It needs to be remembered that, similar to Mead’s (1035) study, the relevant evidence supporting the socialization approach (Dr Money) has been obtained from a very unusual case, with sample size being so small, unreliable conclusions might be drawn as the findings can be generalised to the average population.

In addition, the research carried out on animals (Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964)) was done so because it was considered unethical to conduct the same research on humans; for the reason that, there is an assertion that animals and humans are fundamentally different in terms of consciousness or ability to feel pain. So surely, due to the difference, it is not valid to generalise from animals to humans.

The biological approach thus links any sex differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) to genetics. In this instance, one can conclude that, according to the biosocial theory and as evidenced by Young, Goy and Phoenix (1964), biological nature has a significant impact upon gender identity differences.

Due to the lack of ecological validity and reliability in Imperato-McGinley et al.’s (1979) study, one could argue that, on average, nurture environment has very little or no effect on gender identity formation.

However, it is important to note that biological theories cannot provide more than a partial explanation. Such theories do not explain the impact of social factors on gender identity formation and they do not account for the substantial changes in gender roles that have occurred in Western societies in recent decades.

Psychoanalytic Feminism and Abnormal Psychology

As part of normal sexual functioning, each individual has sexual preferences and fantasies. However, when our desires begin affecting us and/or others in unwanted and/or harmful ways, they qualify as abnormal. A range of human sexual thoughts, feeling, and actions are considered dysfunctional and listed by DSM-IV as sexual and gender identity disorders.

A point that contradicts the social learning theory relates to sexual identity. Paraphilia such as fetishism, voyeurism and exhibitionism, are not socially constructed and are therefore not considered normative behaviour. Thus, it implies a hereditary influence.

However, feminist interpretations (e.g. Unger, 1979) of sex differences share the belief that social, political, economic and cultural factors determine gender, our awareness and understanding of the differences of distinguishing males from females. This view is directly opposed to sociobiological theory.

In 1979, Rhoda Unger published ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender in Psychology’, a paper that formally introduced psychologists to distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Feminist psychologists argue that gender is socially constructed within a culture of patriarchy, and is hence deeply political, rather than individual or personal. This contributed to the argument that gender identity is not biologically determined by gender per se, but is socially produced.

It has roots in Sigmund Freud’s work, whereby gender is not a biologically determined phenomenon. This psychosexual development leads to the gender role adoption. Childhood experiences are accountable for making males believe that they are masculine and females believe that they are feminine; this subsequently leads to gender inequality. The situation is a result of a male dominated society.

It strives to explain how socio-political structures interrupt the engendering process, whereby we become more complicit with and resistant to cultural norms. It argues that sexual differences are not biological ‘givens’ or social roles, but that they occur as a result of the contested terrain of human subjectivity.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory, the development of gender occurs as a result of the child’s social experiences; suggesting that the sexes behave differently as a result of direct tuition (sex typing) by their parents, while young (Smith & Lloyd, 1978). It emphasises the roles of observational learning and reinforcement (Bandura, 1997) and attempts to explain how social structures, raised by psychoanalytic feminism, influences gender identity formation.

In the ‘Baby X’ study (Smith & Lloyd, 1978), babies were dressed in unisex outfits and given names which, at times matched their correct sex and at other times didn’t. When adults played with them, they treated the babies according to the sex they believed them to be. This indicates that a person’s (perceived) biological make-up becomes part of his/her social environment through others’ reactions.

Sears et al (1957) found that parents allowed sons to be more aggressive in their relationships than with their daughters. Although parents believe that they respond in the same way to aggressive acts committed by both sexes, they actually intervene more frequently and quickly with girls.

In contrast, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) suggest there are no consistent differences in the extent to which both sexes are reinforced for aggressiveness. Rather, there appears to be remarkable consistency in the sexes’ socialisation.

Boys are more likely to imitate aggressive male models than are girls (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963). Children are also more likely to imitate a same-sex model than an opposite-sex model, even if the behaviour is ‘sex-appropriate’.

However, the evidence concerning imitation and modelling is actually inconclusive, and some studies have failed to find that children are more likely to imitate same-sex models than opposite-sex models. Indeed, children have been shown to prefer imitating behaviour that is ‘appropriate’ to their own sex regardless of that of their models’ (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

Further, Sears et al (1957) and Bandura et al (1961, 1963) conducted laboratory experiments, whereby there was a lack of internal and ecological validity. It may have been inappropriate to generalise from the artificial environment to the real-life one, where the results apply.

For instance, the parents (Sears et al) may have changed their behaviour, as a result of the situation and this may have resulted in the Hawthorne effect whereby participants act in a way they think meets the expectations of the researcher.

One of the strengths of the social learning theory is that it takes into account the social context in which the development occurs. However, the theory has several limitations. Durkin (1995) stated that research has “not lead led consistently to the conclusion that they have a major influence”. Secondly, far from children passively acquiring through reward and punishment, they are actively involved in their development (Bandura, 1986). And finally, it also assumes learning processes are the same across all age groups, which is incorrect as they vary (Kohlberg, 1966).

We can see that a child’s behaviour, environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other. The findings support the role of environmental nurture, in the form of reinforcement, in gender identity formation. However, it somewhat dismisses the influence of biologically nature by not addressing it.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, in accordance with the sociobiological theory, biosocial theory and abnormal psychology, there appears to be a fundamental biological component to gender identity formation that underpins gender development. However, the social learning theory and psychoanalytic feminism suggests that there are alternative factors that play crucial roles in this developmental process such as social, political, economic and cultural experiences.

There is evidence of extensive theory, data and researcher triangulation; whereby different theoretical approaches, researchers and different sources of data, are used to address a single situation, in this case, to what extent biological nature determines gender identity formation. These multidimensional perspectives enhance the credibility of the conclusions, the trustworthiness of the claims and eliminates threats of bias.

This knowledge could benefit the education system and help improve cognitive development in young children; for instance, it could assist educators in promoting equality in the classroom environment, by being attentive to their own stereotyping, by presenting non-stereotypical instructional material and by constructing learning activities that allow both genders to flourish.

All of these theoretical approaches have an important role to play in understanding the roots of children’s gender development. We should not regard one as right, or better than the others, nor should they be seen as necessarily in conflict with one another (Maccoby, 2000). However, to what extent cognition itself, impacts upon gender identity formation has not been addressed; this is an unresolved question and would form future research to address this void.

It may be the case that some aspects of gender development have their roots in evolutionary processes, some in the effect of hormones on the developing brain, some in the reinforcement provided by others, and some in the observation and imitation of gendered behaviour. There is no reason to think that biological nature and environmental nurture are not both involved in the process of a child’s gender identity development.

Overall, one can see that gender identity formation is not solely caused by biological nature, another non-biological variable impacts on the forming of an individual’s gender identity, environmental nurture. All of these explanations help shape our understanding of gender identity formation; they are all equally valid, and show us that it is the interaction of these variables that helps form gender identity.

It is the opinion of the author that biological factors establish the foundations upon which the gender identity is formed; whether this is as a result of extraneous environmental factors or social and cultural influences; it remains to be demonstrated with any conviction.

While biological factors do certainly determine some aspects of gender, gender identity itself is produced in the interaction of biological sex and the environmental and cultural circumstances in which psychological development occurs.

From this, I conclude that biological nature only determines gender identity formation to a limited extent as the theories explored above have given us multiple explanations as to the ultimate formation of gender identity formation, not just one.

Understanding The Difference Between Men And Women

For centuries, the differences between men and women were socially defined and distorted through a lens of sexism in which men assumed superiority over women and maintained it through domination. As the goal of equality between men and women now grows closer we are also losing our awareness of important differences. In some circles of society, politically correct thinking is obliterating important discussion as well as our awareness of the similarities and differences between men and women. The vision of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for discovery of what truly exists within a man and within a woman. The world is less interesting when everything is same. It is my position that men and women are equal but different. When I say equal, I mean that men and women have a right to equal opportunity and protection under the law. The fact that people in this country are assured these rights does not negate my observation that men and women are at least as different psychologically as they are physically.

None of us would argue the fact that men and women are physically different. The physical differences are rather obvious and most of these can be seen and easily measured. Weight, shape, size and anatomy are not political opinions but rather tangible and easily measured. The physical differences between men and women provide functional advantages and have survival value. Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s. The stereotype that men are more “thick-headed” than women is not far fetched. A man’s “thick headedness”, and other anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless behavior that usually involve collisions with other males or automobiles. Men invented the game “chicken”, not women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to charge and crash into each other a great deal in their spare time.

Women on the other hand have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. This latter finding provides physical evidence that supports the observation that men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has observed how young girls find the conversations of young boys “boring”. Young boys express confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a conversation between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at once!

The psychological differences between man and women are less obvious. They can be difficult to describe. Yet these differences can profoundly influence how we form and maintain relationships that can range from work and friendships to marriage and parenting. Recognizing, understanding, discussing as well as acting skillfully in light of the differences between men and women can be difficult. Our failure to recognize and appreciate these differences can become a life long source of disappointment, frustration, tension and eventually our downfall in a relationship. Not only can these differences destroy a promising relationship, but most people will grudgingly accept or learn to live with the consequences. Eventually they find some compromise or way to cope. Few people ever work past these difficulties. People tend to accept what they don’t understand when they feel powerless to change it. Relationships between men and women are not impossible or necessarily difficult. Problems simply arise when we expect or assume the opposite sex should think, feel or act the way we do. It’s not that men and women live in completely different realities. Rather, our lack of knowledge and mutual experience gives rise to our difficulties.

Despite great strides in this country toward equality, modern society hasn’t made relationships between men and women any easier. Today’s society has taught us and has imposed on us the expectation that men and women should live together continuously, in communion, and in harmony. These expectations are not only unrealistic but ultimately they leave people feeling unloved, inadequate, cynical, apathetic or ashamed. The challenge facing men and women is to become aware of their identities, to accept their differences, and to live their lives fully and as skillfully as possible. To do this we must first understand in what ways we are different. We must avoid trying to change others to suit our needs. The following illustrates some important differences between men and women. These differences are not absolute. They describe how men and women are in most situations most of the time.

Problems

Men and women approach problems with similar goals but with different considerations. While men and women can solve problems equally well, their approach and their process are often quit different. For most women, sharing and discussing a problem presents an opportunity to explore, deepen or strengthen the relationship with the person they are talking with. Woman are usually more concerned about how problems are solved than merely solving the problem itself. For women, solving a problem can profoundly impact whether they feel closer and less alone or whether they feel distant and less connected. The process of solving a problem can strengthen or weaken a relationship. Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem. Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. For most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to demonstrate their competence, their strength of resolve, and their commitment to a relationship. How the problem is solved is not nearly as important as solving it effectively and in the best possible manner. Men have a tendency to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process. They set aside their feelings provided the dominance hierarchy was agreed upon in advance and respected. They are often distracted and do not attend well to the quality of the relationship while solving problems. Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they attempt to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ “collective intelligence” to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command.

Thinking

While men and women can reach similar conclusions and make similar decisions, the process they use can be quit different and in some cases can lead to entirely different outcomes. In general, men and women consider and process information differently. Women tend to be intuitive global thinkers. They consider multiple sources of information within a process that can be described as simultaneous, global in perspective and will view elements in the task in terms of their interconnectedness. Women come to understand and consider problems all at once. They take a broad or “collective” perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent. Women are prone to become overwhelmed with complexities that “exist”, or may exist, and may have difficulty separating their personal experience from problems. Men tend to focus on one problem at a time or a limited number of problems at a time. They have an enhanced ability to separate themselves from problems and minimize the complexity that may exist. Men come to understand and consider problems one piece at a time. They take a linear or sequential perspective, and view elements in a task as less interconnected and more independent. Men are prone to minimize and fail to appreciate subtleties that can be crucial to successful solutions. A male may work through a problem repeatedly, talking about the same thing over and over, rather than trying to address the the problem all at once. While there are differences in the ways that men and women think, it must be emphasized that they can and do solve problems in a similar manner. There are no absolutes, only tendencies.

Memory

Women have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong emotional components. They can also recall events or experiences that have similar emotions in common. Women are very adept at recalling information, events or experiences in which there is a common emotional theme. Men tend to recall events using strategies that rely on reconstructing the experience in terms of elements, tasks or activities that took place. Profound experiences that are associated with competition or physical activities are more easily recalled. There appears to be a structural and chemical basis for observed memory differences. For instance, the hippocampus, the area in the brain primarily responsible for memory, reacts differently to testosterone in men and it reacts differently to changing levels of estrogen and progesterone in women. Women tend to remember or be reminded of different “emotional memories” and content to some extent as part of their menstrual cycle.

Sensitivity

There is evidence to suggest that a great deal of the sensitivity that exists within men and women has a physiological basis. It has been observed that is many cases, women have an enhanced physical alarm response to danger or threat. Their autonomic and sympathetic systems have a lower threshold of arousal and greater reactivity than men. In both men and women, higher levels of testosterone directly affect the aggressive response and behavior centers of the brain. Increasing estrogen and progesterone in men has a “feminizing” effect. Sexually aggressive males become less focused on sexual aggressive behavior and content when they are given female hormones. On the other hand, changing estrogen and progesterone levels in women during menstrual cycles can produce a “flood” of memories as well as strong emotions. Increasing or high levels of testosterone can produce an emotional insensitivity, empathic block and increased indifference to the distress others. At the heart of sensitivity is our capacity to form, appreciate and maintain relationships that are rewarding. Even here there are important differences. For men, what demonstrates a solid relationship is quite different from that of most women. Men feel closer and validated through shared activities. Such activities include sports, competition, outdoor activities or sexual activities that are decidedly active and physical. While both men and women can appreciate and engage in these activities they often have preferential differences. Women, on the other hand, feel closer and validated through communication, dialogue and intimate sharing of experience, emotional content and personal perspectives. Many men tend to find such sharing and involvement uncomfortable, if not, overwhelming.

The Task Of Relationship Facing Men and Women

The task that faces men and women is to learn to accept their differences, avoid taking their differences as personal attempts to frustrate each other, and to compromise whenever possible. The idea that one gender can think and feel like the other if they truly loved each is rather absurd. Sure, a man or women could act in consideration of the other’s needs, but this would not necessarily be rewarding and honest. Holding the benefit of another above our own is rewarding. But from time to time, and more often for most of us, it is important to be our self and to be accepted, and not to be the source of distress and disappointment in the lives of people we love.

The Role Of Counseling and Therapy

Counseling and therapy can help a couple understand and appreciate each other, and even benefit from their differences. Understanding these differences intellectually is not enough. A counselor or therapist can help point out these differences, as they surface, and guide a couple to a greater level of relationship. Understanding that differences are not intentional and that misunderstandings are merely the result of expectations that are not realistic can make a huge difference in a relationship. The differences that can be sensed between a man and women can deepen their relationship. More importantly, when men seek to understand and appreciate that which is feminine, they come to a deeper understanding of their self. And when a women seeks to understand that which is masculine in men, they come to appreciate and understand more about their own masculinity.

THE SOCIAL ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN

In all societies the obvious biological difference between men and women is used as a justification for forcing them into different social roles which limit and shape their attitudes and behavior. That is to say, no society is content with the natural difference of sex, but each insists on adding to it a cultural difference of gender. The simple physical facts therefore always become associated with complex psychological qualities. It is not enough for a man to be male; he also has to appear masculine. A woman, in addition to being female, must also be feminine.

However, once the contrast between men and women has been increased and accentuated in this fashion, it is usually taken as a further manifestation of biological differences which confirm the need for different social roles. Or, to put it another way, sex differences are used to create gender differences which are then explained as sex differences which, in turn, require gender differences, and so on. This may be no more than circular reasoning, but it is socially very effective. For example, in our own patriarchal society males enjoy a socially dominant position. Thus, from an early age, boys are helped to acquire a masculinity that allows them to assume and maintain that position. By the same token, girls are taught to cultivate a submissive femininity. The resulting difference in the male and female character is then described as inborn and used to defend the existing power arrangement. Only those who accept it are normal, and only they can expect to succeed. The male social role is designed to reward masculine men, while the female social role offers its relative advantages only to feminine women. (The aggressive man will run the bigger business; the pretty, agreeable woman will find the richer husband.) In other words, masculinity and femininity are gender qualities which are developed in response to social discrimination. However, once they have been developed, they justify and cement it. The masculine and feminine gender roles mutually reinforce each other and thereby perpetuate the inequality on which they are based. Obviously, this psychological mechanism can operate only as long as the behavior of men and women does not transgress the generally accepted limits. Every society tries therefore to prevent such transgressions by calling the socially defined gender roles “natural”, eternal, and unchangeable. Any person who refuses to accept them is persecuted as a deviant and punished as an offender not only against society, but against “nature” itself. An historical example of such deviance is the case of Joan of Arc who, as a young girl, not only led the French army to victory over the English, but also wore male clothing. In her later trial she was promptly accused of having thus violated the laws of nature.

Over the centuries, many people have, of course, wondered why allegedly “natural” roles should need such rigorous social enforcement. After all, if they were truly natural, they would “come naturally” to both men and women. However, it is noteworthy that the advocates of the so-called natural inequality of the sexes resent nothing more than letting “nature” take its course. Yet, if their arguments were true, there would be no need to deny women equal opportunities, since they would be unable to compete with men. If women were “naturally” inferior, men would have nothing to fear. Therefore, the fact that many men do fear such competition raises sufficient doubt as to the validity of their claim.

The truth is that human desires and capacities have a tendency to go beyond the narrow limits of our traditional gender roles. Indeed, it takes a constant combined effort by all social authorities to keep this tendency under control. Such social control appears not only externally, in the form of parental guidance, peer-group pressure, and law enforcement, but also internally in the form of concepts and values which determine the self-image of every individual, and it is in the individual mind where the confusion of sex and gender can create the most serious problems.

For instance, men and women who feel that they do not fit the masculine and feminine stereotypes, or who resent them as too restrictive, may also develop ambiguous feelings about their biological sex. They may begin to wish for different bodies which would allow them to play a role more to their liking. Or, to take another example, since men have been told that women are socially and sexually passive, they are usually gravely disturbed by encountering a woman who is socially aggressive and who takes the initiative in sexual intercourse. Confronted with this “lack of femininity” in a woman, a man may feel tempted to dispute her womanhood. If this contention does not hold up in face of the evidence, he may instead begin to doubt his own masculinity and become sexually dysfunctional. Conversely, a handsome, gentle, and passive male may invite ridicule and may be denounced as a “pervert” or “queer”. “Real women” may regard him as less than a “real man” and therefore reject him as a sexual partner.

However, the confusion goes still further. The notion that in every sexual encounter there has to be one active (masculine) and one passive (feminine) partner is so persistent that it not only ruins many heterosexual relationships, but also influences the behavior of certain homosexuals who feel compelled to model themselves after these stereotypes. By doing so, they give support to the curious belief that even in sexual relationships between members of the same sex, there always has to be one to play the “man”, while the other must assume the role of the “woman”. There is, in fact a general impression that every homosexual couple (whether male or female) consists of one active, masculine and one passive, feminine partner. People who hold this belief are, of course, at a total loss to explain phenomena like the famous homosexual elite troops of ancient Greece, which consisted entirely of male lovers.

All of these views are based on a wrong conclusion drawn from a false assumption. The false assumption states that women are naturally passive, while men are naturally active. The wrong conclusion asserts that every passive person is playing a feminine role and that every active person is playing a masculine role. However, in actual fact neither sex nor gender need be characterized in this fashion. After all, in some human societies the role assignment for men and women is the reverse of our own. In short, there is nothing “natural” or definite about our sexual stereotypes. By the same token, full human equality will not be achieved until it becomes conceivable to both sexes that active and passive attitudes can be appropriate for either of them, and that even two “active” or two “passive” partners can have a rewarding relationship.

This does not mean that, in an ideal future, all human differences will disappear. Indeed, once the old stereotypes have been discarded, the differences between individuals within each sex are likely to increase. Furthermore, under conditions of social equality, these individuals may also happily continue to play different gender roles. There should be no need to point out that there is nothing wrong with gender differences as such. They can greatly enrich our lives, as long as we understand that, in human beings, “different” does not have to mean superior or inferior. In other words, those who demand equal rights for men and women are not asking for drab uniformity, but for a social climate in which variety can flourish without being exploited.

The following pages first elaborate further on the basic concepts of sex and gender and then offer a brief discussion of the different moral standards for men and women.

“Male Logic” and “Women’s Intuition”

The split in our thinking between “masculine” and “feminine” is probably as old as language itself. Human beings seem to have a natural tendency to divide things into pairs: good/bad, light/dark, subject/object and so on. It is not surprising, then, that the male/female or masculine/feminine dichotomy is used to classify things other than men and women. Many languages actually classify all nouns as “masculine” or “feminine” (although not very consistently: for example, the Spanish masculine noun pollo means “hen”, while the feminine polla is slang for “penis”). This is perfectly natural; it is part of the way categorisation works in language. This does not, however, mean that it is right. It is probably unimportant whether a table or a chair is thought of as masculine or feminine. It may not even be very important these days whether we think of the sun as male and the moon as female (like the ancient Greeks) or vice versa (like most of the German tribes). However, when we start associating abstract concepts like Reason or Nature with men and women, we run into serious difficulties.

The association of Reason with men and Nature with women is well-known, and has been widely criticised. Aristotle defined Man as a “rational animal”, and by that he really meant men, not human beings. Unlike Plato, he saw women as less able to reason, hence less “human” and more “animal”. In Europe, well into the twentieth century, women were generally seen as somehow intellectually deficient. An English woman recently became Oxford’s oldest graduate because although she had completed her degree course in the 1920’s, at that time the university did not award degrees to female students. Presumably it would have decreased the status of the university to award degrees to an intellectually inferior sex!

Nearly all societies, from hunting and gathering tribes to post-industrial nations, offer some kind of compensation to those who lose out in the status game. For example, among the practically matriarchal Zuni Indians of New Mexico, the economically powerless men were credited with the ability to make rain. Black slaves in the American South were thought to be naturally stronger (which they generally were), better at music and dancing (which they may have been) and more cheerful (highly unlikely for slaves, but a good justification for treating them badly). In the same way, women are compensated for their supposed inability to think rationally by a mysterious “women’s intuition”. Attempts were made to justify this in biological terms; women were seen as naturally more emotional and/or in touch with Nature because of their strange biology (menstruation, hormones, “vapours” or whatever). This was about as scientific as the Zuni Indians’ theory that men could make rain.

Men and women are, of course, biologically different. There are even significant differences in male and female brains; women, for example, have a thicker corpus callosum (the thing that connects the two halves of the brain). However, it is a giant leap from observing that there are neurological differences between the sexes to assuming that these differences correspond to the classic Reason/Nature or logic/emotion dichotomies. In fact, some of these differences may even indicate the opposite. The left hemisphere of the brain generally deals with linear processing, as found in language and some types of mathematics, and this hemisphere develops faster in girls than in boys. The old “11 plus” test of verbal reasoning used in British schools was actually adjusted to bring boys’ scores up to the level of girls’! Whatever the case, it is a mistake to look at people’s brains and then decide that they must think in a certain way; it would be far better to try and find out how people actually think, and then to see if this corresponds to brain structure.

When we talk about the way men and women think, we are actually dealing with not one, but at least three separate things: how men and women usually think, how men and women can think, and how we think men and women think. Usually when we think we are looking at the first or second subjects, we are actually only describing the third. Since our main guide to how people think is their language, the fact that in most cultures men and women talk in different ways, and about different things, may lead us to false conclusions about the way they think in general. Women’s conversation tends to emphasise feelings more, which may also mean that they think about feelings more. It does not, however, mean that woman are more emotional. It is perfectly possible that men are just as emotional, but for social reasons they talk (and think) about their feelings less. Similarly, the fact that in most cultures men argue more about abstract things does not mean that men are naturally more logical, it just means that the things men prefer to talk about require logical argument more than they require expression of feelings. Obviously the more you argue, the better you get at it, hence the prejudice that men are somehow biologically more logical. This would be like assuming that I am biologically better at speaking English (my first language) than Turkish (my second).

Problems also arise with the actual words we use: logic, reason, intuition and emotion. Logic is simply a set of principles for getting from something we already knew, to something we didn’t. If we know that all cows eat grass, and we know that Daisy is a cow, we can use very simple logic to say that Daisy eats grass, even if we have never seen her eat anything. The more complex logic that we use in constructing philosophical arguments or designing computers is really only doing the same kind of thing. The word “rational” is a little more problematic, since it involves an assessment of aims and actions. If our aims are consistent with each other and our actions achieve our aims, then we can fairly say that we are behaving rationally. If we act in a way that prevents us from realising our aims, then we are behaving irrationally, or in other words, stupidly. For example, if I know that I will have a better relationship with my wife if I don’t shout at her, but I still shout at her because I am in a bad mood, my problem is not that I am being emotional, it is that I am being stupid.

The opposite of “rational” is not, then, “emotional” but “irrational”. If we set up a pair of opposites, rational/emotional, we are likely to make the assumption that women are more emotional and therefore irrational, which is a polite way of saying that women are stupid. While having strong emotions can sometimes interfere with your thought processes, this is not automatically the case. For example, I often get quite excited when I am working on a new theory or project, but this usually makes my thinking better, not worse. Strong “negative” emotions such as rage, jealousy or depression are usually the result of irrational thinking as much as a cause of it, and men are just as vulnerable to this type of stupidity as women.

“Intuition” is an even trickier concept. We usually say that we arrive at an idea or solution to a problem “intuitively” when we know something without knowing how we came to know it. A scientist may arrive at a new theory because the idea just “pops into” his or her head, or even turns up in a dream. You may get an “intuitive” feeling that a person is dishonest without actually having heard them say something you know to be untrue. In both these cases, what seems to be happening is that the mind stores and sorts information unconsciously, providing us only with the end result of this process. There is no guarantee, of course, that this conclusion will be true; a scientist would still have to perform experiments to prove their intuitive theory, and you would probably want some hard evidence to prove that the person you feel is dishonest really does tell lies.

There is therefore nothing particularly strange or mystical about intuition; it is something we do all the time. Why, then, do we talk about “women’s intuition”, as though men never arrive at a conclusion without consciously following all the stages that were necessary to reach it? Again, the answer is probably linguistic. As we have seen, traditionally women’s conversation is less formal, less argumentative, and more concerned with feelings than men’s conversation. Intuitive conclusions are therefore more acceptable in an all-female group. Men, on the other hand, are expected to argue more, and to argue more logically, presenting evidence in a systematic way to back up their conclusions. It is less socially acceptable in an all-male conversation (or a conversation where the men are doing most of the talking) to say “Well guys, I don’t know why, but I just get this kind of feeling that e=mc2.”

We can see, then, that these pairs of opposites, logic/intuition and rational/emotional, are not only false, but also damaging, particularly to women. It therefore surprising that some feminists actually support a version of this patriarchal nonsense. Particularly at the more “spiritual” end of the Radical Feminist community, there is a tendency to glorify women’s “intuition” and “closeness to Nature”, and to avoid “logic” as somehow “male”, as though it were a psychological problem resulting from too much testosterone. The fact that men often use logic, or at least logical-sounding arguments, to “put women in their place” is not a fault of logic, it is the fault of those men’s sexism and lack of social skills. More innocently, men are often accused of being too “cold” and “logical”, not because there is anything wrong with their ideas, but because they do not understand the unspoken rules of female conversation, in the same way that women are often accused of being “illogical” or “emotional” because they do not argue using the same language as men.

If women reject logic and rely solely on feelings, they are left in the weak position of having to argue with feelings. Feeling that something is true does not make it true, and it will not convince anyone else that it is true either. You can say, “I feel X”, but the person you are arguing with can just as well reply, “Well I don’t.” The result is that the argument usually goes nowhere. This is particularly damaging in arguments between men and women, since both sides are likely to go away with their prejudices strengthened; the men think women are subjective, emotional and illogical, and the women think men are impersonal, cold and over-intellectual.

To justify their feelings of hurt at being “beaten” in an argument, the women concerned may go further and dismiss the whole thing as “male logic”, as though there were two types of logic, on for men and anoth

Many children in the Global South do not have access to primary education. “113 million children of primary school age are still not enrolled in school, 94% of which live in developing countries,” (Glewwe 2006: 948). “Less than one youth in two enters junior secondary school and less than one in four enters senior secondary school,” (Verspoor 2008: 2). There are currently unequal proportions of girls to boys who attend primary school in third world countries. “In Africa, just 46 per cent of girls complete primary school,” (Levine 2006: 129). Men have more opportunities to work and contribute to the economy as they have more opportunities to attend school compared to girls. Girls often have to stay at home for domestic work, while boys are given the opportunity to become educated so they can provide for the family, (Levine 2006: 127).

I chose to explore the topic of educating girls in third world countries after my experience teaching students in South Africa. The school I taught at was sponsored by the Stephen Leacock Foundation. I was amazed to find that many of the students had great dreams and aspirations for the future. The girls especially, were very focused on their studies and seemed committed to their goals. They understood the sacrifices their families had made in order to send them to school and they worked hard to succeed. This opportunity however I discovered, is not the norm. Many students in the developing world do not have the privilege to attend schools such as this one.

Investing in primary education for young girls in third world countries has a significant impact on social and economic development. “There is widespread agreement that the education of girls is one of the most important investments that any developing country can make in its own future,” (Hadden 1996: 1). This paper will address the key issues regarding primary education in third world countries today and the importance of investing in primary education particularly for girls as a means to reduce poverty, improve health and promote economic development. This paper explores the obstacles and benefits to education in third world countries.

Obstacles

There are many factors that cause inequality between girls and boys in the educational system. They include gender discrimination, poverty and safety. Especially in third world countries today there are large gender gaps. Gender is socially constructed as opposed to sex, which is biological. Gender gaps have resulted in fewer opportunities for girls compared to boys. Girls face immense prejudice and a lack of opportunity. As a result of the socially constructed gender roles and gender division in the household, females are often not given the opportunity to attend school, or they are pulled out of the education system to do domestic work. The majority (70%), of the students removed from school are girls, (Modesti 2009:24). Since household duties require little skill or knowledge, girls are not sent to school.

Poverty is another impediment to the education of girls in third world countries. For many families it is cost prohibitive to send their children to school including opportunity costs, (Bellew 1992). Many parents struggle to feed and clothe their children, let alone send them to school. Expenses to send a child to school include the costs of enrollment, uniforms, books and resources. There are also opportunity costs for the family. If a family sends their daughter to school they will no longer have the help they need to manage the household. With the expense of sending children to school, many families can only afford to send one child. As a result of predetermined gender roles, the boys are often the chosen ones.

Safety and hygiene are also a major concern in the decision to send girls to school. In addition to hygienic concerns, abuse is also a factor. In developing countries where mainly boys attend school, UNICEF reported that the schools are not suitable for girls, (Anzia 2007). Typically there are no separate bathroom facilities for girls. This is an important factor as girls have more concerns about feminine hygiene and privacy, (Teicher 2005:1)

Families also worry about the safety of their daughters at school due to violence. Stacy A. announces the threat of sexual violence in some educational institutions; “School is not necessarily an empowering institution…Being pushed to have sex with teachers is not an uncommon occurrence,” (ibid: 2). The issue of sexual violence often leads to girls being infected with HIV/AIDS. There is also a high risk of violence when walking long distances to school. With a limited number of schools in developing countries many students must travel a long way by foot to get to school. Girls are very vulnerable in a patriarchal setting where the majority of students are boys and where abuse is not regulated, (Anzia 2007). Girls don’t go to school because they are afraid for their safety. Because families are concerned for good reason about sending their daughters to school, girls are often left uneducated.

Benefits

Despite the obstacles, there are an infinite number of benefits to educating girls in third world countries. The best investment a country can make is that of educating girls. The benefits include reduced poverty, economic growth, improved health, and decreased gender gaps.

Educating girls reduces poverty and improves family welfare in third world countries. The more a girl is educated, the more likely she will be able to get a job. With better job opportunities women will have the chance to make a better living for themselves so they can support their families. In a girl’s lifetime her overall income can increase by 20% as a result of having a primary education. This is a greater increase than that of boys, (Levine 2006: 128). It is beneficial to invest especially in girls’ education, as women are more likely to reinvest their earnings back into their family and society. The Toronto Star writes, “If they make it to the paid workforce, research shows that women send 90 per cent of their income home compared to 30-to-40 per cent for men,” (Toronto Star 2009). Whether it is in the form of remittances or directly supporting their families, women tend to spend their earnings more wisely and support the family and greater community. An increase in income allows families to have more quality resources to sustain a higher standard of living.

The more educated a woman is the healthier she and her family will be. Girls’ education greatly decreases fertility rates, cases of HIV/AIDS, and overall health. Sex education and family planning education is extremely beneficial to societies within the third world. Many families live in poverty and are unable to support their large families. With girls’ education this can be reduced. As girls and women learn about safe sex practices and family planning women will be more aware of contraception and pregnancy prevention. In Morocco, 44% of women with no education use contraceptives whereas 66% of women with secondary education or higher use contraception, (Moghadam 2003). As a result women are able to control family size. This will also help reduce the increasingly growing fertility rates and reduced levels of poverty.

With fewer children to support, women can provide more for their children, the standard of living will rise and children will have improved health. Educating women about safe sex can also help reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and the vulnerability of girls to the disease. As women learn ways to prevent disease the number of people affected will decline. Not only is the education of a girl beneficial to her own health, but also has positive consequences for her family and friends. With an increased knowledge of health, women will take better care of their children by feeding them more nutritious foods and providing them with more health care. According to the World Bank, “It is estimated that one year of female schooling reduces fertility by 10 percent,” (Fort, 2008). Educated women are more likely to have healthier families as they pass on their knowledge of healthy living to their children who then pass it on to their children. With health education specifically for women, there is a positive spiral effect on health as it is passed through the generations.

Fertility rates and population growth will also decline not only as a result of health education, but education in general. If girls stay in school they are more likely to postpone marriage and starting a family. In developing countries women tend to get married at a very young age and have children soon after. As a result, women do not have the time to get an education. “A study of eight sub-Saharan countries covering the period from 1987 to 1999 found that girls’ educational attainment was the best predictor of whether they would have their first births during adolescence,” (Levine 2006). With the increase in opportunities for girls to attend school, the age at which girls get married and have children will be postponed. “Among married Egyptian women ages 25 to 29, for instance, those with no education had married at age 18, on average, and had their first child by age 20; those with a secondary or higher education married at an average age of 23 and had their first child by age 25,” (Moghadam 2003). Women with higher education will have half the number of children, and at a later time in their lives.

Educating girls is the key to economic prosperity within the third world. Educating women empowers them to get involved in the economy and labour market. Women will become more empowered within society the more they are educated. There is currently a large gender gap between girls and boys who attend school in developing countries as well as in the labour force. Women often rely on the men in the family for economic support. In some regions within the global south, there are laws that require women to get permission from their husbands or fathers in order to get a job or be involved economically, (ibid). This is another reason why families do not tend to invest in female education but educating girls will overcome this gender discrimination and give women the power and opportunity to succeed.

A study illustrates that for every additional year of education the adult population has on average, a country’s economic growth will increase by 3.7%, (ibid). Simply improving access to education for girls will greatly increase economic growth. By reducing gender gaps, the economy will also flourish. In numerous developing countries boys have higher rates of enrollment in education compared to girls. In Yemen, the literacy rate of men is three times that of women, (ibid). By decreasing the gender gaps and by making education more widely accessible to girls and women there will be more equal gender representation in the labour force. With smaller gender gaps, the GNP of a nation will grow.

Solutions

These benefits will only be realized by improving the education of girls in third world countries. Access to good education in the third world is limited; with lack of resources, inadequate teachers, and poor curriculum. In order to advance education in the developing world, it is crucial that these problems are solved.

Firstly, education, especially for girls must become more affordable. It is too expensive for families to send their daughters to school. If costs were reduced there would be increased enrollment for girls in the education system. Cost and poverty is one of the biggest factors holding girls back from going to school.

Accessibility can also be improved by building more schools. This would limit the time spent walking to school every day or limit the cost of other travel. Opportunity costs would also be reduced, as students would have more time to help with household chores rather than traveling back and forth to school. Creating more schools closer to communities also improves safety, as there is less danger with a shorter walking distance to school.

Secondly, more qualified teachers and separate sanitation facilities for girls will reduce parental concerns about the welfare of their children. By improving the qualifications, hiring practices and training of teachers, sexual abuse would be less prevalent. Physical abuse is one major concern parents have about sending their child to school. With outhouses, the safety and privacy for girls will be improved and there will be fewer restrictions to the education of girls and women in the third world.

Thirdly, in addition to teacher qualifications and sanitation the curriculum needs to be revamped. Curriculums are more often than not, outdated and irrelevant to the students. More attention must be paid to the specific cultural needs of female students. Students must be taught what is relevant to them and their country instead of learning what is taught in another culture.

As well, many teachers do not have the passion for teaching and are often absent from the classrooms. Better trained teachers who are passionate about teaching and making a difference for girls’ education need to be recruited, (Levine 2006:130). They must encourage gender equality and women’s empowerment and provide role models for young women. Qualified, passionate teachers are the ones who can inspire young girls to take action and become engaged learners.

Governments and international aid agencies must work together to create change, (ibid: 131). Developed countries are often the donors of development projects as the third world does not have the funds or resources to create more schools, or hire better teachers. Simply sending teachers over to third world countries to teach what they teach students in Canada is not the solution. It is imperative that the culture and community is integrated into the curriculum to create a more relevant experience. In order for this to be achieved governments and aid organizations must collaborate to create better educational systems.

Conclusion

Oprah Winfrey once said, “Educating girls can help change the face of a nation,” and she was right, (Anzia 2007). By educating girls in third world countries, girls themselves and their nation will grow. The benefits associated with educating girls and women are tremendous and effective in reducing fertility rates and population growth, improving the health of women and their families, decreasing poverty, and contributing to gross national product. Women are the face of future development. Closing gender gaps and creating equal opportunities for girls and boys will better position the nation for social and economic growth. Girl’s education yields some of the highest returns on development. Not only are the private benefits enormous as personal income and personal health improve, but the social and national benefits of contributing to the economy and the empowerment of women are also vast. Women’s education is the answer to development in the third world. By empowering women, their standards of living will drastically improve in all aspects of their lives.

A 2 (US women vs. Filipino women) X 2 (daughters vs. mothers) ANOVA matched group design with the O’Kelly Women Beliefs Scale (2010) scores as the dependent variable was conducted to study irrational beliefs about traditional feminine gender schema from a Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) perspective (Ellis, 1956) in a sample of Filipino women living in the US. Results indicated significant main effect for cross-cultural differences among the two racial groups, but no significant main effect was found for generational differences among the groups. A Post-hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) performed on the four subscale scores of the OWBS also showed significant differences in Demand with Filipino women scoring higher than their US counterparts, and scores of both groups in Awfulizing, Negative Self-talk/Rating, and Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT) were not significantly different.

Keywords: Filipino women, irrational beliefs, gender schema, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, O’Kelly Women Beliefs Scale

Irrational Beliefs about Traditional Feminine Gender Schema of Filipino Women Living in the United States

This study evaluates the cross-cultural and intergenerational differences among Filipino women and US women living in the United States in regard to their beliefs about the traditional feminine sex role using the O’Kelly Women Beliefs Scale (2010). Several factors of acculturation greatly affect the international migration, economic globalization, and political conflicts that arise in the creation of multicultural societies (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007), that studies regarding this matter are essential in understanding it in a deeper sense.

There is a great quantity of literature regarding feminine topics written within the conceptual scheme of the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy or REBT (Wolfe, 1985; Wolfe & Naimark, 1991). The founding practitioner of REBT, Albert Ellis, developed this form of psychotherapy to assist his clients in the reconstruction of how they perceive their distress by asserting the importance of taking it on with a more ‘philosophical’ outlook. When Ellis changed Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) to its present name of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), he acknowledged the possible odds in using the term “rational” as ideas concerning it may vary across cultures (Ellis, 1999). Ellis always emphasized the importance of taking his clients’ cultural background into consideration when analyzing their viewpoint and attitude towards life. It has been considered that the development of the Women’s Belief Scale coincide with the criteria described by Locksley and Colten (1979), who highlight that the use of a term within a questionnaire involves self-evaluations and supposes comparisons of itself that were not present – like in Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) in the developmental process of the items; this allows a significant effect of measurements on the representation of the feminine gender that provides a distinct point of view of what behaviors are appropriate for females.

The view of woman’s proper place being in the home fulfilling their domesticity, motherhood and pleasing their husbands, isolated from the public world of men did not always dominate the Western culture (O’Kelly, 1980). It was not until the rise of capitalism when independent businessmen could afford to support their dependent wives and children kept within the confines of a private home, that this view of women’s roles started to greatly influence the modern Western culture (O’Kelly, 1980). By the eighteenth century, these roles sporadically spread to the less affluent classes and eventually became the Western ideal for women (O’Kelly, 1980).

In the recent years, with the help of the feminist movement, dramatic changes in the Western social roles expected from women are continuously taking place. Feminists insist that those customary views of women’s roles immensely limit and restrain them from taking their places as full adults in the society (O’Kelly, 1980). However, less developed countries continue to have strict views on the roles of the women in their society and they intend to maintain their cultural beliefs regarding this matter. There are hardly any studies done to examine the influence and effects of these societal roles placed on women from less developed countries, like the Philippines, in their response to acculturation and attitude towards life.

The O’Kelly Women’s Belief Scale was developed within the scheme of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy or REBT, reflecting the process of beliefs about Demand, Awfulizing, Global Rating, Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT) and Negative Self Rating. To develop this scale, 2,562 questionnaires were sent to women that worked in great companies. With the data obtained of 974 questionnaires, the O’Kelly subscales were developed: Demand, Awful, Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT) and Rating, which are irrational nuclear conclusions or beliefs previously mentioned. Each of these scales has internal consistency. The test-retest reliability and validity have been established by the results of a sample that consisted of 285 women, wherein 37 also completed The O’Kelly Women’s Belief Scale a month later.

In the measurement of the irrational thought from an REBT perspective, previous studies (Lega & Ellis, 2001; Kumar, Lega, & Bladiwalla, 2007) indicate cross cultural and generational differences in the samples of USA, Latin America, Europe and India.

Filipino Americans are one of the fastest growing minority groups in the United States as they are the second largest Asian American ethnic group, and the second largest number of immigrants to the United States (Ong & Loksze, 2003). Recent studies suggest that acculturation, changes in attitude or values that result from the contact of one culture with another (Berry, 1997), may have something to do with attitudes towards women (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007). According to Berry (1997), there are four acculturation strategies: separation, marginalization, integration, and assimilation. Separation refers to favoring one’s original culture and refraining from interacting with the host culture, whereas marginalization is when one does not actively maintain either his own original culture or the host culture (Choi & Thomas, 2007). On the other hand, integration refers to favoring one’s own culture while at the same time interacting with the host culture, and assimilation is when one abandons his original culture in favor of the host culture (Choi & Thomas, 2007).

The international relationship between United States and the Philippines has a rich and unique history that has made the Filipinos very well familiar to the American culture that even allowed them to easily adopt the English language, educational institutions, democratic belief system, and faith in the “American Dream” (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007). Most Filipino immigrants arrive in the United States with a vast knowledge about the local culture and the English language (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007). Filipino women living in the US, mostly as immigrants, try to adapt to their host country’s cultural values while striving to preserve their own at the same time. Like other individuals from impoverished nations, especially those who have spent most of their lives in their native countries, Filipinos are also well aware of how difficult it can be to live in a country of limited opportunities like the Philippines. However, like other immigrant groups, they also praise the United States as a land of significant economic opportunity but simultaneously denounce it as a country inhabited by corrupt and individualistic people of questionable morals (Espiritu, 2001).

Parents of first generation Filipino children enforce high expectations especially on their daughters. Espiritu’s interviews suggest that there is an idealized notion of womanhood based on traditional Filipino values and beliefs (Espiritu, 2001). This idealized notion of womanhood is for a woman to think of her family (collective vs. individual values), to gain good education (in order to help better the family), remain chaste, dutiful, and obedient (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994). Older children, girls in particular, are expected to care for their younger siblings and perform household duties even at an early age (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007). Past studies suggest that while the older female is given more responsibilities, privileges are made easily accessible usually to males in the family. Most Filipino women, who participated in past studies, also reported that their parents treated them more strictly while growing up as compared to their brothers (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007). As they grow older, Filipino women are expected to display characteristics of a Maria Clara, or the proper, marriage-minded, Filipino Catholic woman with “good morals” (West, 1992). This stereotyped representation of an ideal Filipino woman continues to exist in the present time. Filipino women were taught and encouraged to be publicly submissive so that it will appear that men are the ones in control (Cimmarusti, 1996). Almirol (1982), a researcher who performed a qualitative study on Filipino American farm laborers from Salinas, California, found that a higher value was placed on males over females and that women were discouraged to display power in public. Scholars have shown that the Maria Clara stereotype is not only used by certain Filipino feminist nationalist, but also by first generation Filipino immigrants (Ignacio, 2000).

Prior researchers show that despite the high cultural expectations enforced on Filipino children by their parents, they appear to have easily assimilated into the American society as the Filipino population in the US has a high rate of college graduates, and most of these graduates are immigrants from the Philippines (Enrile & Agbayani, 2007).

Different perspectives suggest the existence of change and differences in attitudes and interests from one generation to the other, as well as in the cross-cultural factor. This study was conducted in the USA wherein Filipino daughters and mothers, and their counterparts used The O’Kelly Women Belief’s Scale examine the differences in gender roles and the ethno-cultural scheme.

Method
Participants

Two matched groups according to age of daughters (from 17-25 yrs. of age) vs. their mothers (45 – 75 yrs. of age) and culture of origin (70 Filipino vs. 70 USA) living in the USA participated in the study.

Instrument

The O’Kelly Women Beliefs Scale (O’Kelly, 2010) was used. The scale consists of 92 items in which the participant indicated the degree of agreement or disagreement using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This is divided into four subscales: Demand, Awfulizing, Low Frustration Tolerance and Negative Self Rating.

Procedure

The participants completed the questionnaires individually and anonymously. It took approximately 45 minutes to complete. Participants were also advised to refrain from answering the questionnaire with their mother/daughter.

Results

A 2-way ANOVA (culture and generation) with total OWBS scores as the dependent variable showed a significant main effect for Culture, F(1, 140) = 37.681, p < .05. No significant results were found for main effect for Generation, or for the interaction between Culture x Generation (p>.05)

—————————————–

Posthoc (LSD) comparisons between Filipino and US women for all four subscale scores of the OWBS showed significant differences, with Filipino women scoring higher than US women in Demand: F(1, 140) = 5.265, p < .05; scores of both groups in: Awfulizing, Negative Self-talk/Rating, and LFT were not significantly different (p > .05). No significant results were found for Generation, or for the interaction between Culture x Generation (p>.05)

Discussion

As one of the fastest growing groups of Asian immigrants, Filipino immigrants are purposely trying to become part and to develop a positive attitude towards acculturating to the host culture, at least to some extent. However, it is understandable that the process of acculturation have a distinct influence in the immigrants’ viewpoint and attitude towards life.

The results suggest that the overall total scores of US-Filipino compared to US women were higher than the latter. Recent studies might suggest that acculturation may play a part in Filipino women’s irrational beliefs about themselves. A past study on acculturation by Phinney and Flores (2002), affirms that the two dimensions of the phenomenon (mainstream adaptation and ethnic retention) can be independent and have different influences to its outcomes. The results of their study showed that the bicultural (integrated) individual is more likely to be involved in mainstream American society as well as to manifest sex role attitudes closely similar to that of the mainstream, and yet manage to retain their own racial social networks and native language. Later generations of immigrants are also expected to be more prone to changes associated with both dimensions of acculturation; that is, they typically retain less of their ethnic culture and tend to be more accepting of the host culture than earlier generations (Phinney & Flores, 2002). On the other hand, the present study showed no significant effect for generational differences (mother vs. daughter) in either culture (US-Filipino or US women). It was expected that Filipino women would score higher than their US counterparts because of societal expectations and traditional gender schema on women. Filipino women are expected to manifest certain characteristics such as capability of building a family, running the household and responsibility for taking care of others’ need before her own to name a few. Some researchers propose that immigrants do not simply yield their old or native values for new ones, but rather select, and modify to adapt to the new environment (Choi & Thomas, 2007; Buriel, 1993; Mendoza, 1989). Although most Filipino immigrants eventually become accustomed to their new environment, they also retain their traditional cultural traits, beliefs, values, and mores which may result to a conflict in their belief system and a higher level of irrational belief. However, when it comes to Generation, the non-significant differences between Filipino daughters and mothers may be found in that the cultural expectation of both generations (Filipino mothers vs. Filipino daughters) has rooted its ideals from our past generations’ belief as a collective community as opposed to individualistic values. It is an integral characteristic of the ideal Filipino family to have children who highly adhere to the family’s values and principles and to behave according to these passed on standards. Daughters are taught to greatly exhibit the same positive qualities that their mothers’ exhibit and this practice have a substantial influence on the non-significant differences in the point of view of both generations.

In terms of posthoc comparisons, where individual sub scale scores were obtained for Demand, Awfulizing, Negative Self Talk and LFT, a significant effect was only found on Demand of Filipino women vs. US women. This suggests that Filipino women experience higher emotional stress than their US counterparts. First generation immigrants, as they are called, sometimes experience acculturation and cultural pressure to adapt. Cultural adaptation to the host country may suggest conflict with the traditional culture of the heritage country while parents try to raise their children on both cultures. Prior researches show that Filipino immigrants tend to lose their traditional customs and values as they acculturate to ways of life in the United States (Del Prado & Church, 2010). Being torn between adhering to their conservative cultural values and the ability to access the opportunities of their contemporary American culture can create stress and conflict (Napholz & Mo, 2010). The Socio-cultural differences that include the Asian collective culture versus the American individual culture, extended versus dominant nuclear family lifestyle, isolative American lifestyle, women’s roles, communication styles, and child-rearing practices have a vast impact on the Filipino immigrant women’s self-esteem and sense of control over their lives (Napholz & Mo, 2010). As Filipino women become more acculturated to their host country’s cultural values, factors such as their origins, psychosocial and economic stress, as well as their compliance to traditional cultural values may have an influence in the nature and quality of their present lives (McBride, Morioka-Douglas, & Yeo, 1996). High scores on each subscale according to the O’Kelly Women Belief Scales or OWBS (O’Kelly, 2010) suggest that Filipino women have higher irrational beliefs on the traditional feminine gender role as their culture may have manifested on them over the years.

The Demand subscale (element at which people reveal their musts and shoulds) suggests that Filipino women need to reach certain expectations according to their culture. A high score in this subscale suggests that Filipino women, compared to US women strive more to reach expectations set forth by their society as a result from a collectivist point of view. Almost every society has prescribed roles that women and men are expected to satisfy, however the strictness of these standards vary across cultural societies. In the Filipino culture, individuals that belong to the society are expected to respect and conform to the rules of the society as exactly as possible. Deviating from the accepted norms and social roles brings forth unforgiving criticisms not just from the society at large, but by one’s own immediate family as well. A traditional Filipino family is not usually inclined to being tolerant to issues and practices foreign to them, as they believe that everyone should behave according to what is widely accepted. Thus, the process of acculturating to a new culture that has some aspects that conflict with the Filipino culture can be very perplexing and stressful to Filipino women striving to develop positive attitudes toward the process. An example question from this subscale was “I must have a child to be fulfilled”; Filipinos are expected to be capable of building a family and both generations (mother vs. daughter) must reach this expectation as their society and past generations expects them to. This idealized notion of womanhood is for a woman to think of her family (collective vs. individual) (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994) as mentioned came from most of the Oriental culture’s belief of collectivism vs. individualism.

In short, the expectation that Filipino women would score higher than their US counterparts because of societal expectations and traditional gender schema on women was confirmed.

Any of numerous species of insects that live in colonies and manifest three characteristics: group integration, division of labour, and overlap of generations. Social insects are best exemplified by all termites (Isoptera) and ants (Formicidae) and by various bees and wasps (Hymenoptera).

Ant colonies, bird flocks, rain forests, businesses, organizations, communities, the stock market and the global economy all have something in common. They are complex adaptive systems. Complex means composed of many parts which are joined (literally “twisted”) together. Adaptive refers to the fact that all living systems dynamically adapt to their constantly changing environments as they strive to survive and thrive. And systems means everything is interconnected and interdependent.

Unlike nonadaptive complex systems, such as the weather, complex adaptive systems have the ability to internalize information, to learn, and to modify their behavior (evolve) as they adapt to changes in their environments. In other words, they have brains. Examples of complex adaptive systems include:

Social insects are differentiated in structure, function, and behaviour into castes, the major ones being the reproductives (e.g., the queen) and the steriles (workers and soldiers). Besides carrying out the basic function of reproduction, the members of the reproductive caste generally select the site for a new colony and excavate the first galleries.

Social insects (ants, bees, wasps and termites) are among the most diverse and ecologically important organisms on earth. As superorganisms, they live in intricately governed societies that rival our own in complexity and internal cohesion. They are particularly well suited to post-genome era biology because they can be studied at multiple different levels of biological organization, from gene to ecosystem, and much is known about their natural history. The sequencing of the honey bee genome provides additional tools and information that can be used to examine all insect societies.

Animal Behaviour and Sociobiology

The evolution of cooperation and altruism in animal societies is being studied using social insects such as ants, bees and wasps as experimental model systems. Social insects are used because they exhibit the most spectacular examples of cooperation and altruism and because they are easy to manipulate and study. Questions being addressed include how the members of a social insect colony divide labour among themselves, regulate each other’s reproduction, communicate with each other, distinguish their nestmates from non nestmates and how natural selection can lead either to the origin and elaboration or to the loss of sociality. The techniques used include behavioural observations, pheromone extractions and bioassays and the use of microsatellite based molecular markers to estimate genetic relatedness and genetic structure of populations.

Termites

Termite colonies are found in regions of Africa, South America, Australia and the United States. They are social insects but less advanced than ant colonies. Termites are related more to cockroaches.

The termite colony has three classes of individuals and each class includes both sexes. The reproductive class is represented by the king and the queen. These two individuals are locked away in a chamber in the centre of the termite nest.

The queen becomes huge soon after fertilization as her abdomen swells with eggs. She lays these eggs at a rate of several thousand each day throughout her lifetime. The soldiers have enormous heads with powerful jaws. The queen, king and soldiers are fed by the workers.

Termites digest wood and paper. They do great damage to woodwork in houses, as well as to furniture and books. Some species of termites build nests up to 6 metres in height

Social Insects.

The fascination of social insects

The social insects represent one of evolution’s most magnificent, successful, and instructive developments. Ever since the behavior of ants, bees, wasps, and termites was first recorded in antiquity, these insects have exerted a powerful hold on our imaginations.

Three characteristics of social insects account for this interest. The first is the very habit of living in social groups. To biologists, this way of life represents a fascinating evolutionary innovation, yet it also poses a basic dilemma. Contrary to what we may have commonly learned, the essential history of life on Earth has not been the story of the rise and fall of dominant groups of animals like the dinosaurs. Instead, life’s history has been the succession of what evolutionary biologists J. Maynard Smith and E. Szathmary termed “major transitions” in evolution. Without any one of these transitions, living things today would be fundamentally different.

Two of these major transitions are the evolution of sexually reproducing organisms from those that reproduce asexually, and the evolution of multicellular from single-celled organisms. These transitions share a radical reorganization of living matter. In particular, at each transition, existing units coalesced to form larger units. In the process, the original units lost some or all of their power of independent reproduction, and the way genetic information is transmitted was changed. The social insects are the prime examples of the next major transition, from solitary organisms to social organisms. As a result of this change, workers of social insects have largely lost the power of reproducing independently, and genetic information has come to be primarily transmitted from generation to generation via the reproduction of the queens (and kings in termites). Why these workers have foregone their power of reproduction is a basic dilemma that insect sociality poses for biologists.

The second characteristic of social insects, which explains why they command attention, is their overwhelming numerical and ecological dominance. Ants, for example, occur from the Arctic tundra to the lower tip of South America. They swarm in diverse habitats, ranging from desert to rainforest, and from the depths of the soil to the heights of the rainforest canopy. The abundance and ubiquity of social insects give them an ecological importance that is unmatched among land-dwelling invertebrates.

The third and final fascinating characteristic of social insects is the way in which they perform work. Clearly, social insects carry out cooperative tasks, such as building nests, with results that are stunningly complex and precise. Termites build nests that are towering hills of red clay, with intricate internal architecture designed to maintain a cool, stable interior. The nests of honey bees house waxen combs composed of thousands of exquisitely arrayed hexagonal cells. Social wasps construct nests in which parallel tiers of cells are enclosed within a delicate paper globe.

These nest forms point to the ability of social insects to achieve, as a collective, impressive feats of architectural complexity. However, biologists have long puzzled over how social insects complete these complex tasks as a group when individual workers frequently strike us as inept. “It seems to me that in the matter of intellect the ant must be a strangely overrated thing,” wrote Mark Twain after watching the fumbling meanderings of a worker carrying a grasshopper’s leg back to its nest. The ant’s seemingly unnecessary scaling of an obstacle was, Twain went on to say, “as bright a thing to do as it would be for me to carry a sack of flour from Heidelberg to Paris by way of Strasburg steeple.” In this chapter, we first review some basic biology of social insects, then consider the three principal characteristics of social insects in turn.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN SOCIAL INSECTS
Introduction

It wasn’t so long ago that the waggledance of the honey bee, the nest-building of the social wasp, and the construction of the termite mound were considered a somewhat magical aspect of nature. How could these seemingly uncommunicative, certainly very simple creatures be responsible for such epic feats of organisation and creativity? Over the last fifty years biologists have unravelled many of the mysteries surrounding social insects, and the last decade has seen an explosion of research in fields variously referred to as Collective Intelligence, Swarm Intelligence and emergent behaviour. Even more recently the swarm paradigm has been applied to a broader range of studies, opening up new ways of thinking about theoretical biology, economics and philosophy. It turns out that not only might we, as multi-cellular organisms, be composed of swarms, but so could our societies, economies and perhaps even our minds. In this essay I will outline three of the most promising areas of social insect-inspired AI: ant-based search algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimisation and swarm robotics, and hopefully provide an insight into how these studies have grown out of a small niche of A-life research into an all-encompassing new way of thinking.

In the Beginning

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989) is widely credited as being the father of ethology, the study of animal behaviour, with his early work on imprinting and instinctive behaviour, however it might be argued that an even earlier pioneer of the field was a South African, Eugene Marais (1872-1936). Marais was a brilliant man – poet, writer, lawyer, psychologist and naturalist. He made ground-breaking studies into societies of wild apes a full sixty years before any other. He also studied termites, known in his day as white ants, publishing articles as early as 1925. In 1937 a book, The Soul of the White Ant[1] was published posthumously in which he described in painstaking detail the resemblance between the processes at work within termite society to the workings of the human body. He regarded red and white soldiers as analogous to blood cells, the queen as the brain and the termites’ mating flight in which individuals from separate termitaries leave to produce new colonies as exactly equivalent to the movement of sperm and ova.

Like many geniuses, Marais’ life ended in tragedy. A spiralling drug addiction and depression was worsened when in 1927, a Belgian author, Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949) published The Life of the White Ant[2] which was largely plagiarised from Marais’ articles. In 1936, Marais committed suicide. The full text of The Soul of the White Ant is available on the web, and is well worth looking at since the implications of his insights have yet to be fully understood.

Stigmergy: Invisible Writing

Although Marais had created a detailed document on termites, he was unaware of the mechanics of termite communication. How is it that a group of tiny, short-sighted, simple individuals are able to create the grand termite mounds, sometimes as high as six metres, familiar to inhabitants of dry countries? The answer to this question was first documented by the French biologist, Pierre-Paul Grasse in his 1959 study of termites[3]. Grasse noted that termites tended to follow very simple rules when constructing their nest:

First, they simply move around at random, dropping pellets of chewed earth and saliva on any slightly elevated patches of ground they encounter. Soon small heaps of moist earth form.

These heaps of salivated earth encourage the termites to concentrate their pellet-dropping activity and soon the biggest heaps develop into columns which will continue to be built until a certain height, dependent on the species, is reached.

Finally, if a column has been built close enough to other columns, one other behaviour kicks in: the termites will climb each column and start building diagonally towards the neighbouring columns.

Obviously, this does not tell the whole story but a key concept in the collective intelligence of social insects is revealed: the termites’ actions are not coordinated from start to finish by any kind of purposive plan, but rather rely on how the termite’s world appears at any given moment. The termite does not need global knowledge or any more memory than is necessary to complete the sub-task in hand, it just needs to invoke a simple behaviour dependent on the state of its immediate environment. Grasse termed this stigmergy, meaning ‘incite to work’, and the process has been observed not just in termites, but also in ants, bees, and wasps in a wide range of activities.

The application of stigmergy to computation is surprisingly straightforward. Instead of applying complex algorithms to static datasets, through studying social insects we can see that simple algorithms can often do just as well when allowed to make systematic changes to the data in question.

Self Organisation

Moving earth around is only one of many ways in which social insects communicate through their environment. Another famous example of stigmergy is pheromonal communication, whereby ants engaging in certain activities leave a chemical trail which is then followed by their colleagues.

This ability of ants to collectively find the shortest path to the best food source was studied by Jean-Louis Deneubourg[4], when he demonstrated how the Argentine ant was able to successfully choose the shortest of two paths to a food source. Deneubourg was initially interested in self organisation, a concept which until then had been the fare of chemists and physicists seeking to explain the natural order occurring in physical structures such as sand dunes and animal patterns.

A self organising (SO) system is any dynamic system from which order emerges entirely as a result of the properties of individual elements in the system, and not from external pressures. The classic example of SO is Benard cellular convection, named after the French scientist who discovered it. A Benard cell consists, very simply, of a layer of fluid which is heated from below. Under the right circumstances, a perfect vertical temperature gradient is set up within the fluid, causing the system to become ‘top heavy’, with warmer molecules at the bottom compelled to rise to the top. You might expect the liquid to simply bubbling away with no pattern or organisation, but instead an ordered system is formed. Millions of molecules self organise into a hexagonal pattern, something like a honeycomb, which enables the most efficient convection for energy-dissipation.

Deneubourg saw the potential for this concept, which by 1989 had turned into a sizeable research project amongst physicists, to be applied to biology. In his experiment, a group of ants are offered two branches leading to the same food source, one longer than the other. Initially, there is a 50% chance of an ant choosing either branch, but gradually more and more journeys are completed on the shorter branch than the longer one, causing a denser pheromone trail to be laid. This consequently tips the balance and the ants begin to concentrate on the shorter route, discarding the longer one. This is precisely the mechanism underpinning an ant colony’s ability to efficiently exploit food sources in sequential order: strong trails will be established to the nearest source first, then when it is depleted and the ants lose interest, the trails leading to the next nearest source will build up

Bees and Social Insects

1. Definition of Eusociality

Many animals live together as a group, but they are not necessarily social (e.g. a school of fish) because there is a very precise definition when it comes ot sociality. True sociality (eusociality) is defined by three features: 1). There is cooperative brood-care so it is not each one caring for their own offspring, 2). There is an overlapping of generations so that the group (the colony) will sustain for a while, allowing offspring assist parents during their life, and 3). That there is a reproductive division of labor, i.e. not every individual reproduces equally in the group, in most cases of insects, this means there is one or a few reproductive(s) (“queen”, or “king”), and workers are more or less sterile.

2. Degrees of sociality

Obviously not all insects are eusocial. Michener (1969) provided some other classifications of various stages of social insects:

Solitary: showing none of the three featured we mentioned above (most insects)

Subsocial: the adults care for their own young for some period of time (cockroaches)

Communal: insects use the same composite nest without cooperation in brood care (digger bees)

Quasisocial: use the same nest and also show cooperative brood care (Euglossine bees)

Semisocial: in addition to the features in quasisocial, also has a worker caste (Halictid bees)

Eusocial: in addition to the features of semisocial, there is overlap in generations (Honey bees).

3. A survey of eusocial animals

Eusociality was considered extremely rare in the whole animal kingdom, and even in insects it was only found in Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps) and Isoptera (termites). However, recently this has expanded to a few more groups: in gall aphids (Homoptera) there are sterile soldiers who would sacrifice their lives to their clone sisters who can reproduce, so they are considered eusocial because these soldiers do not reproduce while others do. This is also the case for social thrips that are gall-forming (Thysanoptera). In 1992 a social weevil ( Austroplatypus incompertus, Curculionidae Coleoptera).was discovered. In non-insects, eusociality only appeared twice: in a mammal and a marine animal. Naked mole rats live in complex underground tunnel systems in Africa and animals in the same nest are closely related, only one female (the queen) reproduces, although workers, normally sterile, can ovulate when removed from the nest, presumably due a lack of inhibition from the queen. Snapping shrimp (Synalpheus regalis) lives inside sponges and each ‘colony’ has 200-300 individuals, but only one queen reproduces, again the caster is probably not fixed – the workers remain totipotent and can potentially become a queen when the queen shrimp is removed.

The table below summarizes the above information. Notice that “the number of times eosociality has evolved” does not mean the number of cases of eusociality (there would be tens of thousands if so, because there are about 9 thousand species, of ants alone). Instead it means how many times it has independently evolved (for example, there are 9 species of honey bees, if all of them shared a common eusocial ancestor, it would be considered to be evolved once here, actually you trace back to the lower branch of the taxonomic tree, and count only once at the lowest level).

4. Evolution of sociality

How could eusociality evolve? Darwin, in his “Origin of Species” (1859) thought that sterile workers in a bee colony, being unable to transmit their genes, represent a special challenge to his theory of natural selection. This is because natural selection depends on the transmission of ‘traits’ that convey selective advantages to the individuals, and these traits have to be determined genetically (so they are heritable). If workers are sterile, how can they transmit the “helping traits” to the next generation?

4.1. Genetic explanations

This problem continued to trouble biologists until William Hamilton (1964) found an ingenious way to explain how a trait can be inherited without direct reproduction. Hamilton introduced a brave new concept, ‘inclusive fitness’, which basically says someone could still have a reproductive fitness, even if he/she has no direct offspring. This is while the ‘traditional fitness’ only count how many children one has, but inclusive fitness takes account of all others who share genes with the person (or animal). For example, I should share approximately 50% of gene with my full brother, therefore if I decide not to marry and have kids, but I help my brother to raise 4 children, it is equivalent to myself having two children. This inclusion of anyone elses’ fitness, who shares common genes by descent, factored by a coefficient of relatedness, is called inclusive fitness. Therefore although workers do not reproduce, if they share genes with their mother (the queen) to raise more sisters (future queens), their genes would be transmitted too, to the next generation.

In fact in honey bees and other hymenoptera, the relatedness among sisters are higher than among other animals. This is because of the haplo-diploidy sex determination: drone develop from unfertilized eggs and carry one copy of chromosomes (haploid) from their mother only (no father), while females are fertilized and carry two copies of chromosomes (diploid). Haploid drones do not have the complimentary copy of genes to do exchange (across the two copies of genes, alleles), so all the sperms produced by a single drone are identical (clones), if not considering newly produced mutations. Assume the queen is mated only to one drone (which is not true, we will come back to this point later), then all her daughters will share 50% genes from the father (since they are all the same), but 25% of their genes from the mother. The coefficient of relatedness among the offspring is therefore 0.75 (1?0.5 + 0.5*0.5). This is much higher than the 0.5 for sister-sister in a diploid organism (such as humans). The workers who share the same father and mother, are therefore also called ‘super-sisters’ because of this higher relatedness. This theory of one can pass genes through relatives and gain fitness is called ‘kin selection’.

Hamilton postulated that because supersisters share 75% of their genes, it is actually a better deal to be a worker, to whom, a new queen would have 75% of genes by common descent with her, whereas from the queen’s point of view, she only transmitted 50% of her genes to the new queen. In this sense, the inclusive fitness is actually higher for the sterile worker sisters, than for the fertile mother. Further, Hamilton argued that haplodiploidy must have played an important role in the evolution of sociality because it occurred 11 times in Hymenoptera, but much fewer times in other organisms combined. Note at that time the only other eusocial organisms are termites. Among the recently discovered social animals, thrips also have haplodiploidy as in hymenopteran insects.

One difficulty with the above argument is that the honey bee queen actually mates with more than one male (drone), in some cases as many as more than 30 drones, because half-sisters (workers who share the same mother, but fathered by different males) are only related to one another by 0.25 (0*0.5+0.5*0.5) the average relatedness among the workers in such a colony is close to the average between 0.75 and 0.25, which is 0.5, not different from other diploid organisms. Of course, one could argue that multiple mating is adaptive for other reasons, and arose AFTER sociality has been evolved.

While the genetic system might predispose some organisms to have eusociality, it is easy to see that haplodiploidy is neither necessary (since there are other non-haplodiploid organisms being eusocial), nor sufficient (since not every species in Hymenopetera is eusocial). It is easy to see though, that eusociality can evolve easier in groups within which individuals are highly related, either due to haplodiploidy, or due to mating systems. In both termites and the naked mole rats, animals within a group are all highly related, perhaps due to inbreeding, although it is known in named mole rats, some males would migrate to other nests to accomplish periodic outcrossing, which might be necessary to reduce the cost of inbreeding. In aphids, all colony members are ‘clones’ because the mother can reproduce asexually (parthenogenesis). However, the marine shrimps do not show high degrees of inbreeding.

4.2. Ecological considerations

There appear to be common ecological features for other eusocial animals other than hymenoptera. For example, for newly discovered aphids, thrips, beetles and shrimps, they all have a commonly held, valuable resource (nest mounds, galls, or sponges). Queller and Strassmann (1998) distinguish these eusociality (fortress defenders) from the ‘life insurers”, in which cooperation creates benefits mainly through reducing the risk of reproductive failure (most Hymenoptera). Crespi (1994) argued that three conditions are sufficient to explain occurrences of eusociality for the fortress defenders. The first is the food and shelter are in enclosed habits, representing higly valuable and long lasting resources. Because of the high value of the resources, there should be strong competition for these resources. Lastly, because of the competition, selection should promote effective defense among the organisms. This has been shown to be true for aphids, thrips and shrimps. Interestingly, in shrimps the non-reproducing soldiers are mostly male, perhaps because they have larger claws and would better suit the job. Contrast this with males in Hymenoptera societies, their other name ‘drone’ suggest laziness and they do not perform work in the colony, perhaps because of their lack of weapon (no sting).

4.3. Life history considerations

Because one criteria for eusociality is overlap in generations, parental care has been recognized as an important prerequisite for eusociality. Other traits, such as high adult mortality (e.g. foraging honey bees only survives 7-10 days), long periods of offspring dependence (21 days development for honey bee workers), and delayed age of reproduction, can favor the development of helpers. More recent studies in marine shrimps suggest that mutualistic interactions and restricted dispersal can also foster evolution of sociality.

References for further reading:

Crespi, B. J. 1992 Eusociality in Australian gall thrips. Nature 359:724-726.

Crespi, B.J. 1994. Three conditions for the evolutions of eusociality: are they sufficient? Insectes Soc. 41: 395-400.

Duffy, J. E. 1996. Eusociality in a coral-reef shrimp. Nature 381:512-514. See also

Ito, Y. 1989. The evolutionary biology of sterile soldiers in aphids. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4:69-73.

Ito, Y. 1994. A new epoch in joint studies of social evolution: molecular and behavioural ecology of aphid soldiers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:363-365.

Kent, D. S., and J. A. Simpson 1992. Eusociality in the beetle Austroplatypus incompertus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Naturwissenschaften 79:86-87.

Jarvis,JUM 1981 Eusociality in a mammal: Cooperative breeding in naked mole-rat colonies. Science 212, 571-573.

Queller D.C; Strassmann, J.E. 1998. Kin selection and social insects: social insects provide the most surprising predictions and satisfying tests of kin selection. Bioscience. 48,165-175

Rypstra, A. L. 1993. Prey size, social competition, and the development of reproductive division of labor in social spider groups. American Naturalist 142:868-880.

Strassman, J. E., Z. Zhu, and D. C. Queller 2000. Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostlium discoideum. Nature 408:965-967.

INTRODUCTION

A group is defined by Ivancevich et al (2008) as “two or more individuals interacting with each other to accomplish a common goal”. Groups are important aspect of work pattern of an organization (Mullins 2002) and a part of modern life (Ivancevich et al 2008). A group can be formal or informal (Armstrong 2009). Informal groups according to Newstrom (2007:277) “Are established by the organization and have a public identity and goal to achieve while formal groups emerge on the sense of common interest, proximity and friendship”. Informal groups are set up by the organization in other to achieve organizational goals while formal groups are set up by individuals for the purpose of satisfying the needs of its members (Armstrong 2009). The group used for the purpose of this study is the formal groups. This study will analyze the impact the group has on the individual, factors affecting the behavior of the individual, human relations theory and the factors affecting the behavior and performance of the individual in the group.

IMPACT OF THE GROUP ON THE INDIVIDUAL

The performance of a group depends on how well its members engage in communication with each other or interacts with each other and also on how the individual learns in the group (Mullins 2002). Mullins (2002:465) argues that “how people behave and perform as members of a group is as important as their behavior or performance as individuals”. Usually, lack of interaction between the individual and members of the group will have effect on the performance of the group as well as the individual in the group and result to lack of satisfaction for the individual (Mullins 2002). It is believed that the group generates better ideas than the individual does, by drawing resources from individual members of the group (brainstorming), the group thereby brings in more ideas and input into decision process than a single person can (Robbins 2001).

In one of my experiences in a group I learnt that groups can be rewarding to the individual because an individual can actually learn from other members of the group. I joined a decoration group in my church and we were told to decorate the church for a program, we all had our ideas on how we want the decoration to look like but instead of pursuing personal goals we brought our ideas together and we came up with a better idea and I also learnt things I did not know before, also I found the experience challenging because I had to think beyond what I know in other to be able to contribute but at the end I left with more knowledge than I went in with.

It is also believed; however, that group ideas can hinder creative thinking, in other words, individuals will ignore their idea in other to conform to the idea of the group (Mullins 2002). For example, as a member of a group of four in one of my classes in Salford University, we were asked to solve a particular question, we were different people with different beliefs, attitudes, perception, culture and behavior, however, three out of four were in agreement but one particular person in the group had a different idea from what the rest of us had and was trying so hard to convince us which was impossible because it was one against three, in other to avoid conflict the individual had to ignore the idea and agree with that of the group.

Groups bind the individual and members of the group in togetherness and in other to be in togetherness, individuals have to see themselves as members of the group and not isolate themselves in other for them to achieve the goal of the group and also to meet their needs (Robbins 2001). Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) discussed the work of Tayfel and Tunner (1986) who argued that “as long as individuals see themselves as more important than the group the group cannot function effectively”. However, It is believed that individuals have different needs or reasons for joining or been in a group and it can be the need to fulfill social needs, achieve group goals or to derive greater economic benefits or for social security reasons, which is believed that groups can serve as a medium of meeting these needs of the individual (Ivancevich et al 2008) and in other to remain a member of the group and to meet these needs the individual must set aside their personal goal to achieve the group’s goal ( Newstrom 2007).

FACTORS AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR

There are different types of ways of explaining the behavior of the individual in a group; they are Perception, Attribution, Orientation, Role and branded rationality (Armstrong 2009).

Perception is one way of explaining the behavior of an individual in a group. Perception according to Maund (2001: pg 444) is “the process by which individuals interpret sensory impression so that they can assign meaning to it”. Perception is when an individual gives meaning or interprets the things happening around them and people tend to perceive situation that satisfies needs, emotions, attitudes or their self concept (Ivancevich et al 2008). Members of a group can see the same thing or be in the same situation but their interpretation of the situation will be different from each other based on how they see it (Mullins 2007).

Attribution according to Luthans (2002:197) refers to “how people explains the cause of another’s or their behavior”. Attribution can be the way people interpret the situation they are in (Armstrong 2009). Attribution can lead to conflict in a group because the way one person see things (perception) may not be the same way another sees the same thing (Armstrong 2009). While Orientation can be said to be an individuals attempt to make sense of life which can be different from that of the group (Armstrong 2009).

Role is the part played by the individual in caring out their duties (Armstrong 2009). There is a particular role expected from the members of the group once they have lived to the expectation of the role then it is believed they have performed their role successfully and it is believed that this role shapes the individuals behavior (Armstrong 2009). While branded rationality can be said to be the ways individuals understands how complicated the situation they are in is and their reaction to the situation limits the way they behave rationally (Armstrong 2009).

Huczynski and Buchanan (2005:279) discuss the work of Marion Hampton (1999)who argues that “groups are seen as taking over the individuals mind, depressing intelligence, eliminating moral responsibility and forcing conformity, they can cause their members a great deal of suffering and despair and can perpetuate acts of cruelty”. There are various factors affecting the individual in the group, But before explaining that we are going to analyze a theory that explains what effect a group has on the individual.

HAWTHORNE’S THEORY (Human relations approach)

The theory that explains the effect of groups on the individual’s behavior and performance is the Hawthorne experiment of the human relations theory written by Elton Moyo (Mullins 2002). The experiment is called the bank wiring observation room experiment; the experiment was carried out on 14 men who were organized into three subgroups which contained three wires, a supervisor and an inspector that moved around the group (Moorhead and Griffin 1995). After the study there were two major findings;

The level of interaction that was observed among the men showed the existence of informal groups within the three groups and,
It was also revealed that these groups develop norms or rules that guides behavior and also set structures to enforce the rules (Moorhead and Griffin 1995)

The hawthorns researcher found that the group established a level of output for its members (Mullins 2002). They found out that the group did not produce up to what they are capable of producing; they produced below their capability which had effect on their earning because their output was low(Moor head and Griffin 1995). The group produced a specific level of output for its members which are the only accepted level of production, in other to be accepted the individual has to slow down production when getting close to the accepted level of production in other not to over produce (Moorhead and Griffin 1995).

Moorhead and Griffin (1995) discuss the work of Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) who points out that “The social organization of the bank wiremen performed a twofold function which is to protect the group from internal indiscretions and to protect the group from outside interference”. Moorhead and Griffin (1995) also points out that almost all the activities carried out by the group can be said to be a means of controlling the behavior of its members. The research shows that peer pressure has more effect on the individual than things that may encourage the individual and forces of control or orders from management, individuals would rather do things required by the group than doing things that would encourage or reward their actions (Mullins 2002). This theory shows how working in a group can be both challenging an rewarding for the individuals which leads us to the factors affecting the performance and behavior of the individual in the group.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE IN THE GROUP
Group norms

Norms according to Greenberg and Baron (2008) can be defined as “the generally agreed upon informal rules that guides the behavior of the members in a group”. Norms influence group behavior and refer to what should be done and also represents value judgment and appropriate behavior in social situations (Psyblog 2010). Norms are of great importance to groups in controlling behavior and in measuring performance (Hanh 2007). Groups have norms that are set to guide member’s behavior (Greenberg and Baron 2008) and also to reduce ambiguity in terms of behavior that are of importance to the group (Rollinson 2005). Norms are set up in groups which the individual must conform with and groups have ways of making the individual conform to such norms (Rollinson 2005). Norms keeps the group functioning as a system instead of as a collection of individuals and members of the group come together to achieve a common goal instead of pursing individual groups (Hanh 2007). Groups do not set rules or norm for every situation but only set rules for situations that are of importance to the members of the group which could be in relation to their job or how they communicate with each other or with others outside the group (Hanh 2007).

Group norms makes life predictable, individuals know what is expected of them, know their roles and how much time to spend in the execution of their job, know the values and beliefs and the image of the group, and subscribe to the norms of the group (Rollinson 2005). Norms are usually assessed to know if group members are interacting with each other which can be rewarding and which gives the individuals a sense of belonging (Heathfield 2010). Group members come together to develop the group norms which gives the individual a feeling of belonging, sense of identity and feelings of security because they were part of the making of the rules (Brooks 2005). Norms are believed to be of importance because some members may harm the project or the success of the group with their behavior or action unintentionally but if there is agreed upon framework of interaction, misunderstandings and negative conflicts in the group can be prevented (Heathfield 2010).

However, group norms can have negative effect on the individual (Armstrong 2009). According to Psyblog (2010) who argues that “groups rarely come up with great ideas because the individual in them are powerfully shaped by group norms and the rules of what people are and how they must behave” it is believed that changes are hard to spot unless they are carefully measured, individuals deny their own beliefs, ideas and senses just to conform with the groups even if they are wrong (Psyblog 2010).it is believed that, Norms serves as a form of constraint to the individuals, it hinders them from thinking freely because they would not want to think outside the group norms or the group’s way of doing things, individuals can not pursue their personal goal, can not see things from their point of view because it might clash with the goals of the group (Psyblog 2010).

Social Support

Social support according to Dalgard (2009) is “receiving help from other people when in need of help”. An individual can receive support among groups of people who have a similar problem to what they have and in their relationship with others be it their family or friends (Curtis 2009). Curtis (2009) argues that” if you have a support network you will not feel as alone; you will learn new ways to deal with your problem and may try harder to overcome it”. Group members can serve as as a source of support, advice and encouragement to an individual facing any difficulty and also the individual can be a source of support to the group (Curtis 2009).

Individuals in a group can benefit from the members of the group while members who are not part of the group cannot enjoy such benefits, having friends to talk with, to gain insight from, to listen to during times of need or borrow money from, all this are forms of support (Scott 2007). Social support makes the individual safe and gives them a feeling of being loved and cared for (Rollinson 2005). In one of my experience when I was writing my final dissertation for my bachelor degree, I wrote on the societal support for the elderly people in my community and I had the privilege working with the elderly people in that community and I found out that most of them lack social support from their family and friends, in other to feel loved, feel secure or have a feeling that they belong they had to join a group with the believe that the group would be able to meet their needs.

Peer Pressure

Peer pressure is another factor that has effect on the behavior of the individual in the group. Peer pressure is when other people impose pressure on a person (Nemours 2010). Peers have influence over others, by listening to other people a person learns from them and they also learn from the individual (Nemours 2010). Some individuals usually join groups in other to fit in, so in other to fit in the individual goes along with the idea of the group and sets aside their idea and go along with the group’s idea to avoid being bullied by the other members of the group (Nemours 2010). However, peer pressure can have a positive impact on the individual because it can push the individual into doing the things they have no courage of doing or talking the individual out of doing things that’s not in their best interest (Wilmer 2010).

Individual Accountability

Individual accountability can be defined as “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for ones action” (McDaniel 2007). Individual accountability is a foundational component as it evaluates an individual core competence, strength and weaknesses (McDaniel 2007). It’s the individual taking responsibility for their action in carrying out their duty or them being accountable for their duties (McDaniel 2007). The individual must be accountable for achieving its goal and for its contribution to the group, individual accountability occurs when performance is assessed and the result are given back to the group and the individual in other to ascertain who needs more support, encouragement and assistance (Cooperate learning center 2009). Accountability is not to punish mistake or to generate immediate result but to ensure the individual gives all their best in the achievement of goals and behaving responsible to one another (Luthans 2002). By empowering them over job performance and then holding them accountable for the outcomes (Newstrom 2007).

Conflict

Rollinson (2005:401) defines conflict as “the behavior of an individual or a group when purposely sets to block or inhibit another group or individual from achieving its goals”. Competition is one of the main causes of conflict in a group, when the members of a group are in competition against each other it can lead to conflicting interest (Rollonson 2005). Some groups encourage competition because they believe that when members of the group compete against each other it will result to successful performance or quick performance but mostly it might lead to conflict (Rollinson 2005). However, Vodosek (2007) argues that “Researchers have noted that high level of task conflict can lead to reduced member satisfaction and commitment to the group”

Individual have different interest, skills, personality and attributes which may act as cohesion or a clash in the group (Brooks 2009). Some individuals tend to work towards achieving personal goals by doing so they tend to ignore the goals of the group and focus more on achieving their personal goals which might lead to conflict in the group (Newstrom 2007).

CONCLUSION

It can be assumed that, groups have both positive and negative effect on the individual, and for the individual, being a member of a group can be rewarding as well as challenging as working alone. Working alone as an individual might lead to a quick decision making but working in a group can lead to a more effective decision making, because it is a group of people with different ideas, perception, attributes and behavior coming together to form the group (Rollinson 2001), also the individual can also learn from the other members of the group. However, it is believed that there is no ideal individual for a particular job, that no individual can have all the necessary qualities needed for a job but a group of individuals can, and when they come together with their different qualities it can lead to a successful decision making (Antony Jay, cited by Mullins 2002).

REFERENCES
Armstrong, M. (2009) Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 9th edn, Kogan Page, London.
Brooks, I. (2009) Organizational Behavior: Individual, Groups and Organisation, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Cooperative Learning Center (2009) “Cooperative Learning” Co-operation.org www.co-operation.org/pages/cl.html#accountability [Accessed 10/03/2010].
Curtis, J. (2010) “Support groups and social support” Yahoo.com health.yahoo.com/mentalhealth-treatment/support-groups-and-social-support/healthwise-ug4350spec.html [Accessed 11/03/2010].
Dalgard, O.S. (2009) “Social Support: Definition and Scope” Euphix.org www.euphix.org/object_document/o5479n27411.html [15/03/2010].
Elizabeth Scott, M.S (2007) “Social Support: The How’s and Whys of Cultivating a circle of friends” About.com Guide stress.about.com/od/relationships/a/circleoffriends.htm [11/03/2010].s
Greenberg, J., Baron, R.A. (2008) Behavior in Organizations, 9th edn, Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Hahn, M. (2007) “Group norms in organizations” ArticleGratuits.com www.en.articlesgratuits.com/group-norms-in-organizations-id1546.php [15/03/2010].
Heathfield, S.M. (2010) “How to develop group norms” About.com Guide humanresources.about.com/od/teambuilding/ht/group_norms.htm [15/03/2010].
Huczynski, A. A., Buchanan, D.A. (2007) Organizational Behavior, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Ivancevich, J M, Konopaske, R, Matteson, M T (2008) Organizational Behavior and Management, 8th edn, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Newyork.
Luthans, L. (2002) Organizational Behavior, 9th edn, McGraw-Hill, Newyork.
Maund, L. (2001) Introduction to Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, Palgrove, London.
McDaniel, D. (2007) “How Important is Individual Accountability” www.everyjoe.com/articles/how-important-is-individual-accountability-198/ [Accessed 10/03/2010]
Moorhead, G. Griffin, R.W. (1995) Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizationa, 4th edn, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Mullins, L. J. (2002) Management and Organizational Behavior, 6th edn, Pearson, Harlow
Nemours (2010) “Dealing with peer pressure” Kidshealth.org kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/emotion/peer_pressure.html [13/03/2010]
Newstrom, J. W. (2007) Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work, 12th edn, McGraw-Hill, Newyork.
Psyblog (2010) “Why group norms kill creativity, Spring.org.uk” www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/why-group-norms-kill-creativity.php [Accessed 11/03/2010].
Robbins, S.P (2001) Organizational Behavior, 9th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Rollinson, D. (2005) Organisational Behaviour Analysis: An integrated Approach, 3rd edn, Pearson Education, Harlow.
Vodosek, M. (2007) Intergroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group, International Journal of Conflict Management, Volume 18, Issue 4
Wilmer, D. (2010) “The difference between negative and positive peer pressure” About.com Guide parentingteens.about.com/cs/peerpressure/a/peer_pressure.htm [Accessed 23/03/2010].