Gender & Relationships - E. Maccoby
Maccoby, E. (1990) Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, v43(4) 513-520
Abstract: This article argue that behavioral differentiation of the sexes is minimal when children are observed or tested individually. Sex differences emerge primarily in social situations, and their nature varies with the gender composition of dyads and groups. Children find same-sex play partners more compatible, and they segregate themselves into same-sex groups, in which distinctive interaction styles emerge. These styles are described. As children move into adolescence, the patterns they developed in their childhood same-sex groups are carried over into cross-sex encounters in which girls' styles put them at a disadvantage. Patterns of mutual influence can become more symmetrical in intimate male-female dyads, but the distinctive styles of the two sexes can still be seen in such dyads and are subsequently manifested in the roles and relationships of parenthood. The implications of these continuities are considered.
Main points:
This article points out the failings of the "individual differences" perspective with respect to gender studies. There has been a great volume of work in this area but the end result remains relatively thin and somewhat inconclusive. Maccoby points out that this is because the "individual differences" perspective does not account for the social aspect of gender enactment. She also provides some interesting, now well known evidence for this:
1. When children were observed and assessed in terms of individual differences, there was no overall sex difference in the amount of social behavior. However, once each behavior was evaluated when taking into account the social situation - i.e. the gender of the partner with whom the child was playing - children of each sex had much higher levels of social behavior when playing with a same-sex partner than when playing with a child of the other sex. In fact, children as young as four have been observed to indicate not only awareness of gender similarity or difference, but also wariness toward the other sex (see Wasserman & Stern, 1978).
2. The number of times the child simply stood passively watching the partner play was also scored in one of Maccoby's studies. They found no OVERALL sex difference in the frequency of this behavior. However, the behavior of girls was affected by the sex of the partner. With other girls, passive behavior rarely occured. In fact in girl-girl pairs this behavior occurred LESS than in boy-boy pairs. BUT when girls were paired with boys, girls very often let boys monopolize the toys. SO it wasn't that the girls were just generally more passive than boys, but there was a social interaction that brought this type of behavior.
this is important - this means that when considering dyadic friendship pairs it is very important to look at the interaction of partner gender categories
3. Another study illustrated that gender preferences, in fact, preferences for same-sex partners was evident as early as 4 years of age and increased substantially as time progressed (final measurement at 6.5)
There is also evidence that not only is gender-segregation a widespread phenomenon in nearly all cultures where children are permitted a choice. Sex differences in performance are present or much larger when social situations are taking into account than when they are simply considered as individual differences. AND the preference for same sex partners is actually very difficult to change in children. This gender segregation is spontaneous and observed in situations that are less rather than more structured by adults. These sex preferences do not seem to be linked to gender-typed activities, but the preference persisits and can be observed at a very high level in children as old as 11.
Why does this happen?
1. boys seem to be more oriented towards rough-and-tumble play and issues of competition and dominance. These aspects of interaction are consistently observed in male-male pairs.
2. girls find it difficult to influence boys. Between ages 3 and 5 children greately increase the frequency with which they try to influence their pay partners - it is a learning process of social coordination (see Serbin, Sprafkin, Elman & Doyle, 1984). The latter study found that while girls attempt to influence through making suggestions, while boys try to influence in the form of direct demands and responded less and less to suggestions.
While girls' influence style was effective with each other and with teachers and adults, it was less and less effective with boys. These findings were replicated in studies of 33-month-old children (2.5-3 yrs old)
Why this happens? Despite all the research we do not know. Yes we can use cultural explanations or social influence and reinforcement explanations. But these differences occur far too early for these explanations to really hold. We might have to admit here that we don't know.
hmm interesting, this is a pointer to some kind of evolutionary genetic coding above all else. i wonder...
the article goes on to make a number of other fascinating observations related to youth and adults, supporting a similar thesis. most important for me - look at gender/partner interactions when talking about closeness and support because changes in comm styles can differ in same-sex and cross-sex dyads!
Abstract: This article argue that behavioral differentiation of the sexes is minimal when children are observed or tested individually. Sex differences emerge primarily in social situations, and their nature varies with the gender composition of dyads and groups. Children find same-sex play partners more compatible, and they segregate themselves into same-sex groups, in which distinctive interaction styles emerge. These styles are described. As children move into adolescence, the patterns they developed in their childhood same-sex groups are carried over into cross-sex encounters in which girls' styles put them at a disadvantage. Patterns of mutual influence can become more symmetrical in intimate male-female dyads, but the distinctive styles of the two sexes can still be seen in such dyads and are subsequently manifested in the roles and relationships of parenthood. The implications of these continuities are considered.
Main points:
This article points out the failings of the "individual differences" perspective with respect to gender studies. There has been a great volume of work in this area but the end result remains relatively thin and somewhat inconclusive. Maccoby points out that this is because the "individual differences" perspective does not account for the social aspect of gender enactment. She also provides some interesting, now well known evidence for this:
1. When children were observed and assessed in terms of individual differences, there was no overall sex difference in the amount of social behavior. However, once each behavior was evaluated when taking into account the social situation - i.e. the gender of the partner with whom the child was playing - children of each sex had much higher levels of social behavior when playing with a same-sex partner than when playing with a child of the other sex. In fact, children as young as four have been observed to indicate not only awareness of gender similarity or difference, but also wariness toward the other sex (see Wasserman & Stern, 1978).
2. The number of times the child simply stood passively watching the partner play was also scored in one of Maccoby's studies. They found no OVERALL sex difference in the frequency of this behavior. However, the behavior of girls was affected by the sex of the partner. With other girls, passive behavior rarely occured. In fact in girl-girl pairs this behavior occurred LESS than in boy-boy pairs. BUT when girls were paired with boys, girls very often let boys monopolize the toys. SO it wasn't that the girls were just generally more passive than boys, but there was a social interaction that brought this type of behavior.
this is important - this means that when considering dyadic friendship pairs it is very important to look at the interaction of partner gender categories
3. Another study illustrated that gender preferences, in fact, preferences for same-sex partners was evident as early as 4 years of age and increased substantially as time progressed (final measurement at 6.5)
There is also evidence that not only is gender-segregation a widespread phenomenon in nearly all cultures where children are permitted a choice. Sex differences in performance are present or much larger when social situations are taking into account than when they are simply considered as individual differences. AND the preference for same sex partners is actually very difficult to change in children. This gender segregation is spontaneous and observed in situations that are less rather than more structured by adults. These sex preferences do not seem to be linked to gender-typed activities, but the preference persisits and can be observed at a very high level in children as old as 11.
Why does this happen?
1. boys seem to be more oriented towards rough-and-tumble play and issues of competition and dominance. These aspects of interaction are consistently observed in male-male pairs.
2. girls find it difficult to influence boys. Between ages 3 and 5 children greately increase the frequency with which they try to influence their pay partners - it is a learning process of social coordination (see Serbin, Sprafkin, Elman & Doyle, 1984). The latter study found that while girls attempt to influence through making suggestions, while boys try to influence in the form of direct demands and responded less and less to suggestions.
While girls' influence style was effective with each other and with teachers and adults, it was less and less effective with boys. These findings were replicated in studies of 33-month-old children (2.5-3 yrs old)
Why this happens? Despite all the research we do not know. Yes we can use cultural explanations or social influence and reinforcement explanations. But these differences occur far too early for these explanations to really hold. We might have to admit here that we don't know.
hmm interesting, this is a pointer to some kind of evolutionary genetic coding above all else. i wonder...
the article goes on to make a number of other fascinating observations related to youth and adults, supporting a similar thesis. most important for me - look at gender/partner interactions when talking about closeness and support because changes in comm styles can differ in same-sex and cross-sex dyads!
posted by Q at 13:26
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home