Psychology of Sex and Gender Essay

Discuss the claim in that respect is a lot to gain from studying a topic in psychology from more than one perspective. Drawing on our apprehension of speech communication and meaning as tumesce as the psychology of depend on and grammatical gender. varied psychological perspectives lead to opposite theories providing diverse insights into the same shorten i.e. oral communication and meaning. They focus their enquiry in different ways and consequently subscribe dissimilar objects of experience. separately perspective asks different questions, engage different methods and entropy and produce because different theories. These perspectives can be complementary, conflicting and/or coexisting, whereby each perspective and theory provides a variety of ways of applying their findings to prevalent psychological problems. By instruction on the companionable psychological perspective, this evidence will evaluate the theatrical role of two central issues in psychology voca bulary and meaning as well as the psychology of wind and gender.Social psychological perspectives emphasise the importance of investigating cognition by studying how meaning is caused through and through participation and ethnical practices and through words. The evolvement, learning and application of language utilise by humans, to express meaning and adopt goals, have been a topic of study amongst the confused perspectives in psychology most nonably evolutionary, cognitive and affable perspectives. In researching language and the maturation of subsequent theories, language itself is used as a medium to study language. This methodological reflexivity is the source of conflict between social and cognitive perspectives on language when trying to go steady to what extent, if any, the necessity of responding in language predetermines what is said.Social psychologists, more specifically discussion psychologists (i.e. Parker, 1992, as cited in barrel ber & Kay, 2007, p. 105) , claims that in using language individuals do so in a social and historic context, with an audience and for a purpose. Individuals therefore will take form assumptions about the knowledge, spirit and requirements of their interlocutors in an experimental set upting which is a ancient method used by cognitive psychologists to study the separate cognitive and underlying thought processes language represents in communication with differents or negotiation with the self.The social realizeionist perspective, on the some other hand, uses evidence from actual language used in day-to-day communication and therefore appears to have more ecologic validity. With the use of discourse analysis, they manage to describe how individuals organise their talk and use particular strategies much(prenominal) as the creation of subject positions or constructions of the world, to carry through particular ends. Wieder (1974 as cited in cooper & Kay, 2007, pp. 104-105) illustrated the use of lan guage to determine conduct amongst newly released prisoners living in a hostel by employing a method called ethnomethodology (the study of how people do things) devised by Garfinkel (1967 as cited in barrel buzz offr & Kay, 2007, p.103). Wieder found that the language used amongst the individuals The Code does not explain their behaviour precisely rather was used by them to actively construct their social world and take appropriate action at bottom it. Social constructionists therefore base their understanding of language on the innovation that language can be come acrossn as a vehicle for the socially formed and the sustained meaning that operates between individuals, in mathematical groups and societies (Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 113).Although it provides a workable explanation for the use of language, it does not explain how language evolved over conviction or how it is being processed individually. Evolutionary psychologists (Lorenz, 1952 as cited in Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 7 8) offer an explanation about the evolution of language in claiming that language is an adaptive trait that has been acquired through the infixed and depend onual selection as well as being characterised by the ability of humans to create meanings through different ways of communication than that of other species. The complex interactive activation with competition (IAC) model devised by McClelland and Rummelhart (1981, as cited in Cooper & Kay, 2007, pp. 91-94) and other studies (i.e. Moss and Gaskell, 1998, as cited in Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 93) is used by cognitive psychologists in formulating their perceptive that language is part of an information processing system of rules that resides in the brain of an individual who creates meaning when hearing others speak or when speaking themselves.The above three perspectives therefore provide an understandings of language base on their individual analysis being evolution, individual processing or social construction. Parker (1992, as cited in Cooper & Kay, 2007, p. 105) described discourse as a set of symbolic meanings created through the use of language to construct an event or object in a particular way. This is seeming(a) in the claim by social psychologists that individuals see the world as consisting of two basic types of people women and men. This is partly accomplished through the social identity processes as theorised in the Social Identity Theory Tajfel (1919-82, as cited in Phoenix & Thomas, 2007, p. 62) whereby individuals develop descriptions which draw from the social group they see themselves belonging to, e.g. male or female.Individuals, according to SIT, then tend to make the most of the similarities to others in the same group (in-group) whilst minimising it with those outside the group (out-group) e.g. the pattern of opposite awake (Hollway, Cooper, Johnston and Stevens, 2007, p. 151). Therefore Gender is one of the most key and powerful social categories by which individuals define th emselves by. Bem (1981 as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p. 153) proposed in the Gender Schema Theory (GST) that femininity and masculinity are socially and culturally constructed dimensions absorbed by individuals to produce an understanding of gender to make sense of themselves and their behaviour. Social constructionists however, argue that gender is not a set of characteristics or properties acquired by an individual but rather that gender identity is constantly established and re-established by experiences, behaviours including actions on both an individual and group level resulting in ongoing throughout the lifespan of an individual.The study of sex and gender is therefore concerned with the complex interaction of nature and put up in shaping similarities and differences between men and women. In studying sex and gender as a psychological fact (e.g. Clark and Hatfield, 1989, as cited in Hollway et al, 2007) and biological (e.g. Fitch and Denenberg, 1998 as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p. 138) perspectives, give emphasis to the contribution of nature to the experiences of individuals by examining the biological and genetic structures relating to sex. Social constructionists acknowledge these influences but look at the importance of context and culture in constructing an understanding about gender whilst the psychoanalytic perspective incorporates biological differences as well as the social and cultural meanings.The difference between these approaches is demonstrated through conflict between them in relation to the social roles of men and adult female and their personal relationships and behaviour. Biological and social explanations nature and nurture expose a fundamental conflict whereby social perspectives echo the underlying principal of psychoanalysts speculative individual group in claiming that biological explanations, and most recently evolutionary explanations (e.g. Hilary and Rose, 2000, as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p. 172), are extremely deterministic (Hollway et al, 2007, p. 171). Social constructionists explained that historical research underlines the fact that values inevitably underpin all knowledge however, allowance should be made for new ideas incorporating change and cultural settings such as the role of women in society. Such methods used by various psychological perspectives in studying a specific psychological issue are often complimentary as opposed to contrasting. In explaining gender social constructionists take historical and cultural situations of human beings into account focusing on the meaning-making activities of humans.In studying differences in the approach of sexual behaviour between men and woman at an American college, Clark and Hatfield (1989 as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p. 146) concluded that women who accepted dating invitations were less prone to accept invitations for snobbish meetings, at the house of a strange in addition to the volume of women refusing such invitations for se xual intercourse. The results were the same when women were first guaranteed of the trustworthiness of the stranger thereof accounting for fear of potential danger as a bedevil variable (Clark, 1990, as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p. 146). Clark and Hatfield claimed from an evolutionary perspective that the results are tenacious with the arguments of evolutionary psychologists about evolved optimal reproductive style through natural and sexual selection processes.The findings of Clark and Hatfield underline from a social constructionist point of view, the ideal that sexual behaviour of men and women is filtered through their own individual cultural lenses. Psychoanalytical psychologists (e.g. Benjamin, 1990, 1995, 1998 as cited in Hollway et al, 2007, p.164) argue that these external influences (e.g. through discourse and discursive practices) are over emphasised by social constructionists and therefore does not explain the capacity for resistance and change by individuals. Ea ch perspective provides a valuable point of view however none is able to give a complete explanation of the findings of the study as each perspective is concentrating on its own theoretical ground when analysing the findings of a study.In conclusion the social perspective has provided a rich understanding of language and meaning and sex and gender. Nevertheless, the focus is only on social influences such as other people and discourses. It therefore lacks a frequent understanding of a whole topic. In every case other perspectives are needed to see the full picture of both, sex and gender and language and meaning.In addition of the methodology the experimental approach could be helpful to support or disprove the results which are gained from the hermeneutic approach. Overall, in terms of social influences and discourses, the social perspective has contributed to a great clay of knowledge which is very important to understand all aspects of any topic. The other side of the coin is t hat the focus is only on social influences, the social environment and social constructions which limit a full understanding of different processes involved in the same topic, such as meaning-making of language.ReferencesCooper, T, & Kaye, H. (2007a). Language and meaning. In T. Cooper & I. Roth (Eds.), Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed). Milton Keynes The Open UniversityBuchanan, K., Anand, P., Joffe, H. & Thomas, K. (2007). Perceiving and understanding the social world. In D. Miell, A. Phoenix & K. Thomas (Eds.), Mapping Psychology (2nd ed). Milton Keynes The Open UniversityHollway, W., Cooper, T., Johnston, A. & Stevens, R., (2007a). The psychology of sex and gender. In T. Cooper & I. Roth (Eds.), Challenging Psychological Issues (2nd ed). Milton Keynes The Open University