Blueprint for personality:
a look at the differences between men and women.
Charlie Hueber
PSY 502.020, SFASU
12/4/01
Personality trait differences exist between men and women. Not many people would dare to argue this point, but issues do come from this very assumption. To what degree do these differences exist and how do these differences affect our society, are a few of the questions asked. The question of whether those differences are due to genetics and/or social learning is what this paper will address. This gives me the opportunity to further explain my blueprint theory, while arguing that both genetics and social learning contribute to the many differences in our behaviors as men and women. The theory states that personality development occurs within three basic stages; the blueprint stage, which explains how genetics affect our personality, the construction stage, which explains how genetics and social learning combine to affect the outcome of our personalities, and the maintenance stage, which explains how our personalities are continually affected through socialization.
To explain the differences between the personalities of men and women this theory must begin with the genetic differences that affect behavior. One study shows that there is a "presence of a higher ratio of gray matter to white matter in women's brains than in men's and more nerves connecting the two hemispheres" exists (
EPM, 2001, p. 9). Another study showed that "Male superiority in mathematical ability (along with female superiority in verbal fluency) may reflect the operation of an X-Y homologous gene (the right-shift-factor) influencing the relative rates of development of the cerebral hemispheres" (Crow, 1996, p. 249). According to the blueprint theory, this is the foundation that is laid for differences. This theory operates on the assumption that these physical differences in the brain, due to genetics, are the cause of only a few of the varying personality traits. Some might say that these differences and other physical differences cause different personality traits among men and women. Eysenck stated "genetic factors determine at least half the phenotypic variance of the major dimensions of personality" (Eysenck, 2001, p. 70). I would argue that differences in genetics do affect personality, but it is mainly the cognitive abilities of men and women, which Eagly called " verbal, spatial, and quantative" (Eagly 2001, p. 276). It is these differences in cognitive ability that lead to more concrete differences in our personalities. This assumption could be the basis of a study in cross-cultural differences in gender. If genetics affects mostly cognitive ability than it should apply more consistently across cultures while social traits would tend to vary more from culture to culture. I believe that the existence of genetic differences allows us to explain many differences in behavior like mathematical or verbal skills, but leaves to question the more abstract traits like relationship levels or competitiveness. I also believe that these differences are related.This relation is the basis of the second stage of my blueprint theory, which is the construction of personality. A relationship must be drawn between the cognitive differences and social differences. Simply stated, the way we think affects the way we act. I am referring here to a very basic level of thought. In other words, small differences in early stages of development can cause vast differences in latter stages. This ties into personality, showing that after we are born, with a very basic, but different (referring to gender) genetic make up, we begin to develop more distinct personality traits. Here, social learning comes into play. Eagly points out a "separate cultures" idea that explains differences in boys and girls in how they learn social rules by being placed into largely "sex-segregated" groups and that they carry these rules into adulthood (Eagly, 2001, p. 278).
Even as children, our parents treat us different. We give boys the blue clothes and girls the pink clothes. For example, if a boy falls we say, ‘tough it up’. On the other hand, if a girl falls we get the first aid kit. I believe that it is this early socialization that causes many of the social differences in men and women. The psychoanalysts also thought that early stages were very important. Erikson stated "anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a functioning whole" (Erikson, 2001 p 52). Erikson was referring to a life cycle. I believe that the earlier stages play a more important role because of their effect on the latter stages.
The last stage in my theory deals with the maintenance of our personality differences through continued differences in social learning. In this case, I believe stereotyping plays a large part in the socialization of gender. Eagly stated that "considerable evidence suggests that lay people, once maligned as misguided holders of gender stereotypes, are fairly accurate observers of female and male behavior" (Eagly, 2001, p. 287). We are socialized early in life to what the differences between women and men are; therefore, we strive to fit into those differences. Women are supposed to be dainty and beautiful, whereas men are supposed to be big and tough. It is easy to see that those who meet the stereotypes are met with the most social rewards, and those who stray from the stereotype are frowned upon. A man with what we would call feminine qualities or a woman with masculine qualities are met with some ridicule from the rest of society. We play this out in television, movies and advertising in our depiction of men and women. It is these actions that maintain our various differences. I also believe that even at this level change in social learning can occur. The fact that we have men with feminine qualities, or women with masculine qualities aids in this argument. Not everyone fits the mold of his or her genetic predisposition and societies view.
Many arguments are offered for the equality of gender and the abuse of power through gender differences; in no way can I offer any insight on these issues. I simply am stating that I see differences and that those differences have some genetic as well as social basis. The rights and wrongs of the social basis can be argued through a paper on the ethics of gender differences. Other issues brought up here are the questions of cross-cultural implications in cognitive differences as compared to social differences in personality and the need for belonging and how that drives our need to fit the stereotypical mold of gender. This paper should have explained how personality is developed with consideration of gender differences through the three stages of the blueprint theory.
References
Crow, T.J. (1996) All sex differences in cognitive ability may be explained by an X-y
homologous gene determining degrees of cerebral asymmetry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19 (2) pg. 249
Eagly, Alice H. (2001). The Science and Politics of Comparing Women and Men. In
Friedman, H.S., Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. ( 273-290) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
EPM Communications, Inc. (2001). Women And Men Have Different Brains. Marketing
to Women: Addressing Women and Women's Sensibilities, 14 (9) pg. 9
Erikson, Erik H. (2001). The life cycle: Epigenesis of Identity. In Friedman, H.S.,
Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. (51-55) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Eysenck, Hans J. (2001). Dimensions of Personality: The biosocial approach to
Personality. In Friedman, H.S., Schustack, M.W. (Eds.) (2001). Readings in personality: Classic theory and modern research. ( 69-77) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.