One of the Assumptions of the Family-focused Approach Is That
A Biological Theory.

Just one of the splendid biological theories out at that place to run across!
Wikimedia Eatables via AnonMoos (Public Domain)
What does the Biological Arroyo say about Gender Differences?
Equally is obvious from the name, the biological approach focuses its efforts on explaining what biological differences between men and women result in their differing behaviours.
Of course, the biological approach is not necessarily the only approach to wield a convincing argument for how gender differences arise.
The following:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Psychodynamic Psychology
- Social Learning Psychology
All provide their own interesting ideas.
Read on to find out about the biological theories.
Primal Assumptions of the Biological Arroyo apropos Gender Differences
- Hormones play a huge role in gender differences and it is our Deoxyribonucleic acid that dictates our behaviour every bit men and women.
- Men and women accept different encephalon structures.
- Women have evolved to be the carers of children whilst men have evolved to be the providers for their families.
- Women have predetermined characteristics like being more than: caring, protective and loyal than men.
- Men accept predetermined characteristics similar being more: aggressive, competitive and dominant than women.
- The key cause of our gender differences is our genetic makeup, more specifically, the DNA found in our two 23rd chromosomes - the chromosomes that dictate which sexual practice we are.
The Hormone System may explain Gender Differences

The action of hormones in our bodies constitutes a complex organisation. Still, the event of most hormones are surprisingly well understood and recorded.
Wikimedia Commons via Penubag (GNU)
Other Brain Differences
Gender differences take also been found in the cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Scientists advise that these differences cause the difference in the abilities of men and women:
Women excel in:
- Linguistic communication skills
- Fine motor skills (using smaller muscles)
- Emotional control
Men excel in:
- Spatial skills
- Logical reasoning
- Math
Chromosomes Cause our Genetic and and so Gender Differences

Chromosomes contain the DNA that effect in our genetic differences. The 23rd chromosomes contain Deoxyribonucleic acid specific to our genders.
Wikimedia Commons via Rlawson (GNU)
Read More From Owlcation
Hormones - The Biological Cause of Gender Differences
- Hormones are chemicals in the body that regulate changes in our cells. This includes growth and is as a event very of import in explaining our gender differences.
- You may accept heard of the largely male person hormone: testosterone and the largely female hormone: oestrogen - and know that they have effects in our bodies that atomic number 82 men and women to act more like, well, men and women.
- It is well documented that there are differences between the encephalon structures of men and women.
- For example, men have a larger hypothalamus - both the BSTc and the SDN-POA, with the BSTc being twice every bit large.
- Furthermore, encephalon differences have been confirmed by studying very young children's brains and so as to eliminate the question of whether the encephalon differences result from social influences and upbringing.
- For the same reason, many studies have been conducted on young children to meet whether they and their brains human activity differently based on their sex.
- The enquiry made by Connellan et al. (2000) showed that newborn girls were far more interested in faces (suggesting superior social skills) whilst newborn boys were more excited by mechanical items (suggesting superior spatial and logical thinking).
Chromosomes - The Fundamental Cause of Gender Differences
Humans typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes (totaling 46) and on the two 23rd chromosomes the DNA that decides whether a newly fertilised ovum (egg) becomes a male or female person is found.
- If the sperm that fertilised the ovum is carrying a Y chromosome, then the zygote (the name given to an egg that has just been fertilised) will incorporate both an X and a Y chromosome and the baby will exist a male child.
- If the sperm carried an X chromosome, then the zygote volition have two X chromosomes (20) and become a daughter.
- The above statements are empirical facts and so we know that at its very core the crusade of most concrete differences in men and women is due to biological differences in DNA.
At showtime, the embryo (the name given to a zygote that has started to develop) has the same sexual practice organs whether or not it has XY or XX chromosomes. Only 6 weeks after conception and the Y chromosome in males results in changes that pb to the gonads becoming testicles. If the Y chromosome isn't present (and the zygote has Twenty chromosomes) then the gonads go ovaries.
This idea that both males and females start off with the same sexual activity organs is where the common 'fact' that 'all men were once women' comes from.
The formation of testicles and ovaries are very important because, equally yous may already know, they are the key producers for the sexual activity hormones androgens (including testosterone) and oestrogens which, as mentioned in the above section, consequence in many gender differences.
Andrenogenital Syndrome
Andrenogenital syndrome can be caused past both embryos containing the normal XX chromosomes and embryos containing the normal XY chromosomes.
In females, the XY chromosomes for female person development in the embryo result in the normal female ballocks as always. However, in andrenogential syndrome the genitals are exposed to abnormally loftier levels of male sex hormones (androgens). This results from a malfunction of the embryo'south adrenal glands (which as well equally the testicles produce androgens).
The event is that the females' genitalia wait like that of a male's despite operation unremarkably (genitial ambiguity), as well as many secondary male characteristics (deeper phonation, facial hair) also beingness present in these females too.
In a written report by Money and Ehrhardt (1972) many of these females were found to identify themselves equally tomboys - adopting the typical behavioural characteristics of men.
Females with andrenogenital syndrome, therefore, are used as evidence for the biological approach since their self identification as more manly than other women suggests that the hormones resulted in structural changes in their brains to brand them more like that of their male counterparts (whose brains resulted from the very same hormones).
Studies Supporting The Biological Approach on Gender Differences
Notable Studies:
- Waber (1976)
Found that tardily maturing boys were better at verbal ability than boys who were early on developers - suggesting that boys who had less male sex hormones were meliorate (and so more likely to be encouraged to hone their) social skills - associated with female behaviour. - Hampson and Kimura (1988)
Women were tested at different times of the month. At the times when their oestrogen and progesterone (female person sex activity hormones) were highest, they performed best at fine motor skills just worst in their visual-spatial tasks compared to other times when the levels of these hormones were lower. - Van Goozen et al. (1995)
Institute that transsexuals who underwent 3 months of hormone therapy adopted increased intelligence in the areas that the sex activity hormones were associated with: female person hormone takers gained skills in verbal fluency and became worse at visual-spatial skills and less aggressive. Those that took the male hormones showed the opposite. - Galligani et al. (1996)
Plant that athletes who had taken steroids (increasing levels of testosterone) were more than aggressive (a male quality) than those that hadn't.
Counter Studies
Tricker et al (1996)
- Tested the effect of testosterone and a placebo on aggression
- Used 43 males of age 19-40 were used.
- They were given either 600mg of testosterone a week or a placebo containing no testosterone.
- Information technology was a double-bullheaded experiment - neither participant nor researcher knew which
- The experiment lasted 10 weeks.
- No significant difference was found in aggression betwixt the control group and the supplement takers.
What do you think?
sphie gumede on February 26, 2018:
a proficient write upward...keep it up.withal in that location are some issues that y'all even so need to do a thourough research
sarah on May 12, 2017:
wow i concord
Enes on February 24, 2017:
Absolutely an splendid article. All the behaviors, culture and the other gender norms has based on these biological truths. It may hard to accept, but there are verbal differences betwixt males and females.
DK (author) from London on April 25, 2015:
How-do-you-do Naiomi! Thanks for posting!
You bring up some very skilful points, but also some bad ones that I shall take the time to address.
It goes without saying that none of the studies listed in this commodity (or whatsoever other, scientific journal or not) should be considered as conclusive proof of anything; competent scientists are typically very apprehensive and will admit publicly the many faults and different hypotheses surrounding their work.
With that said, it is still very important that these sorts of studies are made and the significance of their results considered. The question of whether any gender differences exist, and if they practice what we should do near this, is one that affects us all.
I shall now address specific points that you fabricated concerning the studies.
[Assuming that "women take evolved to exist the carers of children whilst men have evolved to be the providers for their families" is pretty much all yous need to practice to guarantee that all of your data will exist undoubtedly biased and inaccurate.]
With respect, this point makes no sense. The belief that women accept evolved to be the carers of children comes as a issue of interpreting information already fabricated. That 'assumption' is simply a way of explaining the results, it follows that it cannot make the data 'biased' or 'inaccurate' because information technology played no role in gathering the information. Perhaps what yous mean is that during the process of interpreting the data information technology is dangerous to have predesigned notions of what men and women are as *this* will probable result in *your* conclusions being biased. This I tin can concur with.
[newborn girls are more interested in faces which implies better social skills, and that newborn boys are more excited by mechanical items.] [First of all, how tin you scientifically, objectively determine when a newborn baby is interested in something?]
Time is how. The supposition is that looking at things shows interest (whether information technology's considering you similar it, are scared of it, hate it, or are curious about it) and if you look at one thing instead of another, you are more interested in it: you are literally showing more interest in information technology by giving information technology more of your attention. Of course, things can skew this supposition in adults: some people spend less time looking at things that interest them (a cute person you lot don't want to know about your angel towards, a dangerous person whose attention you do not want to describe) but in young babies it tin be assumed these sorts of tactics volition not be present.
[And what scientific data tells you that apparent involvement in faces implies superior social skills]
Well there are three possible conclusions we can make. A) Being interested in faces has a negative bear upon on social skills B) Being more than interested in faces has a neutral touch on social skills and C) Being interested in faces has a positive upshot on social skills.
At present, a substantial amount of experiments accept been devoted to the importance of faces in socialisation. Research has yielded very important results, especially for those very unfortunate people who have a disease wherein they cannot recognised faces at all, non even their own in a mirror. It has been found that virtually of us will readily run across faces in inanimate objects: copse, clouds, wall patterns; even though there are hundreds of other objects yous could make out in the design, it is faces that we see first. Some other instance of the importance out brains place on faces tin can exist seen in our ability to read emotions in faces. One time once again, there are many people (notably psychopaths) that cannot exercise this hands or at all.
I understand, then, why some scientists will assume that children who spend more time staring at faces volition be better at reading them equally they grow upwardly. In turn, they will be able to respond adequately in social situations, i.e. will non be left in situations where their failure to pay attending to some other person's face has resulted negatively (upsetting someone upon not realising they are showing sadness, not realising they're happy and thus what they have said was done jokingly, not understanding sarcasm etc.)
To me on the bear witness this seems like the most likely conclusion from being more interested in faces. I cannot think of reasons to suggest that being interested in faces will accept no effect on reading and responding to them because I'm working off the seemingly obvious view that when you practice something you tend to get amend at information technology!
Given the above, then, I cannot accept that 'this theory is so random and exact that there'south no way information technology can be untainted by the scientists' pre-existing ideas about what boys and girls are interested in'. Every bit the old saying goes: time tells. Exactly what the experiment is based on.
["and anyway, I'one thousand a adult female and I have crappy social skills. And I become crazy excited around mechanical items"]
Well I personally (without further detail) would explain this result on the basis of feel. Just because men are less interested in faces as children compared to women, and thus are worse at social interaction, does not hateful that they can't spend their teen or adult years practising the skill. The same goes for women and applies to *every* skill. Information technology's important not to forget that humans are above all else learners and adapters. And that's all sexes, and at all ages.
[As for your research on differing brain sizes, y'all can simply add that to the hundreds of other imitation studies on brains attempting to validate the inferior country of women through so-called objective science.]
Permit'south be articulate here, I did not conduct any of these experiments. Had I done so I would be conducting more groundbreaking work instead of writing on HubPages! Permit'southward also be clear that the study cited talks about the unlike sizes of *parts* of the brain. When it comes to sure parts of the encephalon it has been *conclusively proven* that size DOES matter. Musicians take had their brains scanned and consistently have had larger parts of the encephalon associated with beingness musically talented. People who are trained in many languages have larger associated brain parts consistently. There is no room for uncertainty that analogously to a muscle (though of grade through a dissimilar mechanism altogether) parts of the brain grow according to grooming you put them through.
What has been shown is that the *overall size* of the brain does non usually take any significance on intelligence. I am aware of the shameful studies y'all are referring to, those where scientists found that white men have larger brains than women and 'blacks' and (after sometimes even 100% fabricated their results) spread the idea that women were intellectually inferior to men and black to white people. This was done purely out of preconceived views held by the scientists and this sort of behaviour is heavily punished (£££) in the modern day. Nevertheless, it has no bearing on the fact that larger brain parts do correlate to a college degree of skill respective to those encephalon parts. That also means that we should not be agape of exploring them.
In the end this is non a dangerous subject, any natural propensities are far out-weighed by our environments.
[Science is like to religion in that both are put upwardly on pedestals by those who are true-blue to them.]
I would non say science is put on a pedestal because in gild for the results of a report to be published in a journal (the merely place information technology can exist published) it must exist rigorously scrutinised by scientific peers who are out for blood. This is such a phenomenon that many of my scientific friends are extremely anxious about publishing. Both good and bad, I suppose.
Anyway, I hope this helped understand the mentality that I used both in this hub and in life generally. Take a bye!
-Philanthropy
Naomi on April 22, 2015:
I agree with @teresapelka. The main issue with this commodity is that it is based upon false assumptions. The trouble is clear starting with the very first judgement, which explains that the research is seeking out biological reasons for differing behaviors betwixt men and women. Already, we are assuming that differences are even caused by biological science, which blinds the research from endless other factors that must exist considered in order to go more legitimate results. Of course, some core assumptions must be made to do almost anything, but many of the ones that are listed are completely unwarranted. Bold that "women have evolved to exist the carers of children whilst men have evolved to be the providers for their families" is pretty much all you need to do to guarantee that all of your data will exist undoubtedly biased and inaccurate.
Another claim you make is that research shows that newborn girls are more interested in faces which implies meliorate social skills, and that newborn boys are more excited by mechanical items. I guess these are interesting theories, merely I can't imagine that they're true… First of all, how tin can y'all scientifically, considerately determine when a newborn infant is interested in something? How do you even measure out that? And what scientific information tells you that apparent interest in faces implies superior social skills…? This theory is so random and exact that in that location'due south no way it can be untainted past the scientists' pre-existing ideas about what boys and girls are interested in… and anyway, I'm a woman and I take crappy social skills. And I get crazy excited around mechanical items, and so maybe your science should effort explaining that. As for your inquiry on differing brain sizes, you lot can simply add together that to the hundreds of other imitation studies on brains attempting to validate the inferior state of women through so-called objective science.
I call up it's of import to recognize the consequences that could come from some of the studies you nowadays. Science is similar to religion in that both are put up on pedestals by those who are faithful to them. Scientific observations tin be interpreted in an infinite number of means depending on the intention and behavior of the scientist, in the aforementioned way that religious texts tin can be interpreted differently. Both accept the potential to be useful, but can also be dangerous and detrimental when misunderstood and viewed as the absolute, undebatable, uppercase T truth.
Leah Kennedy-Jangraw from Massachusetts on January 17, 2013:
Interesting article, definitely an area of research that will e'er cause controversy and mixed opinions about whether the results are the end-all-be-all. I'm e'er fascinated with inquiry involving gender differences and I think i matter that makes it so tough is the result our outward surround plays. Nature vs. Nuture always complicates things!
Teresa Pelka from Dublin, Ireland on December 09, 2012:
Child Psychology would exist lack of selection some supra-category...
I disagree. A kid might read this - parental controls might allow this - and get unnecessary impressions.
Like the picture. Would you hateful women have hearts some other place: men being obvious?
DK (writer) from London on December 09, 2012:
Hiya Teresapelka,
I wouldn't be able to say that women haven't got adaptations that make them better mothering figures than men similar y'all have, only I wouldn't go so far as to say that all women are destined to be mothers - every bit obvious in the poll questions: I call up people should do what they desire regardless of their biological 'destiny'
And Child Psychology seemed the nearly appropriate - if you look in the psychology sub-categories y'all'll see that at that place isn't anything on gender differences or the biological approach!
If y'all have a suggestion please permit me know,
Thank yous,
Philanthropy,
Teresa Pelka from Dublin, Republic of ireland on Dec 09, 2012:
Naturally, I wouldn't hold that women's brains have been fabricated for looking afterwards children.
Why would y'all have this article with Child Psychology?
baconwisithir1961.blogspot.com
Source: https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Biological-Explanation-for-Gender-Differences
Post a Comment for "One of the Assumptions of the Family-focused Approach Is That"