Controversies - Sexism Flashcards
(5 cards)
If writing an essay on the ‘Gender differences or gender bias’ bulletin point, what would you talk about?
P: Early psychological theories often displayed alpha bias and extreme androcentrism, not only exaggerating gender differences but positioning women as inherently inferior, partly due to limited scientific methods that allowed gender bias to shape theory development.
E: Freud’s psychosexual theory suggested women had weaker superegos due to not experiencing the Oedipus complex in the same way as boys. His assertion that women were morally inferior lacked empirical support and reflected the patriarchal norms of early 20th-century society. Hoffman (1975), for example, found that girls were better at resisting temptation than boys, directly contradicting Freud’s claim.
E: Such Freudian psychological theories reinforced harmful stereotypes that contributed to misogyny and systemic inequality by portraying women as morally and psychologically deficient. These ideas perpetuated sexist attitudes, justifying discrimination and limiting women’s roles in society. Moreover, the gender differences Freud proposed were not valid or reliable scientific findings but rather abstract concepts rooted in patriarchal ideology, lacking empirical evidence. This misuse of psychological theory contributed to societal oppression by embedding false assumptions about women’s abilities and character into mainstream thought, which psychology as a discipline must actively challenge and rectify.
COUNTER: However, some may argue that Freud’s theory was a product of its time, reflecting prevailing social attitudes rather than intentional bias, and that its historical context should be considered when judging its scientific validity.
P: Contrary to the implication in paragraph 1 that gender differences resulted from poor methods and bias, advances in scientific techniques reveal genuine gender differences in brain structure and function, demonstrating that some differences are biologically based and not merely research artifacts.
E: Ingalhalikar et al. (2014) conducted a large-scale study using diffusion MRI imaging on 949 young men and women and found structural differences in brain connectivity — women showed greater cross-hemispheric communication, while men showed stronger within-hemisphere activity, especially in the cerebellum, suggesting a biological basis for differences in multitasking and motor control.
T: These findings indicate that at least some gender differences may reflect real, biologically based variation rather than being products of gender bias or cultural influence. The use of rigorous neuroscientific methods strengthens the internal validity of such findings and supports the view that not all psychological differences between males and females are the result of flawed or biased research. This suggests that psychology must not only critique bias but also recognise when differences are scientifically justified, as ignoring them may hinder the development of accurate, inclusive psychological theories.
COUNTER: However, even in neuroscientific studies, interpretation can be influenced by societal assumptions, and as Joel et al. (2015) showed, individual brains rarely fit neatly into “male” or “female” categories — reminding us that biology alone cannot fully explain complex behaviours.
P: Nevertheless, even with improved scientific methods and experiments, conclusions drawn about gender differences are not automatically free from gender bias, as social stereotypes and expectancy effects can still influence both participant behaviour and researcher interpretation.
E: Spencer et al. (1999) found that when girls were reminded of the stereotype that females are worse at maths, they performed significantly worse on maths tests—a phenomenon known as stereotype threat. This shows how social context and expectancy effects can produce gendered behavioural outcomes that aren’t biologically determined.
T: This suggests that some observed gender differences are artefacts of bias in research design or societal norms, rather than true psychological differences. It undermines the internal validity of such findings and highlights the dangers of alpha bias, where assumed differences are overemphasised and may lead to the reinforcement of damaging stereotypes. Furthermore, it challenges the objectivity of psychological research, indicating that findings can be shaped by social influences rather than true individual traits, which in turn has real-world implications for education and policy-making.
COUNTER: Recognising the impact of socialisation doesn’t negate real-world consequences of these behaviours. Even if gender differences are socially constructed, their effects are real and must be studied to challenge and change biased systems.
If writing an essay on the ‘heterosexism’ bulletin point, what would you talk about
P: Heterosexism is highly relevant to discussions of bias in psychology because historically, it has caused systematic exclusion and pathologisation of non-heterosexual individuals, undermining both the validity and ethics of psychological research.
E: For example, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1987, which framed same-sex attraction as deviant and led to unethical interventions such as conversion therapy. MacCulloch and Feldman (1967) conditioned homosexual men with electric shocks to images of attractive males—an extreme example of how heterosexist assumptions about ‘normal’ sexual orientation led to psychological and physical harm. It’s illegal status as well (up to 1967) also resulted in difficulty finding samples due to illegal nature meaning most homosexuals weren’t ‘out’ as it may have led to risks of prosecution, scandal, unemployment and persecution. Therefore the studies that were conducted into heterosexuals had very small samples, making them under representative and have sample bias.
T: Therefore this shows how the historical exclusion and mistreatment of non-heterosexual individuals clearly highlight the damaging effects of heterosexism within psychology, compromising both ethical standards and scientific validity
COUNTER: However, recognising these failings has acted as a turning point. The visibility of past injustices has not only prompted reflection but also laid the groundwork for change—leading to the emergence of liberal humanism as a guiding framework in modern psychology.
P: Liberal humanism represents a significant strength in combating historical heterosexism and guiding psychology toward inclusivity and a major strength of modern psychology is its adoption of liberal humanism.
E: Liberal humanism rejects the pathologisation of homosexuality and embraces three core principles: that people are more than their sexual identity, that homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality, and that non-heterosexual relationships pose no threat to society. This shift is reflected in institutional changes such as the establishment of the BPS Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section in 1998 and the APA’s 1991 task force, which provided specific guidance to avoid heterosexist bias in psychological research design and interpretation.
T: This ideological and structural shift demonstrates a clear strength in psychology’s development—it shows the discipline is capable of self-correction and moral progress. The move towards non-heterosexist, gender-inclusive frameworks not only protects minority groups but also enhances the validity, reliability, and social relevance of psychological research. If these inclusive practices continue, heterosexism in psychology is likely to diminish significantly, eventually becoming obsolete in a truly representative science.
COUNTER: However, the presence of lingering bias in some global contexts means vigilance is still required to ensure this progress is not limited to Western societies alone—but the foundation for
P: Despite the clear progress modern psychology has made through the adoption of liberal humanism, heterosexism may still persist in more subtle, methodological forms due to the social pressures placed on non-heterosexual participants, especially in self-report research.
E: The historical pathologisation of homosexuality and the continuing presence of modern-day homophobia, even in supposedly liberal societies like the U.S.—as evidenced by the “Don’t Say Gay” bill protests and backlash in 2022—means that non-heterosexual individuals may feel compelled to present their relationships in a favourable light. This results in social desirability bias, where participants may overstate their satisfaction and stability in relationships to avoid contributing to negative stereotypes. For instance, Peplau (1991) found that both homosexual and heterosexual relationships tend to be longer-lasting when partners share similar backgrounds and levels of commitment. While this may suggest there are more similarities than differences, it is possible that this reflects beta bias, where genuine differences are obscured due to fear of fuelling discrimination, rather than reflecting the true nature of same-sex relationships.
T: Therefore, even well-intentioned modern research may still be distorted by the lingering impact of heterosexism, limiting its validity. The legacy of past discrimination and ongoing social stigma may still influence the data itself, thus subtly sustaining heterosexist bias through methodological flaws like social desirability bias and beta bias. Thus creating biased narratives that underrepresent the complexity of LGBTQ+ experiences, potentially making applications misinformed and ineffective
If writing an essay on the ‘historical and social context’ bullet point, what do you talk about
P: Psychology has historically suffered from sexism due to unscientific methodologies that allowed misogynistic views to be expressed and legitimised in the foundations of psychology as “truths”
E: Freud’s suggestion of women being morally inferior exemplifies this through beta bias, suggesting that girls didn’t internalise their mothers’ morals as strongly due to experiencing the electra complex rather than the Oedipus complex, resulting in a weaker superego with weaker morals. In a more modern context Hoffman found that girls were more likely to resist temptation to do what they were told not to than boys, demonstrating better moral decision making that directly contradicts Freud’s theory.
T: This contrast demonstrates how early theories were shaped more by patriarchal ideologies than by empirical research evidence. Through psychologists like Freud using abstract unfalsifiable concepts, it allowed misogyny to pass as scientific fact which could be used to fuel and legitimise social control and marginalisation of women - making psychology as a ‘scientific’ field an active contributor to sexism
P: Modern psychology’s use of improved scientific methods and greater representation of women within the discipline has helped enable research to be less susceptible to gender biases
E: When scientific research uses objective methodologies that are standardised, it makes misogynistic interpretations of data harder to justify, and means that genuine differences that are observed aren’t a product of gender bias. For example, Ingalhalikar et al used diffusion MRI to map brain connections in 949 young men and women, which allowed them to discover differences in how left and right hemispheres are connected, which allowed the formation of the conclusion that female brains are better hardwired to cope better when it comes to multitasking. Additionally, 80% of UK psychology undergraduates are women (BPS), and 63% of lecturers are female, showing a positive shift in gender access and participation in psychology as a field.
T: The strength of these changes is that psychology now generates research that is more valid and creates more representative theories of human behaviour, helping psychology to shed its sexist legacy and move towards not just being a more accurate science, but also a more inclusive one.
COUNTER: However, representation is not the same as influence. Whilst more and more women seem like they are being represented in psychology, their influence still remains weak as a result of publication biases and cited less than men, which ultimately results in publication gaps that make their research invisible to others
P: Therefore, sexism in psychology hasn’t been completely removed as it still persists covertly through publication practices and citation culture.
E: Men’s articles are cited in other people’s research roughly 2 times more than women’s are (Odic and Wojcik, 2019). Additionally they found that an average male author has 3.56 publications in a 15 year period, compared to average female authors having 2.44. Thus showing a publication gap that makes the research done by women invisible to others.
T: The implications of this is that it creates a bias of where research funding is allocated, and what issues are deemed as ‘important’ and worthy of research. This subtle form of sexism therefore leads to inequalities through women’s issues in psychology being ignored. For example, endometriosis is a medical condition that affects 1 in 10 women and treatment involves hormone suppression of oestrogen and has psychological side effects such as memory problems or emotional blunting (diminished emotional expression). However, because endometriosis isn’t experienced by males it therefore isn’t a priority for psychology, leaving women without proper intervention or treatment.
COUNTER: That said, Journals adopting blind peer review or citation equality initiatives may help combat this bias. Allowing women to gain greater influence through being cited and published more, therefore increasing the likelihood that women psychologists can secure research funding to explore women’s issues, helping psychology to be for both men and women.
If writing an essay on “The invisibility of women in psychology’ bullet point, what do you talk about
P:Women have been rendered invisible in the early history of psychology, not due to a lack of contribution, but due to systemic exclusion from education, publication, and recognition.
E: Scarborough and Furumoto (1987) argue that “the history of psychology is the history of male psychology.” Despite significant contributions from pioneers like Mary Calkins—who completed her PhD at Harvard but was denied the degree due to her gender—her memory research was overshadowed and her name remains largely unknown despite her presidency of the APA in 1905. Similarly, Margaret Harlow’s input into primate research was uncredited, with recognition going to her husband.
T: This highlights a systemic beta bias—the minimisation of real differences in experience and opportunity—which served to erase women’s intellectual contributions and restrict the development of a truly representative psychological canon. The suppression of female voices entrenched androcentrism, allowing flawed male-centric theories, like Freud’s, to dominate unchallenged. This foundational exclusion sets the stage for the persistent invisibility women still face in psychology.
COUNTER: However, the early British Psychological Society (BPS) was more inclusive than other scientific institutions, accepting women from its inception in 1901, suggesting that invisibility was not universally imposed and depended on sociocultural context
P: In contrast to historical exclusion, modern psychology has seen a substantial increase in female participation, suggesting that women are no longer completely invisible and are gaining visibility across various levels of the discipline.
E: According to the BPS, 80% of psychology undergraduates and 63% of university lecturers in the UK are female, indicating a major shift in gender demographics. High-profile female psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus and Nora Volkow have also attained significant public and academic visibility, contributing influential research in memory and addiction neuroscience, respectively. Furthermore, organisations such as the Psychology of Women and Equalities Section (BPS) and the APA’s Division 35 promote women’s psychological issues.
T: These advancements demonstrate a reduction in formal structural barriers and a growing effort to integrate female perspectives into both academic and applied psychology. The increasing use of objective, standardised methodologies has further constrained the spread of overt bias, suggesting a genuine movement towards gender inclusivity and greater external validity of psychological research.
Counter: However, visibility in numbers does not equate to institutional influence. Despite increasing participation, women remain underrepresented in positions of senior academic leadership and intellectual authority, which continues to undermine their visibility where it matters most—decision-making, publication control, and research agenda-setting
P: Although women are increasingly entering the field, they often become ‘invisible’ as they progress due to the leaky pipeline and systemic publication and citation inequalities that minimise their academic impact.
E: Only 33% of psychology professors in the UK are women, and just 36% of Russell Group department heads are female, showing a drop-off at senior levels. Odic and Wojcik (2019) found that men publish more (3.56 vs 2.44 papers) and their articles are cited roughly twice as often, suggesting a gendered pattern of academic recognition. This publication gap not only limits women’s visibility but also influences what topics are funded and seen as important—often marginalising women’s health issues such as endometriosis, despite their psychological relevance.
T: The implications of this is that it creates a bias of where research funding is allocated, and what issues are deemed as ‘important’ and worthy of research. This subtle form of sexism therefore leads to inequalities through women’s issues in psychology being ignored. For example, endometriosis is a medical condition that affects 1 in 10 women and treatment involves hormone suppression of oestrogen and has psychological side effects such as memory problems or emotional blunting (diminished emotional expression). However, because endometriosis isn’t experienced by males it therefore isn’t a priority for psychology, leaving women without proper intervention or treatment.
COUNTER: That said, Journals adopting blind peer review or citation equality initiatives may help combat this bias. Allowing women to gain greater influence through being cited and published more, therefore increasing the likelihood that women psychologists can secure research funding to explore women’s issues, helping psychology to be for both men and women.
Fr?
No!
