Love And Gender Theories

Question 1

Evaluate Sternbergs theory (1986)

Answer 1

Allows for different types of relationships and recognises love isn’t stable
Can explain breakups
Based on western ideals (Dion & Dion, 1993) - passion higher in American than Chinese
Neglects external influences (Sorokowski et al, 2020)
Subjective and difficult to measure

Question 2

Evaluate Lees theory (1973)

Answer 2

Accounts for individual differences - gender (men = ludus & mania, women = storge & Pragma) (Hendricks & Hendricks,1993) , cross-culture (American = storge & mania, french = agape) (Murstein et al, 1991)
Descriptive rather than explanatory
Views love as stable

Question 3

Evaluate Fisher et al’s (2002) theory

Answer 3

Empirical evidence - birds & mammals have distinct brain systems for courtship, mating & parenting (Fisher, 1998)
Reductionist as only focuses on biological

Question 4

Evaluate Kholbergs (1966) theory

Answer 4

Research support
Descriptive rather than explanatory
Ignores social factors
Gender diversity unexplained
Conflicting evidence - Stennens et al (2005) finds gender development begins earlier than stated

Question 5

Evaluate GST

Answer 5

Research support
Can’t explain how children respond differently to the same environmental input of gender specific information
Western focus
Assume child has cognitive foundations to identify own gender and gender of others
Issues with systematically linking toys/ clothes/ activities etc to gender - understanding of multiple classification needed

Question 6

Evaluate the dual path GST (Martin et al, 2002)

Answer 6

Empirical support - no link to boys response on attitude & personal measures (Liben & Bigler, 2002)
Accounts for individual differences
Heavy cognitive focus

Question 7

Evaluate social cognitive theory of gender

Answer 7

Sees child as active agent in gender development
Research support
No individual difference considerations
Assumes if environment changes person changes
Not cross-culturally replicated