A cross-cultural survey of some sex differences in socialization.

Abstract

This research is part of a project for which financial support was provided by the Social Science Research Council and the Ford Foundation. We are greatly indebted to G. P. Murdock for supplying us with certain data, as indicated below, and to him and Thomas W. Maretzki for suggestions that have been used in this paper.

cultural pressure on sex differences

“…The studies by Barry, Bacon, and Child (1957), Whiting and Whiting (1971), Whiting and Edwards (1973), and Ember (1973) all provide support for this kind of assertion since in one way or another they indicate how experiences such as herding, or particular types of task assignment, can considerably minimize sex differences in the behavior of children. Such research is, of course, crucial for our ability to quantify environmental input, though a limitation of these synchronic studies of the interaction of child behavior and cultural setting is that they do not answer the question about whether or not long-term changes have been made which will continue to minimize sex differences in the behavior of the individuals whose behavior was shown to be modified initially.…”

“…Thus the greater assertiveness, achievement, and self-reliance widely reported for males (both young and adult) has been interpreted as deriving from characteristically masculine experiences (Murdock 1949: 204-206;Barry, et al 1957). Females are reported to be more nurturant, obedient, sensitive to the needs of others, and some claim that this results from pressure for particular kinds of behaviors in anticipation of eventual motherhood and primary child rearing responsibilities.…”

“…The ethnographic literature contains a wealth of material on sex roles, and, while certain sources report apparent "reversals" of transhuman sex role stereotypes (Mead 1935) or instances in which particular behavioral dimensions typically associated with the opposite sex have been transposed (Barry, et al 1957;Ember 1973;Whiting and Edwards 1973), the majority of reports indicate that males are more intractable, egoistic, spatially more explorative, rougher, less prosocial, and more peer-oriented, whereas females are typically more compliant, prosocial, less spatially explorative, less rough, and more involved in interaction with adults than are boys.…”

SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION in SOCIALIZATION and SOME MALE GENITAL MUTILATIONS1

“…Ratings of socialization practices were made by Barry, Bacon, and Child (n.d.b) for their 1953-1955 cross-cultural study of sexual differences in socialization practices (Barry, Bacon, and Child 1957). For 111 societies4 they coded, separately for boys and girls, how children were socialized on six behavioral systems: nurturance, obedience, self-reliance, responsibility, achievement, and general independence.5 This provides a broad range of behavioral evidence upon which to judge sexual differentiation in socialization practices.…”

Personality Development in Evolutionary Perspective

“…In our discussion, we separate the mix of environmental mfluences, maturation, reanng expenences, and personahty outcomes into four components of a process model, A -* B -* C -» D (Table 1) In our scheme, A includes macroecological context-environment, technology, food and wealth, mstitutions of kmship and mamage, B, contexts of rearmg-family sttucture, interactK)ns widi caretakers, parental versus nonparental caretakers, C, personahty development, and D, reIHoductive strategies-tirmng of %xual maturation, initiation of sexual behavior, numbers of sexual partners, numbers of offspnng, anHnmC of parental mvestn:wnt We find that many studies iKldress sections of tfus conceptual continuum, but that few entirely encompass it from the point of view of individual vanability in expenence conceived of as serving the ends of individual fitness, given the context qf development Indeed, components of our organization will be familiar to many researchers of leammg theory (Bandura, 1973) or cross-cultural psychology, with its emphasis on functional interrelationships among environment, social stmcture, child rearmg, and outcomes m personality or adult social roles (Barry, Bacon, & Child, 1957, Barry, Child, & Bacon, 1959, Whitmg & Whiting, 1975b Our presentation is novel in that it emphasizes how mdividual vanabihty m response to differently expenenced settmgs (B) can have fitness consequences for the individual, particularly m those stages of life concemed with courtship, matmg, and parenting Attempts to link up (A) macroecological context, (B) rearmg context, and (D) reproductive strategy have been made in a recent senes of articles (Draper, 1989, Draper & Harpendmg, 1982, 1987. Notably missing from these analyse is an attempt to specify the psychological mechanisms and processes that intervene as transducers between the more extenor, contextual elements of early expenence and the outcomes in adult reproductive behavior As yet there has been no senous attempt to open iq) tte black box that is the individual's unique expenence or to suggest how expenential factors produce vanability in personahty characterutics leading to mdividual differences in reproductive bdiavior Later, we consider what is known about the antecedents of psychological processes important in early childhood and how these processes may be related to reproductive behavior We propose that varied macroecological contexts promote specific reanng expenences, and that these m tum foster particular pattems of psychological development, all of which serve the more distal biological function of shaping reproductive behavior, including mate attraction and selection, procreation, and parental care Indeed, an exphcit assumption IS that reanng practices and denvative personality development, shaped as they are by macroecological circumstances, are strategic to reproductive fitness Draper and Harpendmg's ideas regarding fatherabsence and reproductive behavior that link together A, B, and D and are considered later in this article set the stage for consideration of psychological processes (C) which may mediate the relation between reanng expenences (B) and processes of mating and parenting (D) We review Bowlby's (1969) attachment theory and recent research related to It m order to make the case that it is via expectations about self, others, and interpersonal relationships that rearing expenences come to influence reproductive beha...…”