Gender Differences: The Role of Nature, Nurture, Social Identity and Self-organization

  • Gert Jan Hofstede
  • Frank Dignum
  • Rui Prada
  • Jillian Student
  • Loïs Vanhée
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9002)

Abstract

This paper describes an agent-based model to investigate the origins of gender differences in social status. The agents’ basic behaviour is modelled according to Kemper’s sociological status-power theory. Differences in the socializing forces of the surrounding society are modelled using Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. Particulars of play behaviour are modelled using experimental child development studies from various cultures. The resulting model is presented and discussed. Social identity as a group of either non-gendered children, boys, or girls, seems a powerful force, multiplying the effect of biological differences. The model is actually general enough to be applicable to a wide range of social behaviours with minimal changes.

Keywords

Agent-based model Gender Aggression Rough-and-tumble Social identity Status-power theory Culture Self-organisation Emergence 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to NIAS, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences, for offering a fellowship enabling the present study. The support of the Lorentz Center in Leiden is also acknowledged. Discussions with Theodore D. Kemper have been most valuable.

References

  1. 1.
    Aydt, H., Corsaro, W.A.: Differences in children’s construction of gender across culture an interpretive approach. Am. Behav. Sci. 46(10), 1306–1325 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadinu, M., et al.: Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychol. Sci. 16(7), 572–578 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell, D.W., Eaton, W.O.: Sex differences in the activity level of infants. Infant Child Dev. 8(1), 1–17 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cimpian, A., Mu, Y., Erickson, L.C.: Who is good at this game? linking an activity to a social category undermines children’s achievement. Psychol. Sci. 23(5), 533–541 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crick, N.R.: The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Dev. 67(5), 2317–2327 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiPietro, J.A.: Rough and tumble play: a function of gender. Dev. Psychol. 17(1), 50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eliot, L.: Pink Brain, Blue Brain How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps-And What We Can Do About It, p. 420. Mariner Books, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evaldsson, A.C.: Throwing like a girl?: situating gender differences in physicality across game contexts. Childhood 10(4), 475–497 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haviland, J.J., Malatesta, C.Z.: The development of sex differences in nonverbal signals: fallacies, facts, and fantasies. In: Henley, N.M., Mayo, C. (eds.) Gender and Nonverbal Behavior, pp. 183–208. Springer, New York (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hemelrijk, C.K.: Simple reactions to nearby neighbors and complex social behavior in primates. In: Menzel, R.F.J. (ed.) Animal Thinking: Comparative Issues in Comparative Cognition, pp. 223–238. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemelrijk, C.K.: The use of artificial-life models for the study of social organization. In: Thierry, B., Singh, M., Kaumanns, W. (eds.) Macaque Societies, pp. 295–313. A Model for the Study of Social Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Cultural differentiation of negotiating agents. Group Decis. Negot. 21(1), 79–98 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofstede, G., McCrae, R.R.: Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cult. Res. 38(1), 52–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofstede, G.J.: Theory in social simulation: status-power theory, national culture and emergence of the glass ceiling. In: Social Coordination: Principles, Artefacts, and Theories, pp. 21–28. AISB, Exeter (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Humphreys, A.P., Smith, P.K.: Rough and tumble, friendship, and dominance in schoolchildren: evidence for continuity and change with age. Child Dev. 58, 201–212 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jarvis, P.: Monsters, magic and Mr Psycho: a biocultural approach to rough and tumble play in the early years of primary school. Early Years 27(2), 171–188 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang, S.K., Inzlicht, M.: Stigma building blocks how instruction and experience teach children about Rejection by outgroups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38(3), 357–369 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kemper, T.D.: Status, Power and Ritual Interaction: A Relational Reading of Durkheim. Goffman and Collins. Ashgate, Burlington (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lansu, T.: Implicit processes in peer relations: effects of popularity and aggression. Nijmegen University (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lansu, T.A., Cillessen, A.H., Bukowski, W.M.: Implicit and explicit peer evaluation: associations with early adolescents’ prosociality, aggression, and bullying. J. Res. Adolesc. 23, 762–771 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malatesta, C.Z., Haviland, J.M.: Learning display rules: the socialization of emotion expression in infancy. Child Dev. 53, 991–1003 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martínez-Lozano, V.S.M., Sánchez-Medina, J.A., Goudena, P.P.: A cross-cultural study of observed conflict between young children. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 42(6), 895–907 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parke, R.D., Slaby, R.G.: The development of aggression. In: Mussen, P.H. (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 4, pp. 547–641. Wiley, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pellegrini, A.D.: Elementary-school children’s rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Dev. Psychol. 24(6), 802 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pellegrini, A.D.: School Recess and Playground Behavior: Educational and Developmental Roles. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pellegrini, A.D., Smith, P.K.: Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Dev. 69(3), 577–598 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tajfel, H.: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thorne, B.: Gender Play. Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Warden, D., Mackinnon, S.: Prosocial children, bullies and victims: an investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 21(3), 367–385 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Woods, R.: Children’s Moral Lives: An Ethnographic and Psychological Approach, p. 238. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gert Jan Hofstede
    • 1
  • Frank Dignum
    • 2
  • Rui Prada
    • 3
  • Jillian Student
    • 1
  • Loïs Vanhée
    • 2
  1. 1.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.INESC-IDLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations