Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

Test yourself on Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Little Hans Case Study and Gender Development

Freud had little scientific evidence to support his theory of gender development, however, he did use a case study to support his theory. By corresponding with the boy’s father, Freud used Hans' conversations, actions and dreams to develop his theory.

Little Hans

Published in 1909, the Little Hans case study was fundamental not only to Freud’s gender development theory, but to his psychosexual theory as a whole.
Hans' father reported conversations he had had with his son to Freud via letters.

Widdler

At the age of three, Little Hans (not his real name) had grown an interest in his own penis, which he named his ‘widdler’.
Hans asked his mother whether or not she had a penis.
His mother caught Hans touching himself when he was 3.5 years old.
She got angry at him, told him off, and threatened to castrate him (cut off his penis).

Horse phobia

Hans developed a fear of horses.
Freud interpreted this fear as being displaced fear from his father.
Hans particularly had a fear of horses (white horses with blinkers and black mouths) that resembled his father (who had glasses and a moustache).

Castration anxiety

The fear of castration (castration anxiety) manifested itself into the Oedipus complex.
The Oedipus complex was a part of a broader description of psychosexual development.
As this was a case study based on only one individual, the theory has been heavily criticised.

Criticisms of Freud’s Psychosexual Gender Development

While foundational to the institution of modern psychology, Freud’s work has many detractions and critics. Criticisms include: lack of scientific testability, difficulty in generalising, difficulty in applying to a modern society and lack of insight into non-traditional families.

Lack of scientific testability

The first criticism is the fact that the study was a case study based on Freud’s own interpretations of Han’s actions.
Therefore, researchers and scientists are unable to scientifically test and verify his findings.
The study was subjective as Freud could develop interpretations that matched his own theories, rather than considering other perspectives as well.

Lack of generalisability

The second criticism is the lack of generalisability to a whole population.
Freud argued that everyone goes through the Oedipus complex (Electra complex).
However, he based a lot of his ideas on those people with psychological problems.
Therefore, it may not be possible to generalise the ideas to the population.

Effect of historical context

A third criticism is the difficulty in applying to a modern society.
Women in the early 1900s had very little power in relation to men, therefore, the concept of penis envy may have been more applicable.
However, with changing norms and a more equal society, this concept is outdated.

Non-traditional families

The final criticism is there is no consideration of non-traditional families.
Again, this is most likely because of the norms of the time.
The majority of families would have had a mother and a father in traditional gender roles.
However, in modern society, there are ‘non-traditional’ families, such as two parents of the same sex (homosexuals) or single parent homes.

Evidence of limitations

A study that negates Freud’s conclusions was conducted by Kirkpatrick et al (1981).
They compared 20 children that came from households with heterosexual parents to 20 children that were raised in households with homosexual (lesbian) mothers.
The age ranges were from 5 to 12.
The study found that there were no apparent differences in gender development between the two groups.