Psychological Sex Differences: a Survey of Current Research

This is a copy of my psychology term paper, in which I use current research to argue that psychological sex differences are more than likely cultural in origin. I did months of research and read through dozens of books and articles in psychological journals to get my information, and unfortunately there were several important points that I wanted to address but didn't have time for, like historical bias against women in the field of psychology and in media portrayal of psychological studies, and flaws in brain studies that are used to make sweeping generalizations about the ways men and women's brains work. Most of the info here is really general...I highly recommend reading the articles referenced if you have time and access to them. But since it seems to be a common attitude that men and women are essentially different in the way they think, feel, and behave; and since that attitude is used to uphold the status quo and excuse several inequalities, I hope some of you will find this useful. As you can expect, it's written in APA format, rather than the standard MLA, which might seem a little awkward if you're not used to it.

Psychological Sex Differences: A Survey of Current Research

antigone382 and Dr. antigone's professor

antigone382's school

Abstract

Theories concerning innate cognitive and behavioral differences between women and men, once thought to be so obvious as to be unquestionable, have come under considerable scrutiny in the last century, particularly in the last fifty years. The “essentialist theory” of innate, evolutionary causes for observable behavioral and cognitive sex differences now competes with the “social constructional theory” of learned, culturally induced causes for these differences. Multiple methods are used to find evidence for these competing theories, including studies of aptitude tests, observational studies of behavior, and cross-cultural analyses. I examine each of these types of research to compare the two theories, and come to the conclusion that the social constructionist theory is the more likely of the two.



Psychological Sex Differences: A Survey of Current Research

There is an ongoing debate over whether observable differences in male and female behavior and cognition are the results of innate biological factors or learned cultural ones. Finding evidence for either stance is difficult, as the subject itself requires insight into not only the observable actions and mental capacities of men and women, but also their ultimate causes, or origins. Psychologists utilize a wide variety of methods to test these two theories, and research practices are constantly being refined to improve their accuracy. The methods I will address in this paper include aptitude tests; observational studies of infants, children, and adults; and cross-cultural analyses. Psychologists favoring both origin theories use all of these methods and more to find evidence supporting their hypotheses.

Defining the Two Theories

The “essentialist theory” favors an innate, biological origin for sex differences. Wood and Eagly (2002) define the essentialist theory in terms of evolutionary psychology, which contributes the best and most logical support for it. According to evolutionary psychologists, sex differences are the result of “genetically mediated adaptations to primeval conditions” (700). They theorize that in the past, men and women faced different challenges in their attempts to bear and raise offspring who would pass on their genetic legacy, and evolved different strategies as a result (Buss 1995, 2004). The “social constructionist theory,” on the other hand, states that sex differences are learned and cultural in origin (Wood & Eagly 2002). According to social psychologists, physical, not mental differences between men and women have resulted in a sexual division of labor, which requires that men and women develop different skills and interests in order to succeed. Thus, women and men adapt psychologically to fit into the roles that society expects them to fill (Eagly & Wood 1999).

This study of origins is in truth too complex to be encompassed by a simple explanation of two competing theories, with evolutionary psychologists supporting one and social psychologists supporting the other. However, for the sake of brevity I have chosen to represent this debate in the same terms used by the prominent psychologists who have devoted their time and knowledge to it. The theories I have chosen to highlight are the most popularly accepted ones, and as such are the subjects of the greatest amounts of research and review.

Cognitive Ability and Aptitude Tests

One area that origin theorists have researched extensively is cognitive ability. As we might expect, the conclusions of essentialists and social constructionists are very different. The general trend among essentialists is to ascribe mathematical skills to men, and verbal skills to women. Baron-Cohen (2003) points to scores on aptitude tests such as the SAT-M, where men score an average of fifty points higher than women, as evidence of men’s greater mathematical ability. Baron-Cohen theorizes that women have greater verbal ability based on their superior performance on verbal memory tests that are part of medical school entrance exams.

However, other research indicates that this evidence may not be as solid as it appears. A recent review of 46 meta-analyses regarding sex differences found that, in over 78% of reviewed studies, cognitive sex differences were either non-existent or so small as to be statistically insignificant (Hyde 2005). Furthermore, Spelke (2005) points out that more girls take the SAT-M, meaning that the sample of boys taking the test is more highly selective.

Interpersonal Sensitivity and Observational Studies

Baron-Cohen (2003) theorizes that women are better at “empathizing,” or understanding the emotions and moods of those around them, than men. He cites an experiment his research team conducted on newborn infants as evidence, in which an expressive person stood in view of the newborns, next to a similarly sized inanimate object. Boys tended to stare longer at the object, indicating that they were “systemizing,” while girls stared longer at the person, which indicated that they were empathizing. He also mentioned one test he devised in which respondents had to choose the emotion a person was exhibiting based on a section of a photograph containing only the area of the face around the eyes. Though both men and women performed well on this test, women were more accurate. He believes that women’s superior performance on tests such as this one indicate their innate ability to read the emotions of those around them. This is in keeping with the theories of multiple evolutionary psychologists, and with conventional wisdom concerning “women’s intuition.”

However, Spelke (2005) points out that no one has replicated Baron-Cohen’s experiment on infants, which goes against a larger and older body of research that found infant boys and girls to be equally interested in people and objects. Snodgrass (1992) found that an individual’s social role correlates to his or her interpersonal sensitivity (or empathy) much more strongly than gender. In her study, which used an equal number of men and women distributed equally in subordinate/leader roles, she found no significant sex differences in sensitivity. Rather, she found that those in the subordinate role were more sensitive to their leaders emotions and attitudes concerning them, while leaders were more sensitive to their subordinates emotions and attitudes concerning themselves. She theorizes that women’s apparent superiority in interpersonal sensitivity relates to their typically subordinate role in society, rather than to any innate ability.

Sex Differences in Mate Selection and Cross Cultural Analyses

Perhaps one of the most useful and informative methods of determining whether sex differences are social or biological in origin is the cross-cultural study. By comparing the extent of psychological sex differences in varied cultures, we can determine whether such differences are universal, which would contribute to the essentialist theory, or whether they vary according to women’s freedom and access to resources, which would provide even stronger evidence for the social constructional theory. After a study of differences in mate-selection in thirty-seven different cultures Buss (quoted in Eagly & Wood, 1999) came to the conclusion that sex differences in mate preference, such as men’s preference for attractive women with good domestic skills, as opposed to women’s preference for men who are either economically stable or good potential earners, are universally present, and thus are attributable to innate, evolutionary causes. However, when data from his study was juxtaposed against data from United Nations Indexes rating gender equality, it was found that differences in mate preference are strongest in cultures where women have more limited access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other resources (Eagly & Wood 1999). This indicates that sex differences in mate preference are due to social factors.

Conclusion

After reviewing a great deal of relevant research on the competing origin theories of sex differences, the best conclusion I can give is to proceed with caution. Based on current evidence, I cannot categorically rule out some evolutionary origin for observable psychological sex differences. However, the evidence indicates that if such an origin is present, its influence is likely very small, and greatly overshadowed by other factors, both genetic and cultural. Furthermore, while researchers should not limit their analysis of fact to suit convenient political beliefs, findings which validate the essentialist theory must be very carefully reviewed, and placed within the proper context, to avoid their being abused to justify sexual inequalities. As many of the examples cited have shown, studies which initially appeared to confirm the essentialist theory were weakened when information regarding sexual inequality or biased testing procedures was factored in. Ultimately, we cannot come to anything approaching a final answer to this question until the research methods used are better refined to weed out common flaws.


References

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: the truth about the male and female brain. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M. (2004). Psychological sex differences: origins through sexual selection. In The Gendered Society Reader (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Eagly, A., & Wood, W. (June 1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist 54 (6), 408-423. Retrieved March 25, 2006 from Proquest PsycARTICLES online database.

Hyde, J. S. (September 2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60 (6), 581-592. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from Proquest PsycARTICLES online database.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1), 154-158.

Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist 60 (9), 950-958.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (September 2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men; implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin 128 (5), 699-727. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from Proquest PsycARTICLES online database.

Esp.:

"However, when data from his study was juxtaposed against data from United Nations Indexes rating gender equality, it was found that differences in mate preference are strongest in cultures where women have more limited access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other resources"


There are some things that I think men and women differ on - but I think they are overblown - mostly so the culture can maintain the current power structure. Plus it seems that our culture is set up (by men) to reward men.

but I just didn't have time in the end (college life...after all that research, I ended up staying up 'til dawn typing this whole thing up just before it was due, lol.)

Wood and Eagly talk about the biosocial theory--the way that physical differences between the sexes, most obviously women's capacity for bearing children and men's greater upper body strength, made it more efficient for each sex to perform different tasks. Most human cultures developed around that sexual division of labor, with men in the end filling the social roles that have more power and status attached to them, which is what we see today. The biosocial theory helps to explain why sex differences appear to be so nearly universal in cross-cultural studies.

Of course I realize that a lot of this is common sense to most feminists--but a lot of people, including psychologists, just don't get it until it's all laid out for them.

I don't think there'd be all that much size and strength difference between the sexes if we hadn't been carefully selecting for it for tens of thousands of years. When did men first start preferring women smaller and weaker than themselves? When did women first start preferentially mating with larger males?

There IS a huge degree of sexual dimorphism in the great apes, but there's an evolutionary advantage to preferring large males for their protective role. But it's always seemed to me that there'd be a significant evolutionary advantage in the males preferring the largest females, too, as they'd best be able to protect young and rear them to adulthood.

I'm just thinking of the way dog breeders deal with the really tiny dog breeds, like Chihuahuas. There's a decided preference for the smallest males, but larger females, because if the male is much larger than the female, the female will have difficulty giving birth. So they tend to prefer the female to be larger than the male.

Then again, what the hell do I know...I'm a 5'2" 120-lb female married to a 6'2" 275-lb male...I'd say I'm part of the sexual dimorphism problem, except that neither of us can breed, so it's moot.

Anyway, my point - and I DID have one - was that I don't know that I buy the whole premise for the bisocial theory, as we've exaggerated the physical differences between the sexes by selecting for smaller females and larger males over the course of centuries. We've made it greater than it would have been on its own.

I'm trying, though, and failing, to think of any primate species where the sexes are near-equal in size, so maybe I'm talking out my arse here.

...It would be interesting to see if there's any research that indicates that the size differences between men and women were less apparent in the past. It seems that in most of the remains we've found of human ancestors, the males were larger than the females, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think Wood and Eagly were trying so much to ascribe a cause to the physical differences between men and women as they were trying to explain how those differences affect culture, to create a sexual dichotomy that men and women must learn to conform to psychologically.

I know that on average that men are taller than women, but I don't think that it depends on the sex of the same gender parent. For example, if one partner is 6'2'' and the other is 5'2'', I don't think that the daughters will necessarily be taller than the sons if it is the woman who is 6'2'' rather than the more typical other way around. I think that male hormones contribute to increasing size, which is why boys grow a lot more at puberty and afterwards than girls do.
For example, my husband and I were the same height at 13, but he grew almost another foot after that while I stayed the same height.
It is the same way for strength and athletic poweress. While it is true that many elementary and middle school boys perform better in athletics, that may be mostly due to culturual practice and expectations (the boys have more practice at their sport or with physical activity). It isn't until a boy goes through puberty and turns into a man that he gets a big physical advantage over his female counterparts. As a good distance runner in high school who ran with younger boys who grew up, I know this is true.

I don't deny biological differences, but most research has been done by males entrenched in a patriarchy. How do you measure behavior in brains with the plasticity of ours, after generations of gender indoctrination?

I also don't think there is anything wrong with a women being loving, nurturing, empathetic, intuitive etc. But I think a great deal of harm is being done denying these qualities in males, or attributing them only to females. Or the assumption that one sex is better at those qualities (And others) than the other. A VERY great deal of harm.

Great paper by the way, hope you get a top grade...

I'm not going to flat-out say that biological differences don't exist, because we don't have the evidence to prove that yet, but I think that the level of credence we give to that theory is totally inconsistant with the level of evidence that supports. As far as we can tell right now, if there are any biological differences, they are really small. But that doesn't matter in a sexist society. The media pays a LOT more attention to studies that find some evidence of sex differences, no matter how limited or potentially inaccurate those findings are, and almost NO attention to studies that find the opposite to be true.

I had to try to stay off my soapbox for this paper because it needed to be objective, but this "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" attitude really, really hurts us. I mean, we just had the president of Harvard try to excuse inequality by basically claiming that women just aren't good at math, which is simply fundamentally untrue. It's really just an outgrowth of the false "men are rational/wome are emotional" dichotomous thinking that has been used to hold women back for thousands of years.

when applied to individuals. Anything that may hold true for large groups is rarely true when you try to force it to fit individual persons. It may be true to say that men as a group tend toward this or that, or women as a group tend toward this or that, but you can ALWAYS find examples of individuals within the group that totally disprove the theory.

For example, I'm a female, but I'm also one of the somewhat-rare females with Asperger syndrome (I call it the "raised by wolves" disorder, because it mostly affects social interactions) and a high degree of systematizing behavior. I don't exhibit a lot of "female" nurturing behavior. (Unsurprisingly, I don't tend to form close bonds with other women.)

Any time you try to extend a general behavioral principle to individuals, you're going to be proven wrong. Gender differences are no different; there may be general tendencies for a large group, but large numbers of individuals within the group will still be completely non-comformist with the theory.

And this is why biologists shy away from the social sciences. ;-) (I was a biochemistry major.)