Sex differences nov06

Should we research sex and gender differences?: 

Should we research sex and gender differences? Miriam Zukas M.Zukas@leeds.ac.uk

A note on terminology: 

A note on terminology One school of thought: sex is biological in origin gender is social in origin BUT Is it possible for biology to exist without the social, and for the social to exist without the biological?

A popular topic!: 

A popular topic! John Gray Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus – 30 million copies; translated into 40 languages Fundamental psychological differences Deborah Tannen: You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation – New York Times bestseller for 4 years; translated into 24 languages Different cultures hypothesis

Slide4: 

Slide5: 

What’s the problem?: 

What’s the problem? PsycINFO - 2000-2006 ‘Human sex differences’ - used for gender differences and sex differences 1967-2006 63,099 studies 2000-2006 17,134 studies

Human sex differences: 

Human sex differences Human Sex Differences 17115 Used for Gender Differences Sex Differences (Human) [Narrower terms] Sex Linked Developmental Differences 48 [Related terms] Androgyny 66 Diversity in the Workplace 430 Human Females 14942 Human Males 4714 Sex 459 Sex Recognition 45 Single Sex Environments 93

Human Females: 

Human Females Human Females 14942 [Used for] Females (Human) Girls Women [Narrower Terms] Battered Females 861 Daughters 605 Female Criminals 321 Mothers 5313 Sisters 110 Widows 198 Wives 470 Working women 964 [Related Terms] Female Attitudes 144 Female Delinquency 108 Human Sex Differences 17115 Sex Linked Developmental Differences 48

Human Males: 

Human Males Human Males 4714 [Used for] Males (Human) Boys Men [Narrower Terms] Brothers 90 Fathers 1585 Husbands 333 Male Criminals 332 Sons 269 Widowers 102 [Related Terms] Male Attitudes 37 Male Delinquency 163 Human Sex Differences 17115 Sex Linked Developmental Differences 48

Other databases: 

Other databases EMBASE 1996-2006 57134 Medline 1996-2006 15325 British Nursing Index 1994-2006 No results for sex difference Gender issues 708

PsycINFO examples: 

PsycINFO examples Biological Sex, Adherence to Traditional Gender Roles, and Attitudes Toward Persons with Mental Illness: An Exploratory Investigation. Perceptions of self among university students in two cultures: The United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Sex differences in the perception of ethics? A comment on Robinson and Gross. Implications of gender differences for the development of animated characters for the study of bullying behavior. The Importance of Gesture in Children's Spatial Reasoning. Future Research on Gender Symmetry in Physical Assaults on Partners. Does Trust Beget Trustworthiness? Trust and Trustworthiness in Two Games and Two Cultures: A Research Note Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

Medline examples: 

Medline examples Establishing sexual dimorphism in humans. Sex determinants in the genome--lessons from the animal kingdom. Gender differences in determinants of smoking initiation and persistence in California twins. EEG alpha oscillations during the performance of verbal creativity tasks: differential effects of sex and verbal intelligence. Facial and bodily correlates of family background. Evidence for a female-specific effect of a chromosome 4 locus on anxiety-related behaviors and ethanol drinking in rats. Hostility and sex differences in the magnitude, duration, and determinants of heart rate response to forehead cold pressor: parasympathetic aspects of risk. Men and women show distinct brain activations during imagery of sexual and emotional infidelity.

Example 1: 

Example 1 Sex differences in means and variability on the progressive matrices in university students: A meta-analysis. Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn British Journal of Psychology (2005), 96, 505–524 A meta-analysis is presented of 22 studies of sex differences in university students of means and variances on the Progressive Matrices. The results disconfirm the frequent assertion that there is no sex difference in the mean but that males have greater variability. To the contrary, the results showed that males obtained a higher mean than females by between .22d and .33d, the equivalent of 3.3 and 5.0 IQ conventional points, respectively. Why? Men’s relative brain size …

Example 2: 

Example 2 A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: test of an evolutionary hypothesis Elizabeth Hampson, Sari M. van Anders, Lucy I. Mullin, Evolution and human behavior 27(6) 2006 401-416. A set of computerized tasks was used to investigate sex differences in the speed and accuracy of emotion recognition in 62 men and women of reproductive age. Evolutionary theories have posited that female superiority in the perception of emotion might arise from women’s near-universal responsibility for child-rearing. Two variants of the child-rearing hypothesis predict either across-the board female superiority in the discrimination of emotional expressions (attachment promotion hypothesis) or a female superiority that is restricted to expressions of negative emotion (fitness threat hypothesis). Therefore, we sought to evaluate whether the expression of the sex difference is influenced by the valence of the emotional signal (Positive or Negative). The results showed that women were faster than men at recognizing both positive and negative emotions from facial cues, supporting the attachment promotion hypothesis. Support for the fitness threat hypothesis also was found, in that the sex difference was accentuated for negative emotions. There was no evidence that the female superiority was learned through previous childcare experience or that it was derived from a sex difference in simple perceptual speed. The results suggest that evolved mechanisms, not domain general learning, underlie the sex difference in recognition of facial emotions.

Example 3: 

Example 3 Doctors' professional values: results from a cohort study of United Kingdom medical graduates Lorelei Cooke andamp; Mandy Hutchinson, Medical Education, Volume 35, 8, pp 735-742 Objectives To examine young doctors' views on a number of professional issues including professional regulation, multidisciplinary teamwork, priority setting, clinical autonomy and private practice. Method Postal survey of 545 doctors who graduated from United Kingdom medical schools in 1995. Results Questionnaires were returned by 95% of the cohort (515/545). On issues of professional regulation, teamwork and clinical autonomy, the majority of doctors held views consistent with current General Medical Council guidance. The majority supported the right of doctors working in the NHS to engage in private practice. Most respondents thought that public expectations of doctors, medicine and the NHS were too high, and that some form of rationing was inevitable. On many issues there was considerable variation in attitudes on the basis of sex and intended branch of medicine.

Example: 

Example Conclusions The results highlight the heterogeneity of the profession and the influence of specialty and gender on professional values. Doctors' attitudes had also been shaped by broader social changes, especially debates surrounding regulation of the profession, rising public expectations and the need for rationing of NHS care. Explanation 'Sex differences are considered to have roots in early socialisation. Differences between branches of medicine are due to a combination of pre-existing inclinations that attract individuals to different specialties, as well as the orientation of the curriculum of their chosen field. The results from the cohort study illustrate how these factors interact to produce pluralism in attitudes.'

Why the obsession?: 

Why the obsession? Bem (1993) Lenses of gender Gender polarisation as one of the ‘lenses’ through which we view the world; constructs and naturalises the link between the sex of one’s body and the character of one’s psyche by defining mutually exclusive scripts for men and women, and by defining anyone deviating as problematic. Biological essentialism. Androcentrism - privileging of male experience and ‘otherising’ of female experience.

Two camps – which split down further!: 

Two camps – which split down further! Yes – we should study difference using science; better research gives better answers; gender defined as individual quality with similarities/differences in traits/abilities within individuals (NB studying difference and not similarities).

Potential ‘biases’: 

Potential ‘biases’ Hare-Mustin and Maracek (1988) - Alpha bias ‘Men and women are fundamentally different in their natures’ Emphasises sex differences (man is the norm; women are the problem) OR valorises women (man is the norm, women are better - Gilligan, Jean Baker Miller) Ignores intragroup diversity Leads to essentialism (see evolutionary theories, for example) Assumes that women and men operate in similar contexts or that social context is irrelevant

Slide20: 

Beta bias Men and women are fundamentally similar in their natures Minimises sex differences – men are the norm, women are the same Supports identical, invariant treatment of women and men Also assumes that women and men operate in similar contexts

Alpha bias?: 

Alpha bias? Yes, we should study sex differences (eg Halpern, 1994; Eagly, 1994; Hyde, 1994) but problems with existing studies: bias against non-significant findings failure to replicate findings of difference failure to report effect sizes interpret findings to harm women assume biological basis in absence of biological data Ultimately good science leads to understanding of true gender differences/similarities

Beta bias?: 

Beta bias? Hyde (2005) Gender similarities hypothesis Males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Use meta-analyses to explore this. a) Cognitive variables such as abilities b) Verbal or nonverbal leadership c) Social or personality variables d) Measures of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem e) Motor behaviours such as throwing distance f) Miscellaneous including moral reasoning

Sex differences?: 

Sex differences?

Slide24: 

Slide25: 

78% gender differences close-to-zero (d = andlt; 0.10) or small (0.11 andlt; d andlt; 0.35) [Some debate about what small means – beta bias?]

Slide26: 

Largest differences Motor performance such as throwing velocity (d=2.18) and throwing distance (d=1.98) particularly after puberty. Some measures of sexuality – masturbation; attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship; but d in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero. Gender differences in aggression are moderate; differences for physical aggression particularly reliable.

Developmental issues: 

Developmental issues Eg mathematics (Hyde, Fennema and Lamon, 1990) Small gender difference in computation favouring girls in elementary and middle school; no difference in high school. No difference in complex problem solving in elementary and middle school; small difference in high school (d = 0.29)

Contexts: 

Contexts Eg smiling (LaFrance, Hecht and Paluck, 2003) Moderate gender difference in smiling (d = -0.41) If participants had clear awareness of being observed, difference was larger (d = -0.46) that it was if they were not aware of being observed (d = 0.19); also depends on culture and age.

We shouldn’t study sex and gender differences!: 

We shouldn’t study sex and gender differences! No – not the right question eg Yoder and Kahn (2003) ‘We contend that the answer to the question ‘How different are we?’ is empirically unknowable … because the sources of sex and gender differences do not reside exclusively within men and women’ (p.283). They suggest we should ask: ‘Under what conditions are women and men similar and different?’ Sex and gender are no longer self-explanatory; instead they become a marker for related causal factors.

Slide30: 

No – there’s no point! Don’t study because science is unable to deliver truths or facts; all experiments looking at difference are correlational or quasi-experiments and thus capable of answering causal questions, because we can’t randomly assign participants to sex categories and the multiple experiences associated with those categories that predate and permeate any research activity (Maracek, 2001). Furthermore, science as social institution reflects dominant values.

Slide31: 

‘Male-female difference as a primary organizing category for dividing human attributes and abilities is, I would argue, fundamentally a belief or prejudice. Just as no amount of scientific evidence or logical argument … can prove a 6-foot invisible rabbit does or does not exist, no amount of scientific evidence can prove or disprove the existence of inherent differences between men and women.’ (Baker, 2006, p 5)

Slide32: 

No – we shouldn’t research sex differences because it starts by accepting the legitimacy of the question and is therefore logically incapable of ending the debate.

Slide33: 

What should we do then? Study the transactions of power for which sex and gender differences serve as markers; Challenge the acceptance of work which uses supposedly ‘natural’ biological categories such as sex, sexual orientation and race as the explanatory locus for differences among people. (Baker, 2006) Distinguish between research on sexism and research on sex differences.

Slide34: 

Baker, N L (2006) ‘Feminist psychology in the service of women: staying engaged without getting married’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 1-14. Bohan, J S (2002) ‘Sex differences and/in the self: classic themes, feminist variations, postmodern challenges. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 74-88. Hare-Mustin, R T and J Maracek (1994) ‘Asking the right questions: feminist psychology and sex differences’, Feminism and Psychology, 4, 531-537. Hyde, J S (2005) ‘The Gender Similarities Hypothesis’, American Psychologist, 60 (6), 581-592. Kilminster, S, J Downes, B Gough, D Murdoch-Eaton, and T Roberts (forthcoming) ‘Women in medicine – is there a problem? A literature review of the changing gender composition, structures and occupational cultures in medicine’. Kitzinger, C (ed) (1994) ‘Should psychologists study sex differences? [Special Issue’ Feminism and Psychology, 4. Maracek J (2001) After the facts: psychology and the study of gender. Canadian Psychology 42, 254-267. Shields, S A (1975) ‘Functionalism, Darwinism and the psychology of women: a study in social myth’, American Psychologist, 60, 16-26. Stewart, A J and C McDermott (2004) ‘Gender in psychology’. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519-544. Yoder, J D and A S Kahn (2003) ‘Making gender comparisons more meaningful: a call for more attention to social context’. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 281-290.