Gender Differences: Fact Or Fiction

''Are gender differences fact or fiction? Discuss with respect to at least two distinct measures or traits.''

Gender differences are real, in that they do exist in some instances, more specifically, some societies. They are not innate, nor are they immutable products of the science behind the sexes. Fact. Thus, gender differences are not always evident in certain assumed gender-specific traits such as empathy and visuo-spatial ability. Nevertheless, this is undoubtedly one of the most contentious issues in the 21st century. The presentation of numerous theories based on hard scientific evidence both in the present and the past, suggest an innate divide between men and women. But this hard scientific evidence is often inconsistent, and these so-called immutable male and female differences are often very easily manipulated. In fact, when taking a closer look at gender differences you begin to realise that the basis upon which they are apparent are far more complex than hard-wired differences and that it is meaningless to separate science from society .

Before making any conclusions on the nature of gender differences, in particular relation to empathic and visuo-spatial ability; it is necessary to understand the distinction between gender and sex and why the differential meaning of the two terms is so important. Gender and sex are not the same. As Robert Stoller, an American psychoanalyst explained in 1968, sex refers to fundamental differences in physical characteristics such as external genitalia and hormonal states , separating a male from a female. In contrast, Gender refers to how 'masculine' or 'feminine' a person is and in the words of Chaz Bono, a prominent female to male transsexual, 'gender is between your ears and not your legs' . A person's perception of their gender is largely governed by their identification with how 'masculine' or 'feminine' they are, traits of which are derived from social and cultural influences. The importance of this distinction lays in the fact that gender and more importantly a person's alignment with their gender is at the heart of gender differences.

Thus, the differences between the sexes stem from the mind and not the brain. It is a person's perception of their own gender and their conformity to societal gender roles that distinguishes men from women. In other words, 'it is the salience of gender and gender-related norms, rather than gender per se, that lead to differences between women and men'. This is particularly proven to be the case when analysing studies used to prove the so-called superiority of men when it comes to visuo-spatial ability. In a study carried out by Sharps, Price and Williams (1994), involving the objective assessment of male and female performance in mental rotation tasks, just by presenting the task as either masculine or feminine had a significant effect on the results. Associating the ability to mentally rotate objects with typically creative, feminine activities decreased the men's performance. In contrast, associating the task with typically mechanical, masculine activities had the reverse effect. As such, the findings of this study represent the multiple external variables that need to be taken into account when studying gender differences. Most importantly, when the social context of the experiment was manipulated so too was the seemingly innate visuo-spatial gender determined ability gap. This suggests that what is deemed as 'one of the largest and most consistent sex differences' is not down to a person's 'sex' but rather their awareness of these gender roles and their desire to fulfil them.

By recognising the influence of the often subtle portrayal of gender roles and expectations in the highly inter-connecting social context, it is only necessary that we look to society also in the explanation of gender differences. Evidence for this comes from the likes of the media and commercial toys such as 'Barbie girls' and 'Action men' that only go towards reinforcing the gender biases and 'essential difference' between boys and girls. It is the sub-cultures within a collective society that are responsible for the establishment of gender roles and stereotypes, but this in no means a new occurrence. For instance, the ancient past saw the patriarchal portrayal of men as the hunter-gatherers and in the present day not much has changed. Whilst more women are in the workforce, women are now seen in the 'modern society' as 'innately' less suited to the rigours of maths and science careers than men. This is demonstrated in U.S statistics, with women only representing 27% of people employed in science and engineering in the U.S in 2007. It is these gender inequalities that result in the birth of gender stereotypes contributing to the sociocultural expectancy model implicitly imposed onto the citizens of a society. In this model 'holders of stereotypical beliefs treat others in ways that result in others conforming to the prejudice of the perceivers' , with this in mind it is no wonder the average man can reportedly carry out mental rotations of complex objects better than 80% of women. After all, they are deemed by many to be 'innately' superior even with very inconsistent evidence when it comes to that rather 'male' visuo-spatial domain.

However, perhaps the most influential sociocultural factor when it comes to gender differences in cognitive ability is the presence of negative gender stereotypes. According to stereotype threat theory, it is these negative stereotypes such as the inferiority of women when it comes to visuo-spatial ability that impairs their performance in objective assessments, 'particularly when gender is made salient and when high levels of performance are important to the individual'. It is therefore assumed that gender differences in visuo-spatial tasks should be more prominent in developed, gender-egalitarian nations. Nations in which scientific literature on sex differences in cognitive ability are more pervasive. As a result, the women in these societies are suggested to have a 'stronger desire to perform well on male favoured tasks' . This was proven in the case of visuo-spatial ability in a study conducted by Lippa, Collaer and Peters (in press). In this study the participants' mental rotation and line judgement ability was assessed objectively across 53 nations using an internet survey conducted by the BBC. In support of the proposed stereotype threat theory, they found that sex differences in both tasks tended to be larger in economically developed, gender-egalitarian nations, in comparison to less egalitarian, less economically developed nations. These findings support the role of the social influence exerted by negative stereotypes when it comes to differences in measured ability. In addition, the fact that the size of the 'gender gap' across nations was modulated by gender equality and economic development reflects the malleability of this supposed 'rigid' gender difference.

The influence of gender stereotypes irrespective of whether they are positive or negative can clearly be seen in studies involving gender differences in empathy. For example, it is largely deemed that 'the true woman will enjoy her greatest achievements in 'her own sphere' of 'nurturing civilisation' , a stereotypical expectation which has no doubt been ingrained into a woman's context-sensitive self-concept. Thus, there is an increased motivation for women to be better than men when it comes to both objective and subjective measures of empathic ability. This was demonstrated in the inconsistency of findings from a study conducted by Graham and Ickes (1997) wherein participants had to infer the mental state of a target individual. In the first, out of a series of investigations no gender differences in the 'actual' empathic ability of men and women were found. However, in a variation of the same investigation wherein participants were required to assess how accurate they thought their inferences were, a gender difference was miraculously discovered (favouring women). This can be explained by the fact that in this variation, the purpose of the experiment was made more evident. In other words, it was clearer to the participants taking part that their empathic ability was being measured. As such, these findings suggest that the supposed gender differences in empathic ability have very little to do with actual 'ability'. Instead, the differences observed are largely dependent on the importance of and influence exerted by the self-concept which offers women an incentive to live up to their proposed emotional superiority.

Therefore, when delving into two of the most notorious gender differences and discovering the ease in which they are manipulated; the explanations of 'hard-wired' sex differences in the brain suddenly become largely inadequate. 'There are sex differences in the brain ', for example it is true that women tend to have more gray matter in the brain than men. Likewise, it is also true that men and women are subject to different predominant hormones and brain structures, differences of which are arguably over-zealously documented in popular literature. However, if these innate discrepancies were solely responsible for the differences in cognitive ability (visuo-spatial & empathy) between the sexes, studies on gender differences in empathy and visuo-spatial ability would produce consistent, universal findings. But as shown from the previously discussed studies this is simply not the case. The lack of consistent findings reflects the fact that the existence of gender differences is far more complex, which can be explained in a number of less biologically reductionist ways.

Firstly, the brain is not an isolated component of the skull free from all social influence, which is also the case for gender differences. The brain is actually a very complex system that interacts and moulds with the social environment in which it is placed, hence its relative 'plasticity'. As a result, the significant differences in the lateralisation in the brain for instance, that is said to account for the superiority of men in visuo-spatial tasks could be as a result of the differences in the learning and experience of the two sexes as opposed to an innate gender induced variance. This would also explain why the size of the visuo-spatial 'skill gap is much smaller in children' and tends to increase as we get older and accumulate more experience. Further support for the idea of this complex interaction between the brain and the environment comes from a study of gender and the size of the straight gyrus (SG), a part of the brain thought to be responsible for better empathic ability. The study was conducted by Wood and Nopoulos (in press) who found that the size of the SG was better correlated with their measure of a person's ''gender'' (femininity) as opposed to their ''sex''. This demonstrates the fact that observed differences in the brain can be elicited by determinant external factors in the environment, such as a person's identification with their socially constructed gender, as opposed to simple 'hard-wiring'. Furthermore, our mind which dictates how we think and behave is not solely influenced by our brain. Instead, our mind is a multi-faceted wardrobe of social identities , stereotypes, self-concepts and motivational factors wherein 'events outside the body become incorporated into our own flesh'. As such, it would be a basic and flawed assumption to assume that gender differences can be attributed to one contributory component, i.e. the brain.

Therefore, it is in vain that we try to separate the mind from its embedded cultural fabrics, in an attempt to pin gender differences in cognitive ability down to brain scans and hormonal 'surges'. Gender differences are much more deceptive and much less certain, largely dependent on subtle social cues and associations within a society. It is the intricate interaction between the social context, fraught with stereotypes, gender inequalities and a mind-field of social identities that activate the small sex-differences in the brain and perpetuate them into a difference in cognitive ability. Without this form of social influence gender differences would not exist. From birth, our brains are a blank canvas which society uses to paint the gender-based ideology and expectancies that find their way into the cavities of our minds, sometimes without our consent, and influence our behaviour and the perception of our abilities. Gender differences are not inevitable, immutable or innate; they are created by society and maintained by biology, definitive of the different cultures but not of the different sexes.

Bibliography: Benbow C & Geary D & Gernsbacher M & Gur R & Halpern D, 'Sex, Math and Scientific Achievement', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.27-33

Bering, J., 'The Third Gender', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.74-77

Bluestein B. & Buckwater, J. G. & Kratz K. & Larson P. & Parsons, T. D. & Rizzo, A. A. & Thiebaux M. 'Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial rotation in a virtual environment',Neuropsychologia, Vol.42, 2004, pp. 555-562

Burr, V., Gender and Social Psychology, Routledge, London, 1998

Cahill, L., 'His Brain, Her Brain', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.4 - 11

Collaer, M. L. & Lippa, R. A. & Peters M., 'Sex Differences in Mental Rotation and Line Angle Judgements Are Positively Associated with Gender Equality and Economic Development Across 53 Nations', Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol.39 , 2010, pp. 990-997

Dobbs, D., 'Big Answers from Little People', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp. 20 -25

Eliot, Lise, 'Girl Brain, Boy Brain?', Mind Matters < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain > 2009 (15 June 2012)

Eliot, L., 'The Truth about Boys and Girls', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.12-19

Feingold A., 'Gender differences in personality: A Meta-Analysis', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 116, no.3, 1994, pp. 429 - 456

Fine, C., Delusions of Gender, Icon Books, London, 2010

Fink, G.R. & Markowitsch, H.J. & Piefke M. & Schulte-Ruther, M. & Shah N.J., 'Gender differences in brain networks supporting empathy', NeuroImage, Vol.42, 2008, pp. 393-403

Geary, D.C., Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 2009

Gilligan, C., In A Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1982

Golombok, S. & Fivush, R., Gender Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

Griffin, J., 'Gender bias in psychology', Psychology Review, Vol.17 (3), February 2012, pp.18-20 Halpern, D.F., Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, Psychology Press, New York, 2012

Haralambos, M and Holborn, M, Sociology:Themes and Perspectives - seventh edition, HarperCollins, London, 2002

Hemel, Daniel, 'Summers' Comments on Women and Science Draw Ire', The Harvard Crimson < http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/14/summers-comments-on-women-and-science/ >2005 (22 June 2012)

Hodges, S.D. & Klein, K.J.K., 'Gender Differences, Motivation, and Empathic Accuracy: When it pays to understand', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.27, no.6, 6 June 2001, pp.720 - 729

Moyer, M.W., 'A Patchwork Mind', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.106- 112

Nobelius, Anne-Maree, 'When is it a sex difference and when is it a gender difference?', Gender and Medicine < http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/difference.html > 2004 (11 June 2012)

Roberts, Yvonne, 'Lucky boy raised without gender stereotypes', Comment is free < http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/22/yvonne-roberts-gender-neutral-children > 2012 (8 June 2012)

Westly, E., 'Different Shades of Blue', Scientific American Mind, Vol.21 (2), Summer 2012, pp.34 - 41