Interpretations and societal implications of sex differences in personality

This essay will discuss the problems with viewing self-reported personality differences between men and women as representative of actual differences stemming from innate causes. It will discuss how self-reported differences may not be representative of actual differences. It will also discuss the possible causes of self-reported differences, such as gendered socialisation, affecting people’s perceptions of their personalities and abilities. It will also discuss the potential harms to women caused by viewing gendered stereotypes of people’s personalities and abilities as both accurate and unchangeable.

The field of research into gender differences in personality has been criticised for viewing findings through an essentialist lens. Meaning findings in personality differences are explained as being due to innate difference, as opposed to being caused by gendered socialisation. The self-report method used by much personality research has been criticised as it is subject to influence by societal values (Stake & Eisele, 2010). For example, as men are sanctioned more for displaying certain forms of emotion, they may be less likely to admit to or recognize sadness or anxiety within themselves. This effect could cause a downtrend in men’s neuroticism scores.

One study that lends credence to the theory of gendered expectations influencing personality self-reports involved female undergraduates who were primed to think of themselves as male. This was done by writing a first-person short story about a male character (Marx & Stapel, 2006). Afterwards they self-reported as having better analytical abilities and worse emotional sensitivity than women who were not primed in the way. Analytical abilities are viewed as masculine, while emotional sensitivity is viewed as feminine. There was no significant difference in scores between gender-primed women and men. The study featured a short-term manipulation and participants were asked about their analytical abilities and emotional sensitivity in the past, before they took part in the study. The results of this study indicate that gendered messages in society can alter people’s perceptions of their personality, without altering their actual personalities.

Men self-report lower levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extroversion in more economically developed countries (MEDCS) than men in less economically developed countries (LEDCs). By contrast women’s self-reported personalities do not vary much between MEDCs and LEDCs (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek & Allik, 2008). This effect could be explained by the harder nature of life in LEDCs for men, when compared with men’s lives in MEDCs. As life becomes easier for men they have less need to be conscientious, agreeable, and extroverted. The reduced stress in their lives may also reduce neuroticism. By contrast the effects of patriarchal society that persists even in highly economically developed countries mean that life increases in ease less significantly for women. The harder nature of life for women than men in MEDCs can be evidenced by the higher levels of domestic labour women do (Office for National Statistics, 2016). This is true even in Sweden (Statistics Sweden, 2011), which was ranked fifth in the world in 2017 for gender equality by the World Economic Forum (Schwab et al., 2017).

Schmitt et al. found gender equality measures did not significantly correlate with personality trait differences between the sexes when economic development was controlled for. Although this finding is questionable due to criticisms that can be made of some of the methods used to measure gender equality. For example, the difference between male and female lifespans was used as a measure, with larger gaps being viewed as an indication of greater gender equality. While some factors that affect this measure, such as poorer healthcare provision for women, are indicative of greater gender inequality, other factors are not. One factor that affects lifespan is smoking. Increased female-to-male smoking prevalence rates have been associated with increased gender equality. This association has been linked to reduced social sanctions against women smoking, and women’s increased social and economic status (Hitchman & Fong, 2011). Lower smoking rates for women would likely result in an increased difference in male and female lifespans. However, it is hard to argue that women being culturally sanctioned for, and economically prevented from, participating in an activity that men are free to engage in is indicative of gender equality. Different patterns of alcohol consumption can also affect lifespan.  For example, the large Russian lifespan gender gap, 11.6 years in 2015, compared to a global average of 4.6 years (World Health Organization, 2016), has been linked to higher male alcohol consumption. (Zaridze et al., 2014). Again, it is unclear that this cultural difference in male and female behaviour is indicative of gender equality. Schmitt et al. also used differences in male and female blood pressure as a gender equality measure. As blood pressure is affected by tobacco and alcohol consumption this measure is also questionable.

Roberts & Mroczek (2008) showed in their meta-analysis that self-reported conscientiousness tended to increase with age. This trend began in early adulthood, at around the age of twenty. This is around the age that many begin to take on responsibilities that require a higher level of conscientiousness, such as employment and raising a family. As such it can be theorised that people’s conscientiousness can increase in response to life circumstances that require more of it. This could also explain why men in MEDCs report lower levels of conscientiousness than men in LEDCs, as well as women across all countries.

There is an under-representation of women working in STEM fields in MEDCs that are viewed as relatively gender equal. This has sometimes been explained as being caused by innate differences in personality and abilities between the sexes. However, there are other possible explanations, such as the pervasive stereotype of men’s superiority in these fields affecting people’s perceptions of their abilities.

Systems used to measure gender equality can be criticised for focusing on measures concerning politics, such as the number of women in parliament, and economics. These methods fail to capture beliefs and stereotypes relating to gender, which can persist in countries ranking high in political and economic measures. One study of sixty-six countries found that women’s participation in STEM fields did not correlate with a country’s Global Gender Gap Index or Gender Empowerment Measure score. However, they did correlate with the implicit and explicit gender-science stereotypes held by citizens of these countries (Miller, Eagly, & Linn, 2015). This means there is a link between associating women with science and increased female participation in STEM.

Research into stereotype threat has shown that when primed to think about gender stereotypes girls underestimated their scores on a maths exam taken two years earlier by an average of almost three percent. By contrast boys primed to do the same overestimated their results by an average of about the same amount (Chatard, Guimond & Selimbegovic, 2007). This research suggests that when gender stereotypes are prevalent in society girls may underestimate their abilities and choose to avoid STEM careers as a result. By contrast boys may overestimate their abilities in STEM subjects and choose to pursue study and employment in these fields.

A study of faculty staff at the University of California revealed that women with children spent an average of fifty-one hours a week working for their paid job, and fifty-one hours a week performing childcare and housework. By contrast, men with children averaged fifty-six hours per week working for their paid jobs, and thirty-two hours per week performing childcare and housework (Mason & Goulden, 2004). This uneven split in domestic labour meant men were able to dedicate an extra five hours a week to their paid work, while working an overall average of fourteen hours per week less than women. It is easy to see how this additional stress being placed on women could lead to increased levels of neuroticism. Additionally, it is likely to contribute to women being less likely to pursue and stay in demanding careers. While women who do continue in their chosen careers despite these obstacles may be less successful than men due to the decreased time and energy they have to dedicate to their careers.

The Great Male Variability hypothesis has at times been used to explain why women are under-represented in some fields. The reasoning is that more males than females display intelligence at the extreme high end of the spectrum, as well as at the low end. Meanwhile, women tend to group around the centre of the intelligence spectrum. However, research conducted by Feingold (1994) across multiple countries found evidence against this hypothesis. Feingold studied the variance for males and females across three domains: verbal, mathematical, and spatial abilities. He found that for all three domains there were some countries in which males displayed greater variance, and some countries where females displayed greater variance.

There is evidence that gender-ratios for highly mathematically gifted children can change over time. In the early 1980s, among American children scoring as highly gifted in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, boys outnumbered girls by thirteen to one. By 2005 this ratio had reduced to 2.8 to one (Andreescu, Gallian, Kane & Mertz, 2008). As the USA is clearly not a perfectly gender egalitarian society today, it would be illogical to assume this as close to equality as the ratio can get.

Gender-ratios in teams participating in the International Math Olympiad vary between countries. No girls competed for Japan between 1998 and 2008, while a quarter of competitors for Serbia and Montenegro were female. Countries with more girls don’t perform more poorly. South Korea, for whom seven girls competed for between 1998 and 2008, outranks Japan (Andreescu et al., 2008) This indicates that the number of highly mathematically able girls who are identified and nurtured varies geographically.

A possible cause of decreased sex differences in personality in less gender equal countries is that women are reacting to the injustice within their society. In more sexist countries women have stronger reasons to campaign for their rights. This may lead to them displaying higher levels of traditionally masculine personality facets such as assertiveness, anger, and risk taking. An example of this effect can be seen in the recent feminist Me Too movement. Far from being a product of an increasingly gender equal society the movement can be understood as a reaction to an increasingly misogynistic environment. Sexual abuse of women had become so prevalent in Western society that women finally fought back en masse.

Social psychological explanations of continuing inequality between the sexes have sometimes been criticized as being ideologically driven. In contrast evolutionary explanations are often viewed as more objective. However, this framing ignores that proponents of evolutionary psychology often have a vested interest in upholding the status quo. Men will often wish to believe that their success stems from their own superior abilities and seek to retain their privileged position. Arguing that their success is strongly mediated by societal advantages granted to them, but not women, threatens this position. Counterintuitively, women may also benefit from endorsing essentialist explanations for gender inequality. Women can gain acceptance from men by agreeing with their beliefs instead of challenging them. Women who endorse such views are also able to present themselves as an “exception to the rule” and to some extent gain honorary male status. Women who behave in this way are putting their personal advancement before the advancement of women as a class. Interestingly, the framing of essentialist views as objective, while framing social explanations as driven by caring for others, mirrors gender stereotypes. Objectivity is viewed as a masculine trait, while women are viewed as caring and as having their judgement impaired by emotion. Perhaps it is no coincidence that two schools of thought, one seeking to justify male dominance, the other seeking to challenge it, are framed in this way, regardless of whether such framing is justified.

In conclusion, assuming there are innate, unchangeable sex differences in personality and abilities between men and women is scientifically questionable. Not only this, but by assuming these differences mean the current state of Western society is as equal as things can get, the oppression of women is perpetuated.

References

Andreescu, D., Gallian, J.A., Kane, J.M., & Mertz, J.E. (2008). Cross-cultural analysis of students with exceptional talent in mathematical problem solving. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 55(10), 1248-1260

Chatard, A., Guimond, S., & Selimbegovic, L. (2007). "How good are you in math?" the effect of gender stereotypes on students' recollection of their school marks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1017-1024. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.024

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A cross-cultural perspective. Sex Roles, 30, 81-92. doi:10.1007/BF01420741

Hitchman, S. C., & Fong, G. T. (2011). Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios. Bulletin of the World Health Organization,89(3), 195-202. doi:10.2471/blt.10.079905

Marx, D. M., & Stapel, D. A. (2006). It depends on your perspective: The role of self-relevance in stereotype-based underperformance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 768-775. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.005

Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 86-103. doi:10.1177/0002716204268744

Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology,107(3), 631-644. doi:10.1037/edu0000005

Office for National Statistics. (2016). Women shoulder the responsibility of 'unpaid work'. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/womenshouldertheresponsibilityofunpaidwork/2016-11-10

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31-35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, A., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (94), 168-182. doi:10.1037/a0014651

Schwab, K., Samans, R., Zahihi, S., Leopold, T. A., Ratcheva, V., Hausmann, R., & D'Andrea Tyson, L. (2017). The global gender gap report 2017. ().World Economic Forum.

Stake, J. E., & Eisele, H. (2010). Gender and personality. Gender, peer relations, and intimate relationships (pp. 19-40) doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5_2

Statistics Sweden. (2011). Men increase their share of unpaid housework. Retrieved from https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/living-conditions/living-conditions/the-swedish-time-use-survey/pong/statistical-news/the-swedish-time-use-survey-2010/

World Health Organization. (2016). World health statistics: Monitoring health for the SDGs. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2016/en/

Zaridze, D., Lewington, S., Boroda, A., Scélo, G., Karpov, R., Lazarev, A., . . . Peto, R. (2014). Alcohol and mortality in Russia: Prospective observational study of 151 000 adults. The Lancet,383, 1465-1473. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62247-3