Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling Effects of ‘Hardwired’ Accounts of Sex Differences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article I flesh out support for observations that scientific accounts of social groups can influence the very groups and mental phenomena under investigation. The controversial hypothesis that there are hardwired differences between the brains of males and females that contribute to sex differences in gender-typed behaviour is common in both the scientific and popular media. Here I present evidence that such claims, quite independently of their scientific validity, have scope to sustain the very sex differences they seek to explain. I argue that, while further research is required, such claims can have self-fulfilling effects via their influence on social perception, behaviour and attitudes. The real effects of the products of scientists’ research on our minds and society, together with the fact that all scientific hypotheses are subject to dispute and disconfirmation, point to a need for scientists to consider the ethical implications of their work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hines, M. 2010. Sex-related variation in human behavior and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(10): 448–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baron-Cohen, S. 2003. The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baron-Cohen, S., R.C. Knickmeyer, and M.K. Belmonte. 2005. Sex differences in the brain: Implications for explaining autism. Science 310: 819–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaiser, A., S. Haller, S. Schmitz, and C. Nitsch. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews 61(2): 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gur, R.C., and R.E. Gur. 2007. Neural substrates for sex differences in cognition. In Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence, ed, S.J. Ceci, and W.M. Williams, 189–198. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

  6. Halpern, D.F., C.P. Benbow, D.C. Geary, R.C. Gur, J.S. Hyde, and M.A. Gernsbacher. 2007. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8(1): 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Grossi, G. 2008. Science or belief? Bias in sex differences research. In Under-representation of women in science and technology, ed. S. Badaloni, C.A. Drace, O. Gia, C. Levorato, and F. Vidotto, 93–106. Padova: Cleup.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grossi, G, and C Fine. The role of fetal testosterone in the development of “the essential difference” between the sexes: Some essential issues. In Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive neuroscience, eds. R. Bluhm, A.J. Jacobson, and H.L. Maibom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. forthcoming.

  10. Jordan-Young, R.M. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fine, C. 2010. From scanner to sound bite: Issues in interpreting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19(5): 280–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz, B. 1997. Psychology, idea technology, and ideology. Psychological Science 8(1): 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hacking, I. 1995. The looping effects of human kinds. In Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate, ed. D. Sperber, D. Premack, and A.J. Premack, 351–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Choudhury, S., S.K. Nagel, and J. Slaby. 2009. Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties 4: 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kitayama, S., and D. Cohen. 2007. Preface. In Handbook of cultural psychology, ed. S. Kitayama and D. Cohen. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bem, S.L. 1983. Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 8(4): 598–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, C.F., H.M. Trautner, and D.N. Ruble. 2006. The role of gender stereotypes in children's preferences and behavior. In Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues, eds. L Balter, and CS Tamis-LeMonda, 293–323. New York: Psychology Press.

  18. Prentice, D.A., and E. Carranza. 2002. What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26(4): 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nosek, B.A., F.L. Smyth, N. Sriram, N.M. Lindner, T. Devos, A. Ayala, Y. Bar-Anan, et al. 2009. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS 106(26): 10593–10597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bargh, J.A., and E.L. Williams. 2006. The automaticity of social life. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, E.R., and J. DeCoster. 2000. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality & Social Psychology Review 4(2): 108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kunda, Z., and S.J. Spencer. 2003. When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin 129(4): 522–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson, T.E., M.R. Biernat, and M. Manis. 1990. Everyday base rates (sex stereotypes): Potent and resilient. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 59(4): 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sidorowicz, L.S., and G.S. Lunney. 1980. Baby X revisited. Sex Roles 6(1): 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Delk, J.L., R.B. Madden, M. Livingston, and T.T. Ryan. 1986. Adult perceptions of the infant as a function of gender labeling and observer gender. Sex Roles 15(9/10): 527–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mondschein, E.R., K.E. Adolph, and C.S. Tamis-LeMonda. 2000. Gender bias in mothers’ expectations about infant crawling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 77: 304–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clearfield, M.W., and N.M. Nelson. 2006. Sex differences in mothers' speech and play behavior with 6-, 9-, and 14-month-old infants. Sex Roles 54(1/2): 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fuegen, K. 2010. The effects of gender stereotypes on judgments and decisions in organizations. In Social psychology of gender (Advances in group processes, volume 24), ed. S.J. Correll, 79–98. Emerald Group Publishing.

  29. Heilman, M.E., and E.J. Parks-Stamm. 2010. Gender stereotypes in the workplace: obstacles to women’s career progress. In Social psychology of gender (Advances in group processes, volume 24), ed. S.J. Correll, 79–98. Emerald Group Publishing.

  30. Davison, H.K., and M.J. Burke. 2000. Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56(2): 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Isaac, C., B. Lee, and M. Carnes. 2009. Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine 84(10): 1440–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Norton, M.I., J.A. Vandello, and J.M. Darley. 2004. Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 87(6): 817–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Phelan, J.E., C.A. Moss-Racusin, and L.A. Rudman. 2008. Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 32(4): 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Uhlmann, E.L., and G.L. Cohen. 2005. Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science 16(6): 474–480.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Biernat, M., and D. Kobrynowicz. 1997. Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 72(3): 544–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Correll, S.J., S. Benard, and I. Paik. 2007. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology 112(5): 1297–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fuegen, K., M. Biernat, E. Haines, and K. Deaux. 2004. Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job-related competence. Journal of Social Issues 60(4): 737–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heilman, M.E., and T.G. Okimoto. 2008. Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1): 189-198.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bowles, R.P., L. Babcock, and L. Lai. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103(1): 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eagly, A.H., M.G. Makhijani, and B.G. Klonsky. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111(1): 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Heilman, M.E., A.S. Wallen, D. Fuchs, and M.M. Tamkins. 2004. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(3): 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Okimoto, T.G., and V.L. Brescoll. 2010. The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 36(7): 923–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rudman, L.A. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 74(3): 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rudman, L.A., and P. Glick. 1999. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 77(5): 1004–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rudman, L.A., and P. Glick. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chatard, A., S. Guimond, and L. Selimbegovic. 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(6): 1017–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sinclair, S., C.D. Hardin, and B.S. Lowery. 2006. Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4): 529–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Davies, P.G., S.J. Spencer, D.M. Quinn, and R. Gerhardstein. 2002. Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 28(12): 1615–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Davies, P.G., S.J. Spencer, and C.M. Steele. 2005. Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 88(2): 276–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Steele, J.R., and N. Ambady. 2006. “Math is hard!” The effect of gender priming on women's attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(4): 428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lewis, K.L., J.L. Smith, and K.E. Hawkinson. 2011. Tuning out in order to fit in: The effects of gender role expectations and affiliation motives on men's interpersonal sensitivity. In Managing Interpersonal Sensitivity: Knowing when - and when not - to understand others, ed. J.L. Smith, W. Ickes, and S.D. Hodges, 75–97. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.

  52. Sinclair, S., J. Huntsinger, J. Skorinko, and C.D. Hardin. 2005. Social tuning of the self: Consequences for the self-evaluations of stereotype targets. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 89(2): 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sinclair, S., and J. Lun. 2006. Significant other representations activate stereotypic self-views among women. Self and Identity 5(2): 196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Correll, S.J. 2004. Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review 69(1): 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Steele, C.M. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist 52(6): 613–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmader, T., M. Johns, and C. Forbes. 2008. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review 115(2): 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Walton, G.M., and S.J. Spencer. 2009. Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science 20(9): 1132–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nguyen, H.D., and A.M. Ryan. 2008. Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(6): 1314–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Good, J.J., J.A. Woodzicka, and L.C. Wingfield. 2010. The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance. Journal of Social Psychology 150(2): 132–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rydell, R.J., M.T. Rydell, and K.L. Boucher. 2010. The effect of negative performance stereotypes on learning. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 99(6): 883–896.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ridgeway, C.L., and S.J. Correll. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society 18(4): 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Graham, T., and W. Ickes. 1997. When women's intuition isn't greater than men's. In Empathic accuracy, ed. W. Ickes, 117–143. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ickes, W. 2003. Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ickes, W., P.R. Gesn, and T. Graham. 2000. Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships 7(1): 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Koenig, A.M., and A.H. Eagly. 2005. Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles 52(7/8): 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Leyens, J.-P., M. Désert and J.-C. Croizet. 2000. Stereotype threat: are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 26(10): 1189–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Horgan, T.G., and J.L. Smith. 2006. Interpersonal reasons for interpersonal perceptions: Gender-incongruent purpose goals and nonverbal judgment accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 30(3): 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Klein, K.J.K., and S.D. Hodges. 2001. Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(6): 720–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Thomas, G., and G.R. Maio. 2008. Man, I feel like a woman: When and how gender-role motivation helps mind-reading. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 95(5): 1165–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Smith, J.L., and K.L. Lewis. 2009. Men's interpersonal (mis)perception: fitting in with gender norms following social rejection. Sex Roles 61(3/4): 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Baron-Cohen, S. 2010. Delusions of gender—'neurosexism', biology and politics. The Psychologist. 23(11): 904–905.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Fine, C. 2010. Seductive arguments. The Psychologist 23(12): 948–949.

    Google Scholar 

  74. McCabe, D.P., and A.D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107(1): 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Weisberg, D.S., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(3): 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Racine, E., S. Waldman, J. Rosenberg, and J. Illes. 2010. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine 71(4): 725–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Baron-Cohen, S. 2009. Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’. From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7736196.stm. Accessed 2 Feb 2009.

  78. Kimura, D. 2005. Hysteria trumps academic freedom. Vancouver Sun, p. A13.

  79. Martin, A. 2010. Beyond understanding. From New York Times online: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/beyond-understanding/. Accessed 27 May 2011.

  80. Tosh, J. 2010. The ‘extreme male brain’ theory of why men are better suited to IT: CyComp 2010 conference report. Psychology of Women Section Review 12(2): 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Haslam, N., L. Rothschild, and D. Ernst. 2000. Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology 39(1): 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Dar-Nimrod, I., and S.J. Heine. 2006. Exposure to scientific theories affects women's math performance. Science 314: 435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Thoman, D.B., P.H. White, N. Yamawaki, and H. Koishi. 2008. Variations of gender-math stereotype content affect women's vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles 58(9/10): 702–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Dweck, C.S. 2007. Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence, ed. S.J. Ceci and W.M. Williams, 47–55. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Good, C., J. Aronson, and M. Inzlicht. 2003. Improving adolescents’ standardized test peformance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 24(6): 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Brescoll, V., and M. LaFrance. 2004. The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science 15(8): 515–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Martin, C.L., and S. Parker. 1995. Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 21(1): 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Coleman, J.M., and Y.-Y. Hong. 2008. Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity 7(1): 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Bastian, B., and N. Haslam. 2006. Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(2): 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Brizendine, L. 2007. The female brain. London: Bantam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Keller, J. 2005. In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 88(4): 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Dambrun, M., R. Kamiejski, N. Haddadi, and S. Duarte. 2009. Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of “geneticism”. European Journal of Social Psychology 39(1): 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Yzerbyt, V., S. Rocher, and G. Schadron. 1997. Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialist view of group perception. In The social psychology of stereotyping and group life, ed. R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, and S.A. Haslam, 20–50. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Bem, S.L. 1993. The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Morton, T.A., S.A. Haslam, and M.J. Hornsey. 2009. Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 96(3): 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Haslam, N.. Genetic essentialism, neuro-essentialism, and stigma: Comment on Dar-Nimrod & Heine (2011). Psychological Bulletin. forthcoming.

  97. Gurian, M., and B. Annis. 2008. Leadership and the sexes: Using gender science to create success in business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Gurian, M, and K Stevens. 2004. With boys and girls in mind. Educational Leadership 62(3): 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Sax, L. 2006. Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Gaunt, R. 2006. Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: What determines parents' involvement in child care. Sex Roles 55(7/8): 523–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Fausto-Sterling, A. 1992. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Russett, C.E. 1989. Sexual science: the Victorian construction of womanhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Shields, S. 1975. Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. American Psychologist 30: 739–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Nick Haslam for his valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Agency, Values & Ethics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Cordelia Fine

  2. Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St., Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia

    Cordelia Fine

Authors
  1. Cordelia Fine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cordelia Fine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fine, C. Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling Effects of ‘Hardwired’ Accounts of Sex Differences. Neuroethics 5, 285–294 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9118-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9118-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation