, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 369–409 | Cite as

Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging Investigations of Sex Differences?

  • Cordelia FineEmail author
Original Paper


The neuroscientific investigation of sex differences has an unsavoury past, in which scientific claims reinforced and legitimated gender roles in ways that were not scientifically justified. Feminist critics have recently argued that the current use of functional neuroimaging technology in sex differences research largely follows that tradition. These charges of ‘neurosexism’ have been countered with arguments that the research being done is informative and valuable and that an over-emphasis on the perils, rather than the promise, of such research threatens to hinder scientific progress. To investigate the validity of these contrasting concerns, recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) investigations of sex differences and citation practices were systematically examined. In line with the notion of neurosexism, the research was found to support the influence of false-positive claims of sex differences in the brain, to enable the proliferation of untested, stereotype-consistent functional interpretations, and to pay insufficient attention to the potential plasticity of sex differences in both brain and mind. This, it is argued, creates a literature biased toward the presentation of sex differences in the brain as extensive, functionally significant, and fixed—and therefore implicitly supportive of a gender essentialist perspective. It is suggested that taking feminist criticisms into account would bring about substantial improvement in the quality of the science, as well as a reduction in socially harmful consequences.


Sex/gender fMRI Gender stereotypes Publication bias Gender essentialism Citation bias 



My warmest thanks to Martha Farah, Fiona Fidler, Kit Fine, Nick Haslam, Anelis Kaiser, Neil Levy, Carsten Murawski, and Danielle Pogos for their very helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper. This research was supported in part by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship.


  1. 1.
    Romanes, G. 1887/2001. Mental differences between men and women. In Education papers: Women’s quest for equality in Britain, 1850–1912, ed. D. Spender. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Russett, C. 1989. Sexual science: The Victorian construction of womanhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shields, S. 1982. The variability hypothesis: The history of a biological model of sex differences in intelligence. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 7(4): 769–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shields, S. 1975. Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist 30: 739–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers, L. 1999. Sexing the brain. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. 1992. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fine, C. 2008. Will working mothers’ brains explode? The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1: 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser, A., et al. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews 61(2): 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jordan-Young, R. and R. Rumiati. 2012. Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics 5(3): 305–315.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bluhm, R. 2012. Self-fulfilling prophecies: The influence of gender stereotypes on functional neuroimaging research on emotion. Hypatia. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01311.x.
  15. 15.
    Bluhm, R. 2011. New research, old problems: Methodological and ethical issues in fMRI research examining sex/gender differences in emotion processing. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9143-3.
  16. 16.
    Fine, C. 2012. Explaining, or sustaining, the status quo? The potentially self-fulfilling effects of ‘hardwired’ accounts of sex differences. Neuroethics 5(3): 285–294.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bluhm, R. 2011. Beyond neurosexism: Is it possible to defend the female brain? In Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science, ed. R. Bluhm, A. Jacobson, and H. Maibom, 230–245. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmitz, S. 2010. Sex, gender, and the brain - biological determinism versus socio-cultural constructivism. In Sex and gender in biomedicine: Theories, methodologies, results, ed. I. Klinge and C. Wiesemann, 57–76. Göttingen: Univ.-Verl. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cahill, L. 2010. Sex influences on brain and emotional memory: The burden of proof has shifted. In Sex differences in the human brain, their underpinnings and implications, ed. I. Savic, 29–40. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jordan-Young, R. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halpern, D.F. 2010. How neuromythologies support sex roles stereotypes. Science 330: 1320–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCarthy, M. and G. Ball. 2011. Tempests and tales: Challenges to the study of sex differences in the brain. Biology of Sex Differences 2(4): 1–5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cahill, L. 2006. Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7(6): 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy, M., et al. 2012. Sex differences in the brain: The not so inconvenient truth. Journal of Neuroscience 32(7): 2241–2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baron-Cohen, S. 2003. The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lawrence, P. 2006. Men, women, and ghosts in science. PLoS Biology 4(1): e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pinker, S. 2005. Sex ed. In The new republic. Accessed 18 Nov 2009.
  28. 28.
    Tierney, J. 2011. Social scientist sees bias within. In New York Times. New York. Accessed 27 Oct 2012.
  29. 29.
    Saletan, W. 2011. Sex on the brain: Are boys’ brains different from girls’ brains? Scientists debate the question. In Slate. Accessed 27 Oct 2012.
  30. 30.
    Haslam, N., and J. Whelan. 2008. Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/3: 1297–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Vries, G. 2004. Sex differences in adult and developing brains: Compensation, compensation, compensation. Endocrinology 145(3): 1063–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoffman, G. 2011. What, if anything, can neuroscience tell us about gender differences? In Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science, ed. R. Bluhm, A. Jacobson, and H. Maibom, 30–55. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore, C. 1995. Maternal contributions to mammalian reproductive development and the divergence of males and females. Advances in the Study of Behavior 24: 47–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maccoby, E.E., and C.N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yong, E. 2012. Bad copy. Nature 485: 298–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fanelli, D. 2012. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90: 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wallentin, M. 2009. Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language 108(3): 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thirion, B., et al. 2007. Analysis of a large fMRI cohort: Statistical and methodological issues for group analyses. NeuroImage 35(1): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nieuwenhuis, S., B.U. Forstmann, and E.-J. Wagenmakers. 2011. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience 14(9): 1105–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McGlone, J. 1980. Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: A critical survey. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 215–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shaywitz, B., et al. 1995. Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 373: 607–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ihnen, S.K.Z., et al. 2009. Lack of generalizability of sex differences in the fMRI BOLD activity associated with language processing in adults. NeuroImage 45(3): 1020–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sommer, I., et al. 2004. Do women really have more bilateral language representation than men? A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Brain 127: 1845–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sommer, I., et al. 2008. Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the Planum Temporale and functional language lateralization. Brain Research 1206: 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simmons, J., L. Nelson, and U. Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Friston, K. 2012. Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. NeuroImage 61(4): 1300–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmidt, H., et al. 2009. No gender differences in brain activation during the N-back task: An fMRI study in healthy individuals. Human Brain Mapping 30: 3609–3615.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cahill, L. 2003. Sex-related influences on the neurobiology of emotionally influenced memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 985: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cahill, L., et al. 2004. Sex-related hemispheric lateralization of amygdala function in emotionally influenced memory: An fMRI investigation. Learning & Memory 11: 262–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    LaBar, K.S., and R. Cabeza. 2006. Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 7(1): 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dolcos, F., A.D. Iordan, and S. Dolcos. 2011. Neural correlates of emotion–cognition interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23(6): 669–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hamann, S. 2005. Sex differences in the responses of the human amygdala. The Neuroscientist 11(4): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Phelps, E. 2004. Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14(2): 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cahill, L., et al. 1996. Amygdala activity at encoding correlated with long-term, free recall of emotional information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 8016–8021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cahill, L., et al. 2001. Sex-related difference in amygdala activity during emotionally influenced memory storage. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 75: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Canli, T. 1999. fMRI identifies a network of structures correlated with retention of positive and negative emotional memory. Psychobiology 27: 441–452.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Canli, T., et al. 2002. Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(16): 10789–10794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Canli, T., et al. 2000. Event-related activation in the human amygdala associates with later memory for individual emotional experience. Journal of Neuroscience 20(RC99): 1–5.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hamann, S., et al. 1999. Amygdala activity related to enhanced memory for pleasant and aversive stimuli. Nature Neuroscience 2(3): 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harrington, G., and S. Farias. 2008. Sex differences in language processing: Functional MRI methodological considerations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27: 1221–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Buchanan, T.W., et al. 2001. Verbal and nonverbal emotional memory following unilateral amygdala damage. Learning & Memory 8(6): 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang, H.-B., et al. 2010. Is the contribution of the amygdala to the sex- and enhancement-related effects of emotional memory time-dependent? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 93(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ritchey, M., F. Dolcos, and R. Cabeza. 2008. Role of amygdala connectivity in the persistence of emotional memories over time: An event-related fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex 18: 2494–2504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cousin, E., M. Perrone, and M. Baciu. 2009. Hemispheric specialization for language according to grapho-phonemic transformation and gender. A divided visual field experiment. Brain and Cognition 69(3): 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Li, T., Q.M. Luo, and H. Gong. 2010. Gender-specific hemodynamics in prefrontal cortex during a verbal working memory task by near-infrared spectroscopy. Behavioural Brain Research 209(1): 148–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Friston, K., and C. Price. 2001. Dynamic representations and generative models of brain function. Brain Research Bulletin 54(3): 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Poldrack, R. 2006. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2): 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Poldrack, R. 2008. The role of fMRI in cognitive neuroscience: Where do we stand? Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18(2): 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Buracas, G.T., I. Fine, and G.M. Boynton. 2005. The relationship between task performance and functional magnetic resonance imaging response. Journal of Neuroscience 25(12): 3023–3031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bird, C., et al. 2004. The impact of extensive medial frontal lobe damage on ‘Theory of Mind’ and cognition. Brain 127: 914–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Blakemore, S.-J., et al. 2007. Adolescent development of the neural circuitry for thinking about intentions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2: 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Haier, R., et al. 1992. Regional glucose metabolic changes after learning a complex visuospatial/motor task: A positron emission tomographic study. Brain Research 570: 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Petersson, K.M., C. Elfgren, and M. Ingvar. 1997. A dynamic role of the medial temporal lobe during retrieval of declarative memory in man. NeuroImage 6(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Halari, R., et al. 2006. Comparable fMRI activity with differential behavioural performance on mental rotation and overt verbal fluency tasks in healthy men and women. Experimental Brain Research 169: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gur, R., et al. 2000. An fMRI study of sex differences in regional activation to a verbal and a spatial task. Brain and Language 74(2): 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gur, R., et al. 1999. Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: Correlations with cognitive performance. Journal of Neuroscience 19(10): 4065–4072.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Shirao, N., et al. 2005. Gender differences in brain activity generated by unpleasant word stimuli concerning body image: an fMRI study. The British Journal of Psychiatry 186(1): 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    McRae, K., et al. 2008. Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(2): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Koch, K., et al. 2007. Gender differences in the cognitive control of emotion: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 45(12): 2744–2754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Park, D.C., and C.-M. Huang. 2010. Culture wires the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(4): 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fine, J.G., M. Semrud-Clikeman, and D.C. Zhu. 2009. Gender differences in BOLD activation to face photographs and video vignettes. Behavioural Brain Research 201(1): 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mak, A.K.Y., et al. 2009. Sex-related differences in neural activity during emotion regulation. Neuropsychologia 47(13): 2900–2908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Klucken, T., et al. (2009). Neural activations of the acquisition of conditioned sexual arousal: Effects of contingency awareness and sex. Journal of Sex Medicine 6: 3071–3085.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lee, T.M.C., et al. 2009. Sex-related differences in neural activity during risk taking: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 19(6): 1303–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Derntl, B., et al. 2010. Multidimensional assessment of empathic abilities: Neural correlates and gender differences. Psychoneuroendocrinology 35(1): 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Goldstein, J.M., et al. 2010. Sex differences in stress response circuitry activation dependent on female hormonal cycle. Journal of Neuroscience 30(2): 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Draganski, B., et al. 2004. Neuroplasticity: Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature 427(6972): 311–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Maguire, E.A., et al. 2000. Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97(8): 4398–4403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Joel, D. 2011. Male or female? Brain are intersex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 5(Article 57).Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jäncke, L. 2009. The plastic human brain. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 27: 521–538.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Moore, C., H. Dou, and J. Juraska. 1992. Maternal stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord. Brain Research 572: 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kaplan, G., and L. Rogers. 2003. Gene worship: Moving beyond the nature/nurture debate over genes, brain, and gender. New York: Other Press.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Springer, K., J. Stellman, and R. Jordan-Young. 2012. Beyond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Social Science & Medicine 74(11): 1817–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. 2003. The problem with sex/gender and nature/nurture. In Debating biology: Sociological reflections on health, medicine and society, ed. S. Williams, L. Birke, and G. Bendelow, 123–132. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    van Anders, S., and N. Watson. 2006. Social neuroendocrinology: Effects of social contexts and behaviors on sex steroids in humans. Human Nature 17(2): 212–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hyde, J., et al. 2008. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321: 494–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hyde, J., and J. Mertz. 2009. Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(22): 8801–8807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kane, J., and J. Mertz. 2011. Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 59(1): 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Walton, G., and S. Spencer. 2009. Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science 20(9): 1132–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Nguyen, H., and A. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Stoet, G., and D.C. Geary. 2012. Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology 16(1): 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Malle, B. 2006. The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132(6): 896–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Miller, G. 2008. Growing pains for fMRI. Science 320(5882): 1412–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Eliot, L. 2011. Single-sex education and the brain. Sex Roles. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0037-y.
  105. 105.
    Eliot, L. 2011. The trouble with sex differences. Neuron 72: 895–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bishop, K., and D. Wahlsten. 1997. Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: Myth or reality? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 21(5): 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychological SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Ethical LeadershipMelbourne Business SchoolCarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations