Gender Stereotypes

Are females better “empathizers” than males? Critically discuss evidence and possible explanations.

Introduction The term “empathy” has a relatively short history. Its origins lie with the philosophers Theodor Lipps and Robert Vischer, having fashioned the German word Einfühlung in the late XIXth century, which directly translates to “feeling into”. It was later translated into the English word “empathy” by the psychologist Edward Tichner (Hojat et al. 2003). A universal definition of the term empathy is still not agreed upon. However, for the purpose of this work a precise definition is required. I will, therefore, call upon Simon Baron-Cohen’s interpretation of the word, where he defines it as being “about spontaneously and naturally
tuning into the other person 's thoughts and feelings, whatever these might be”. Furthermore, he distinguishes the two components of empathy: being the cognitive component which enables someone to “understand others feelings and the ability to take their perspective” and the affective component which is “an observer 's appropriate emotional response to another person 's emotional state” (Baron-Cohen 2003). Through this definition, I will provide evidence and possible explanations for the universal assumption that females are better empathizers than males. In a first part, I will discuss the possibilities of a gender difference through psychological studies. Secondly, I will offer evidence of this gender divide from a neurological perspective. Finally, I will consider possible causes, which could explain the origin of this difference in the ability to empathize.

Gender differences in empathizing

Gender differences in the ability to empathize are noticed as early as in child birth, with female babies showing a stronger preference for looking at faces than baby boys (Connelan et al. 2000). Also, Hittelman and Dickes (1979) indicated that immediately after birth, girls make more eye contact than boys. Furthermore, at forty-eight months, girls show greater social skills in making relationships (Knickemeyer et al. 2005), with similar patterns being observed in adults, where women report more intimate relationships than men and receive more social visits from friends and family (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2003). In addition, numerous studies have indicated that by the age of three, girls can already judge what people might be thinking or intending, far outshining boys in this domain. A term used is “theory of mind” which corresponds to the cognitive component Baron-Cohen used to define empathy (Frith and Frith 2005). These are but a few examples demonstrating gender differences in the ability to empathize.
In his book The Essential Difference, Simon Baron-Cohen gives a fair amount more, all pointing to the same conclusion that women are better empathizers than men. Obviously, this statement is not saying, “every single female is better at empathizing than males”. All it is showing is that, on average, women have been proven to be more in touch with their emotions, and have been more apt in their ability to infer what people might be thinking or intending. On the other hand, Baron-Cohen also explains that men are better systemisers; that is, that they are more capable of understanding and building systems. Their abilities in mathematics and natural sciences, for example, are
greater. The Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ) were developed in order to confirm or refute gender differences in empathizing and systemizing (Baron-Cohen et al. 2003; Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004). The EQ and SQ are both self-report questionnaires asking general questions where empathy or systemizing skills would be required. Moreover, the results from both these tests confirm that women, on average, are better empathizers whereas men, on average, are better systemisers (Wheelwright et al. 2006).

Whilst comparing normalized scores on the EQ and SQ, Goldenfield et al. (2005) confirmed the findings previously stated: that women scored higher on the EQ than men and vice versa for the SQ. The difference between the normalized scores demonstrated a gender difference and led to the definition of the empirical “brain types” (Goldenfield et al. 2005). The authors described the different “brain types” as “balanced” (type B), which consisted of people showing equal empathizing and systemizing skills, as better empathizers (type E), or better systemisers (type S). The assignment of ‘brain types’ based on relative EQ and SQ scores appears to be a useful method for describing differences in sex-typical behavior, with the majority of females towards Type E and the majority of males towards Type S. Interestingly, a study was performed on boys with gender identity disorder compared to a control group of boys, girls and a group of clinical control boys with externalizing disorders (such as Autism Spectrum Disorder). The study indicated that on a self-report questionnaire the boys with gender identity disorder showed comparable empathy to the control group of girls, and were least like the control group of boys with externalizing disorders. This would suggest that their brain was more female-orientated, and was most probably of type E, confirming the gender identity crisis they displayed (Owen-Anderson et al. 2008).

Furthermore, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Asperger syndrome are an “empathy” disorder: meaning that those who are affected have an incomplete ability to empathize properly. Individuals with either of these disorders have a great difficulty understanding another person’s thoughts, feelings and behavior. Critically, it has been recognized that males are more affected by Autism than females by a ratio of 4:1 (Rutter 1978), and in Asperger syndrome by a ration of 10:1 (Gillberg and Gillberg 1989), further demonstrating that empathy is a more female-typical associated emotion.

Through these different examples, which strongly suggest that females are better empathizers than males, it follows that one should question if there is any neurological evidence supporting this divide.

Neurological basis for gender differences in empathy

Singer et al. (2004) indicated through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, comparing hemodynamic responses to painful versus non-painful stimuli, that an increased activation was observed in the insula and in the anterior cingulate cortex. It was later shown that the activation in these brain areas was the result of the affective component of empathy (Jackson et al. 2006). It was also shown that these brain areas were activated in a later phase, which corresponded to the late cognitive component (Han et al. 2008). They examined the gender differences in the neural processes of empathy for pain by recording event-related brain potentials from male and females. By examining the early automatic process (140-320 ms) (Fan and Han 2008), it was found that females showed a response between 140 and 180 ms whereas males showed it between 180 and 320 ms. These results suggest that subjective feelings of both others’ pain and self-unpleasantness are determined by the early automatic process of empathy but are more strongly determined in females than in males. Additionally, evidence was shown for gender difference in pain effects on neural responses during the controlled process (340-540 ms). It was shown that both sexes responded to the pain received by the subjects but this pain effect was stronger for females than males.

Although these studies identified a neurophysiological difference in the empathic process between males and females, the reason is still unclear. A possibility is the structural differences between both the male and female brains. Goldstein et al (2001) found that women have larger volumes (relative to cerebrum size) in the frontal and the medial paralimbic cortices and that males had larger volumes (relative to cerebrum size) in the frontomedial cortex, the amygdala and the hypothalamus. The frontal and medial paralimbic cortices have been found to stimulate both emotional responses and high cognitive functions, confirming the statement that women are more apt to empathize than men.

However, in a study relating to the interconnectivity of brain networks, Tomasi and Volkow (2011) indicated that there was a gender difference, not in structure, but in function. They used resting-state “functional connectivity” fMRI in men and women and developed a method termed “local functional connectivity density mapping” to calculate the degree to which each part of the brain is functionally related to each other part. They found that in both men and women, the main “connectivity hub” was the ventral precuneus. Remarkably, the degree of connectivity was 14% higher in women than men. Furthermore, men’s brains were on average bigger, but interestingly, they showed that women had, relative to cerebrum size, more grey matter than men. One hypothesis could be that men’s lower brain connectivity might reflect optimization of functions that require specialized processing, such as spacial orienting. On the other hand, the women’s higher brain connectivity could underlie the greater ability to be in touch with their emotions and develop greater linguistic skills, which ultimately are critical for empathizing.

Having provided evidence for this gender divide from both a psychological and neurological perspective, the difficulty seems to be able to explain how it could have occurred. Perhaps it is due to social influences, and the difference in how a boy is brought up as opposed to a girl, or maybe it could be a difference dictated by evolution.

Factors that influence the development of gender differences in empathizing Many psychologists have hypothesized on the fact that testosterone levels could play a role in the ability to empathize, and in particular in cognitive empathy (Geschwind and Galaburda 1985). A new study validates this hypothesis by showing that women who have been administered testosterone perform lower at the “reading the mind in the eye” test (Van Honk et al. 2011). Each woman was tested twice, once having been administered a dose of testosterone and the other a placebo. 75% of the women performed worse after having been administered the testosterone as opposed to the placebo. However, the results are not that simple, with some women less affected by the additional testosterone than others. Thus, Van Honk et al. (2011) postulated that this could be due to the exposure to foetal testosterone in the womb. All foetuses are exposed to testosterone while developing, but not all to the same extent. One way of measuring the extent to which the foetus was exposed to testosterone is by calculating the adult ratio of ring finger length to index finger length (Manning et al. 1998). Larger ratios of ring finger to index finger lengths correspond to higher foetal testosterone levels. The results showed that women who had longer ring fingers (higher foetal testosterone) seemed to be more easily impaired when administered a dose of testosterone. These findings could provide proof to why men are less able to distinguish emotions, and therefore empathize as well as women, due to the constant exposure to testosterone throughout their lives.

Social interactions also undoubtedly play a pivotal role in the development of young children. Fagot and Hagan (1991) found that parents usually encouraged their children to play with gender-stereotyped toys. For example, parents will give their young boys a toy fire engine to play with and their daughters a doll. Intriguingly, in this study, it was also shown that boys were discouraged to play with feminine-typical toys whereas girls were not discouraged to play with masculine-typical toys. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that these social influences are the sole reason for gender differences and the greater ability to empathize in girls as opposed to boys. Indeed, studies performed by Hughes and Cutting (1999) provided an insight into the possibility that a good empathizer inherits this ability, rendering the way someone empathizes an innate faculty and is determined by birth.

If we are to believe that the ability to empathize is inherited from father to son, then we need to propose the evolutionary process underlining the gender differences I have shown above. Baron-Cohen (2003) suggests that these gender differences are the result of different pressures on both males and females. This is to say that it would not be unusual to assume that along history, males, who’s predominant activities were to assume hunting and tracking obligations, to undertake leadership responsibilities, etc., would have necessitated a more systemizing orientated brain. We could say the same, for example, about females and their need to care for their offspring, which would require the ability to understand the need of the child, and therefore the necessity to empathize correctly. From this evolutionary perspective, both male and female brains are perfectly adapted for their own differing purposes.

Conclusion

It has long been common knowledge that empathizing is more natural in women than in men. Just from witnessing how children behave one can assume that a gender difference is apparent. On the other hand, proving that this difference exists is more difficult to pin down. From general psychology studies, I have shown that in both children and adults an apparent gender divide in the ability to empathize is clear. Furthermore, from a neurological perspective both the structure and the function of brain networks differ in males and females, resulting in the increased empathy shown in females. For example, through increased interconnectivity of the ventral precuneus, women are able to be more in touch with their feelings than men are. Finally, genetic and hormonal influences help us to understand the evolutionary aspect of this gender divide, as well as demonstrating that social influences are not the sole reason murderers happen to predominantly be male!

References

Baron-Cohen S.
(2003). The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain. Basic Books.
Baron-Cohen S, Richler J, Bisarya D, Gurunathan N, Wheelwright S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (358). 361–374.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. (2003). The Friendship Questionnaire: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. (33). 509–517.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. (34). 163–175.
Connellan J, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Batki A, Ahluwalia J. (2000). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and Development. (23).
113–118.
Frith C, Frith U. (2005). Theory of Mind. Current Biology. (15). 644-645.
Geschwind N, Galaburda AM. (1985). Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. Archives of Neurology. (42). 428-459.
Gillberg IC, Gillberg C. (1989). Asperger syndrome--some epidemiological considerations: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. (30). 631-638.
Goldenfeld N, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. (2005). Empathizing and systemizing in males, females and autism. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2). 338–345.
Hittelman JH, Dickes R. (1979). Sex differences in neonatal eye contact time. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. (25). 171–184.
Hojat M, Gonnella J, Mangione S, Nasca T, Magee M. (2003). Physician empathy in medical education and practice: Experience with the Jefferson scale of physician empathy. Seminars in Integrative Medicine. (1). 25-41.
Hughes C, Cutting, A. (1999). Nature, nurture and individual differences in early understanding of mind. Psychological Science (10). 429-432.
Knickmeyer R, Baron-Cohen S, Raggatt P, Taylor K. (2005). Foetal testosterone, social relationships, and restricted interests in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. (46). 198–210.
Manning JT, Scutt D, Wilson J, Lewis-Jones DI. (1998). The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: A predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction. (13). 3000-3004.
Owen-Anderson A, Jenkins J, Bradley S, Zucker K. (2008). Empathy in Boys with Gender Identity Disorder: A Comparison to Externalizing Clinical Control Boys and Community Control Boys and Girls. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. (39). 67-83.
Rutter M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia. (8). 139-161.
Tomasi D, Volkow N. (2011). Gender differences in brain functional connectivity density. Human Brain Mapping. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21252
Van Honk J, Schutter D, Bos P, Kruijt A, Lentjes E, Baron-Cohen S. (2011). Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (108). 3448-3452.
Wheelwright S, Baron-Cohen S, Goldenfeld N, Delaney J, Fine D, Smith R. (2006). Predicting autism spectrum quotient (AQ) from the systemizing quotient-revised (SQ-R) and empathy quotient (EQ). Brain Research. (1079). 47–56.