Objective: Sex differences in personality are a matter of continuing debate. In a study on the United States standardization sample of Cattell’s 16PF (fifth edition), Del Giudice and colleagues (2012; PLoS ONE, 7, e29265) estimated global sex differences in personality with multigroup covariance and mean structure analysis. The study found a surprisingly large multivariate effect, D = 2.71. Here we replicated the original analysis with an open online dataset employing an equivalent version of the
We closely replicated the original MG‐MCSA analysis on N = 21,567 U.S. participants (63% females, age 16–90); for robustness, we also analyzed N = 31,637 participants across English‐speaking countries (61% females, age 16–90).
The size of global sex differences was D = 2.06 in the United States and D = 2.10 across English‐speaking countries. Parcel‐allocation variability analysis showed that results were robust to changes in parceling (U.S.: median D = 2.09, IQR [1.89, 2.37]; English‐speaking countries: median D = 2.17, IQR [1.98, 2.47]).
Our results corroborate the original study (with a comparable if somewhat smaller effect size) and provide new information on the impact of parcel allocation. We discuss the implications of these and similar findings for the psychology of
Quelle: Global sex differences in personality: Replication with an open
Also erneut eine Studie mit einem großen Datensatz, bei dem sehr große Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern dargestellt werden.
Aus der Studie:
The present study supports the idea that global sex differences in personality are considerably larger than commonly assumed. To put our results in perspective, D values between 2.06 and 2.10 imply that the personality profile of a randomly picked male will be more male‐typical than that of a randomly picked female about 93% of the times (common language effect size). Likewise, knowing the personality profile of an individual makes it possible to correctly guess his/her sex about 85% of the times (see Del Giudice, 2019). (Note that these figures apply to a person’s “true” personality profile and not to his/her observed questionnaire scores, which are contaminated by measurement error. The corresponding probabilities for uncorrected scores are 80% and 72%.)
Of note, these findings may help answer a long‐standing question in the literature (e.g., Carothers & Reis, 2013; Maney, 2016): if psychological differences are dimensional with no discrete boundaries between the sexes, why do categorical stereotypes of men’s and women’s behavior persist in everyday life? A possible answer is that people have a strong automatic tendency to use categorical templates to interpret the world, and for this reason misconstrue the actual structure of sex differences (Reis & Carothers, 2014). However, research on stereotypes has consistently found that people estimate sex differences in personality with high accuracy (Jussim, Crawford, & Rubinstein, 2015; Löckenhoff et al., 2014); this does not sit well with the idea that the same observers exaggerate the separation between the sexes to the point of perceiving two non‐existent categories.
The existence of large multivariate differences offers an intriguing explanation of why stereotypes about male and female psychology are often categorical (or approximately so), even if the sexes overlap substantially on each individual trait.
To the extent that people are paying attention to global differences (i.e., evaluating personality profiles instead of individual traits), they should correctly perceive a relatively sharp boundary between the sexes, with little overlap in the middle.
Although categorical stereotypes remain inaccurate in a strict sense, they may provide a reasonable approximation of the degree of statistical separation between males and females in the multivariate space. To our knowledge, this hypothesis has yet to be tested in the literature on gender stereotypes. If people integrate information about personality into multivariate profiles, they should also be able to classify individuals as male or female with relatively high accuracy when given descriptions that include multiple traits. (As noted earlier, the amount of measurement error in the descriptions would limit the degree of accuracy that can be achieved in practice.) In principle, changes in classification accuracy across different combinations of traits may be exploited to make finer distinctions between alternative models of information use—for example, to determine whether people keep trait correlations into account when making inferences about a person’s sex.
Leute nehmen gewisse Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern war, die so auch tatsächlich im Schnitt bestehen. Sie nehmen auch die sehr deutliche Grenze zwischen Männern und Frauen im Schnitt wahr, einfach weil sie tatsächlich besteht.
Weiter aus der Studie:
Naturally, the findings of the present study do not speak directly to the biological and/or cultural origins of sex differences. Still, it is the case that researchers who emphasize the role of sociocultural factors often view sex differences as small, malleable, and overwhelmed by similarities (see Eagly & Wood, 2013; Hyde, 2014; Hyde et al., 2019). In contrast, most biologically oriented scholars argue that differences between the sexes on specific traits can be large, robust, and potentially universal (though not necessarily fixed in size), as a result of sexual selection and other evolutionary pressures that affect the sexes in divergent ways (see Archer, 2019; Buss, 1995; Schmitt, 2015).
Eigentlich ja faszinierend: Die Leute, die eine soziale Theorie vertreten sehen kleine Geschlechterunterschiede, während darauf aufbauende Theorien gleichzeitig sehr starke Geschlechterrollen sehen, die das Handeln formen. Eigentlich müssten durch diese starken Geschlechterrollen ja auch große Unterschiede zu erwarten sein. Bei der Feststellung, ob es Geschlechterunterschiede gibt geht es dennoch in eine andere Richtung, weil mit der Feststellung kleiner Geschlechterunterschiede ein anderes Ziel erreicht werden soll: Unterschiede würden Erklärungen bieten, die ohne eine Unterdrückung auskommen oder ein „an sich arbeiten“ rechtfertigen können. Solange Gleichheit an sich vorhanden ist ist Ungerechtigkeit leichter zu behaupten.
The sociocultural malleability of sex differences is a central tenet of social role theory (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Wood & Eagly, 2012). The theory maintains that most sex differences in psychology and behavior arise because males and females are socialized into culturally prescribed roles, which in turn are historically based on the existence of evolved dimorphism in bodily size and function. A key prediction of social role theory is that sex differences should shrink as societies adopt more gender egalitarian values and socialization patterns. In the domain of personality, however, cross‐cultural studies have generally found the opposite pattern—that is, sex differences are magnified in more gender egalitarian countries (Kaiser, 2019; Mac Giolla & Kajonius, 2018; Schmitt, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2016). From a biological perspective, a plausible explanation of this and similar finding (e.g., concerning values and occupational preferences) is that gender egalitarian cultures leave men and women freer to express their evolved predispositions (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005; Schmitt, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2016). At the same time, the apparent effect of increasing gender equality may be confounded with that of decreasing ecological stress in more developed countries (Kaiser, 2019). Yet another hypothesis is that, in less gender egalitarian societies, people tend to evaluate themselves using their own sex as the reference group; as gender equality increase, the reference group expands to include the entire population, thus increasing the size (and accuracy) of
self‐reported differences (Lippa, 2010; Lukaszewski, Roney, Mills, & Bernard, 2013; for a critical evaluation see Schmitt et al., 2016).
Considered in this context, the present results are consistent with the findings of previous cross‐cultural studies based on the Big Five model. In the recent study by Kaiser (2019), MG‐CMSA on 30 Big Five facets yielded D = 2.16 for the U.S. sample, an effect almost identical to the one we found here (effect sizes ranged from 1.49 in Pakistan to 2.48 in Russia). Likewise, the uncorrected effect size in Mac Giolla and Kajonius (2018) was D = 1.25 for the U.S. sample, compared to 1.18 in the present study (effect sizes ranged from 0.87 in Malaysia to 1.32 in Norway and Sweden).
Wie man sieht gibt es also einiges an Schwankungen und verschiedene Erklärungen. Die Vorhersagen der Sozialen Rollentheorien scheinen nicht zuzutreffen, es bestehen große Geschlechterunterschiede und das gerade in Gesellschaften mit hoher Gleichberechtigung.
Letztendlich zeigen Studien dieser Art, dass Geschlechterunterschiede groß sind und damit wenig erstaunlich ist, dass sie auch als solche wahrgenommen werden. Männer und Frauen haben nicht nur körperliche Unterschiede, auch die Persönlichkeit variiert stark zwischen den Geschlechtern.