Geschlechterunterschiede in der Persönlichkeit

Eine Studie untersucht anhand eines großen Datensatzes (n=320,128) Unterschiede in der Persönlichkeit zwischen den Geschlechtern:


We studied the sex gap in 30 facet traits (IPIP-NEO) in a large US sample (N = 320,128).

Women scored higher (d > 0.50) in Anxiety, Vulnerability, Openness to Emotions, Altruism, and Sympathy.

Men only scored higher (d > 0.20) in Excitement-seeking and Openness to Intellect.

The present study reports on the scope and size of sex differences in 30 personality facet traits, using one of the largest US samples to date (N = 320,128). The study was one of the first to utilize the open access version of the Five-Factor Model of personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the large public. Overall, across age-groups 19–69 years old, women scored notably higher than men in Agreeableness (d = 0.58) and Neuroticism (d = 0.40). Specifically, women scored d > 0.50 in facet traits Anxiety, Vulnerability, Openness to Emotions, Altruism, and Sympathy, while men only scored slightly higher (d > 0.20) than women in facet traits Excitement-seeking and Openness to Intellect. Sex gaps in the five trait domains were fairly constant across all age-groups, with the exception for age-group 19–29 years old. The discussion centers on how to interpret effects sizes in sex differences in personality traits, and tentative consequences.

Quelle: Sex differences in 30 facets of the five factor model of personality in the large public (N = 320,128) (abstract/ Volltext Sci-hub)

Die einzelnen Werte werden hier dargestellt:


Unterschiede Persönlichkeit Mann Frau

Unterschiede Persönlichkeit Mann Frau

Wie man hier sieht sind viele der Eigenschaften konstant unterschiedlich über alle Alterstufen, einige verändern sich auch stark mit dem Alter, die Geschlechter kommen zumindest etwas zusammen.

Die Werte im Einzelnen:

Hier sieht man, dass von leichten bis mittleren Unterschieden alles dabei ist. Hohe werte sind zB erreicht bei „Verletzbarkeit“ „Ängstlichkeit“ „Moralität“ „Altruismus“ „Ehrlichkeit“ und „Sympathie“

Aus der Besprechung:

The current study showed that almost 50% of the specific FFM personality trait facets showed above small effects, and almost 25% above medium effects in sex differences. The most notable difference was seen in the trait domains Neuroticism and Agreeableness. Some specific facets, such as Anxiety (N1) and Sympathy (A6), reported mean effects of over d ~ 0.50 (Table 1). Interestingly, Neuroticism was, unlike Agreeableness, not uniformly different between sexes across the age-spans, with the largest gap found in the late teens, narrowing and stabilizing first at around 45 years of age.

According to a broad evolutionary perspective, this trend seems to coincide with female sexual fertility. In this phase of life, females tend to be more vulnerable than males, in regard to the heightened male sexual aggression (Archer, 2004), while simultaneously investing in pregnancy and caring for infants (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Having women more disposed to anxiety (and empathy), while men are more disposed to assertiveness, may have been an optimal strategy for the propagation of the human species. Certainly, part of the sex gap could also be explained by cultural factors, such as young men not admitting to questionnaire-items assessing neuroticism. However, this explanation may not be supported by other-reports and behavioral observation (Vianello et al., 2013).
Differences in the other trait domains in the FFM were smaller (Openness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness), and tended to be driven by single specific facets, such as Openness to Emotions (d = 0.64), Conscientiousness Achievement (d = 0.25), and Extraversion Activity (d = 0.24). Overall, these sex differences in the present US sample (Table 1) aligned well with the now almost 20-year old landmark findings in the original FFM NEO-PI-R model (Costa Jr et al., 2001). Comparing the sex gap in facet traits in US adults in our present study with Costa Jr et al. (2001) showed no reversed effects, while a few (e.g., Friendliness, Gregariousness, Trust, and Self-efficacy) had dropped to trivial levels. +

However, even more traits showed increased sex gaps, which may be implicated by the thesis that the more progressive a society becomes, the greater the sex differences in personality (Schmitt et al., 2008; Stoet & Geary, 2018).

Wie dort richtig angeführt sagt die Studie erst einmal nur aus, dass es Unterschiede gibt, nicht worauf sie beruhen. Auch interessant ist, dass man wohl feststellt, dass die Unterschiede eher größer werden.

vgl auch:

Werte in wissenschaftlichen Studien zu Geschlechterunterschieden

In diesem Artikel (der auch sonst noch interessantes bietet) findet sich etwas zu Werten, was man bestimmt noch häufiger nutzen kann, wenn man über Studien diskutiert:

One way to clarify discussions about differences in group averages is to put a specific number to them. Psychologists often use a precise number to express the size of sex differences, referred to as an „effect size,“ with the most common usage being the d statistic. A positive d value typically indicates that men are higher on a particular attribute; a negative value indicates that women are higher. The size of the d value establishes exactly how big the average sex difference is.

A d value near zero means that the sex difference is trivial. Once a d value reaches +/- 0.20, psychologists take notice. A d value of -0.20, for instance, indicates that 58 percent of women are higher than the average man on a psychological trait. These are considered „small“ effect sizes. Sex differences in interpersonal trust, conformity, and general verbal ability reside in this range.

A d value of +0.50 is considered „moderate“ and indicates that 69 percent of men are higher than the average woman on a particular attribute. Sex differences in spatial rotation skills, certain mathematics abilities (3-dimensional geometry and calculus), and task-oriented leadership (focusing on accomplishing a group goal rather than maintaining harmony within the group) reside within this size range.

A d value of -0.80 is considered „large“ and indicates that 79 percent of women are higher than the average man. Sex differences in tender-mindedness, being interested more in people than in things, and lack of interest in casual sex reside in this size range.

Larger d values are less common in psychology, but a value  of +1.00 indicates that 84 percent of men are higher than the average woman. Sex differences of this magnitude include differences in height, in expressing interest in engineering as an occupation, and in absence of sexual disgust (such as not feeling grossed out when hearing the neighbors having sex).

A d value of +2.00 indicates that 98 percent of men are higher than the average woman in a trait, about as close as researchers can get to finding a truly dimorphic difference. Sex differences in throwing ability, grip strength, and voice pitch are in this range.

Einige Artikel mit Effektstärken:

Geschlechterunterschiede im Gehirn

Eine interessante Studie beschäftigt sich mit Unterschieden im Gehirn:

Sex differences in human brain structure and function are of substantial scientific interest because of sex-differential susceptibility to psychiatric disorders and because of the potential to explain sex differences in psychological traits. Males are known to have larger brain volumes, though the patterns of differences across brain subregions have typically only been examined in small, inconsistent studies. In addition, despite common findings of greater male variability in traits like intelligence, personality, and physical performance, variance differences in the brain have received little attention. Here we report the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain to date (2,750 female and 2,466 male participants aged 44-77 years). Males had higher cortical and sub-cortical volumes, cortical surface areas, and white matter diffusion directionality; females had thicker cortices and higher white matter tract complexity. Considerable overlap between the distributions for males and females was common, and subregional differences were smaller after accounting for global differences. There was generally greater male variance across structural measures. The modestly higher male score on two cognitive tests was partly mediated via structural differences. Functional connectome organization showed stronger connectivity for males in unimodal sensorimotor cortices, and stronger connectivity for females in the default mode network. This large-scale characterisation of neurobiological sex differences provides a foundation for attempts to understand the causes of sex differences in brain structure and function, and their associated psychological and psychiatric consequences.

Quelle: Sex Differences In The Adult Human Brain: Evidence From 5,216 UK Biobank Participants

Aus der Studie:

In a single-scanner sample of over 5,000 participants from UK Biobank, we mapped sex differences in brain volume, surface area, cortical thickness, diffusion parameters, and functional connectivity. One main theme of the neurostructural results was that associations with sex were global. Males generally had larger volumes and surface areas, whereas females had thicker cortices. The differences were substantial: in some cases, such as total brain volume, more than a standard deviation. We also found that volume and surface area mediated nearly all of the small sex difference in reasoning ability, but far less of the difference in reaction time. For white matter microstructure, females showed lower directionality (FA) and higher tract complexity (OD); white matter microstructure was a poor mediator of the cognitive sex difference. Resting-state fMRI analyses also revealed a global effect: around 54% of connections showed a sex difference. These differences clustered around specific networks, with stronger connectivity in females in the default mode network and stronger connectivity in males between unimodal sensory and motor cortices as well as high-level cortical areas in the rostral lateral prefrontal cortex. Overall, for every brain measure that showed even large sex differences, there was always overlap between males and females (see Figure 1 and [21]).

The principal strengths of the present study are its sample size (providing sensitivity for the identification of small effects with high statistical power), the wide range of MRI modalities, and the consideration of both mean and variance differences. Given the surfeit of small-n studies in neuroscience [15], it is of great importance to test hypotheses in large, wellpowered
samples, especially given that many neural sex differences are small [14]. Here, we had excellent statistical power to find small effects in brain subregions, providing a robust,
definitive, and detailed analysis. For our subregional analysis, we had a far larger sample size than the most recent meta-analysis [5]. In contrast to that meta-analysis—which found greater volume for females in areas such as the thalamus, the anterior cingulate gyrus, and the lateral occipital cortex—our study found no brain subregions where females had a larger volume than males. The reason for this may be the more restricted age range of the participants in our study (sex may have different effects at different ages), or, more likely, study size and heterogeneity: the data for that part of the meta-analysis came from many separate studies, on separate scanners, with small sample sizes (many with n < 100), whereas our contrasts were based on a very large, single-scanner study.
The higher male volume in our study appeared largest in some regions involved in emotion and decision-making, such as the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex, the bilateral insula, and the left isthmus of the cingulate gyrus [22-25], but also areas such as the right fusiform gyrus. For surface area, which showed an even larger difference favouring males, the regions that showed the largest effects were broadly areas involved in the hypothesized intelligencerelated circuit in the “P-FIT” model [26]: for example, the bilateral superior frontal gyri, the bilateral precentral gyri, the left supramarginal gyrus, and the bilateral rostral middle frontal areas. However, some of the regions involved in this theorized circuit were also larger, in terms of thickness, for females. For instance, the bilateral inferior parietal regions were the regions with numerically the largest difference favouring females in cortical thickness. Our finding that the cortex was thicker for females is consistent with a number of previous, smaller studies (e.g. [27-29]), though our greater statistical power allowed us to find smaller differences in thickness across the cortex.
Whereas previous work has found some white matter regions where fractional anisotropy was higher for females [30], we found that males showed higher FA in 18 of the 22 tracts we examined. FA also generally showed greater variance in males. On the other hand, higher orientation dispersion was found for females in all tracts. Unexpectedly, higher OD was found to be related to lower cognitive performance on the two tests examined here. Since OD is a relatively new measure of white matter microstructure [31], further work should aim to
clarify its behavioural correlates.

The issue of adjusting for overall brain size in analyses of sex differences (e.g. [32]) was addressed in each of our macrostructural analyses. As can be seen comparing Figures 2 and 3, after this adjustment, the higher male volume and surface area was substantially reduced, often to non-significance. For those latter brain regions, this implies that the sex difference was general: their larger volume or surface area was a by-product of the overall larger male brain. However, for some regions, especially for surface area (particularly in areas such as theleft isthmus of the cingulate gyrus and the right precentral gyrus), males still showed a significantly higher measurement, indicating specific sex differences in the proportional configuration of the cortex, holding brain size equal. Most interestingly, for some areas (for example the right insula, the right fusiform gyrus, and the left isthmus of the cingulate gyrus), the difference was reversed, with females showing significantly larger brain volume.(…)

Our analysis also focused on sex differences in variability. The best-studied human phenotype in this context has been cognitive ability: almost universally, studies have found that males show greater variance in this trait ([6,18,39], though see [40]). This has also been found to be the case for academic achievement test results (a potential consequence of intelligence differences [8,41,42]), other psychological characteristics such as personality [7], and a range of physical traits such as athletic performance [43], and both birth and adult weight [8]. Here, for the first time, we directly tested sex differences in the variance of several brain measures, finding greater male variance across almost the entire brain for volume, surface area, and white matter fractional anisotropy, but only patchy and inconsistent variance differences for cortical thickness and white matter orientation dispersion

One potential candidate to explain greater male variability across multiple phenotypes is the hypothesized ‘female-protective’ mechanism involving effects of the X chromosome [44,45], or other protective factors that “buffer” females from potential deleterious consequences of rare genetic mutations. For instance, if deleterious genetic variants are found on one X chromosome in (heterozygous) females, they may be buffered by the presence of the opposite allele on the other X chromosome. Since males carry only one X chromosome, this effect
cannot occur, increasing the likelihood of the allele being expressed in males, and thus increasing the variation in the phenotype linked to that allele [44,46]. In sex-biased phenotypes like autism (ASD), female protective effects are also frequently discussed. It is known that ASD females typically require a higher burden of rare, deleterious de novo mutations compared to males with ASD [47], and this effect extends into the general population when examining autistic traits in typically-developing individuals [48]. It is possible that higher male variability could be linked to genetic mechanisms that inherently buffer females against deleterious genetic influences, but may have much a more variable and significant effect on average in males. As studies like UK Biobank release even larger amounts of data on individuals who have both neurostructural and genotype data, researchers will be able to perform well-powered tests of these hypotheses.

Using the (limited) data on cognitive abilities available in our sample, we tested whether the data were consistent with any consequences of brain structural differences in terms of ability differences. There were very small correlations between brain variables and the cognitive tests, and these associations did not differ by sex (consistent with a prior meta-analysis on the link between brain volume and intelligence [49]). Mediation modelling suggested that, for verbal-numerical reasoning, a very large portion (up to 99%) of the modest sex difference was mediated by brain volumetric and surface area measures. Smaller fractions (up to 38%) of the modest link between sex and reaction time could be explained by volume or surface area. Perhaps unexpectedly, given evidence and theory linking white matter microstructure to cognitive processing speed [50,51], white matter microstructural measures only mediated a small proportion of the sex difference in reaction time (this may have been due to weaknesses in this cognitive measure; see below). Cortical thickness had trivial mediating effects compared to volume and surface area: no more than 7.1% of the sex-cognitive relation was mediated by thickness in any analysis. Thus, the data are consistent with higher volume and cortical surface area (but not cortical thickness or microstructural characteristics) being of particular relevance to sex differences in reasoning abilities (but not particularly reaction time). Sex differences in intrinsic functional connectome organization also revealed results that corroborate and extend prior work. Notably, the original study of the 1,000 Functional Connectomes dataset reported sex differences similar to those we identified – that is, Female>Male connectivity within the default mode network and some evidence for a Male>Female effect in sensorimotor and visual cortices [52]. The higher female connectivity within circuits like the DMN may be particularly important, given that DMN regions are typically considered as the core part of the “social brain” [53]. Whether such an effect can help explain higher average female ability in domains like social cognition [54], and whether such functional differences can be integrated with differences in the structural connectome [55], remains to be seen. Finally, recent work has shown that intrinsic functional connectome organization can be parsimoniously described as a small number of connectivity gradients The most prominent connectivity gradient has at one pole the DMN and at the other unimodal sensory and motor cortices. The observed pattern of sex differences in functional connectome organization observed here recapitulates the two main poles of that principal connectivity gradient [56]; see Figure S12. One potential way of describing the biological significance of these functional sex differences is that mechanisms involved in shaping sex differences (biological, cultural, or developmental) may influence this principal connectivity gradient; the result may be the multiple network differences we discovered.




Rollenbedürfnis und der Wunsch, sich zu differenzieren

David hat einen interessanten Kommentar zum Bedürfnis nach einer Einordnung in eine bestimmte Rolle geschrieben

Im Feminismus besteht die Annahme, potentielle globale Fähigkeiten (Intelligenz) müssten sich (bei Diskriminierungsfreiheit) in einer entsprechenden beruflichen Position manifestieren.

Es wird vernachlässigt, dass die Persönlichkeit dafür eine mindestens ebenso große Rolle spielt und Persönlichkeitseigenschaften sowohl zwischen den Geschlechtern unterschiedlich als auch zu einem guten Teil vererbt sind.

Es kommt noch etwas anderes dazu: das natürliche Bedürfnis nach Rollendifferenzierung, also eine Tendenz, sich bereits mit kleinen Unterschieden zu identifizieren und sie daher zu verstärken und betonen.

Ein Rollenbedürfnis ist etwas, was von unseren “Rollenbefreiern” komplett negiert wird. Dabei haben Rollen eine Funktion, sie geben Identität und Sicherheit für das eigene Handeln.
Man kann das sogar bei eineiigen Zwillingen beobachten. Diese haben oftmals (nicht immer) ein starkes Bedürfnis, als Individuen wahrgenommen zu werden.
Es reichen oft minimale Unterschiede, um einen Zwilling zu “der tougheren” oder den anderen zu “der ruhigeren” zu machen. Kleinste Beispiele werden zum Anlass genommen, Unterschiede zu benennen und zu kultivieren. Sie differenzieren Rollen aus, weil sie sich unterscheiden und unterschiedlich wahrgenommen werden WOLLEN, selbst wenn sie dies biologisch gar nicht tun.

Das gleiche findet zwischen Mädchen und Jungen statt. Die Art der Unterschiede muss dabei gar nicht entscheidend sein. Womöglich könnte man sogar rosa als Jungsfarbe markieren und das “colour reversal” würde tatsächlich funktionieren. Entscheidend ist, dass Mädchen Mädchen sein wollen und Jungs Jungs. Egal, was sie dazu benötigen. Sie versuchen etwas zu finden und eine Geschlechtsidentität in Differenz zum anderen Geschlecht auszubilden

Die Unterschiede zwischen Jungs und Mädchen sind eben bereits recht deutlich und bieten sich insoweit an. Es ist eine Unterscheidung die wir bei den allermeisten Menschen sehr einfach treffen können und die für eine Gruppenidentität noch geeigneter sind, weil es eben erhebliche Unterschiede gibt. Diese werden von Kindern auch noch anders wahrgenommen, da der Sexualtrieb noch nicht entwickelt ist und damit eine gewisse „Verschleierung“ fehlt. Da kein besonderes Interesse besteht, sind eben Jungs für Mädchen häufig in einem bestimmten Alter doof und umgekehrt auch.

„Sei kein Mädchen“

Me schreibt interessantes zu Aussagen wie „Sei kein Mädchen“ als Aufforderung an einen Jungen:

Jungs machen oft die Erfahrung, dass dieses Fehlen von Opferbereitschaft bei Mädchen deutlich häufiger anzutreffen ist als bei Jungs.
“Sei kein Mädchen” heißt also “Zeig mir, dass ich auf dich zählen kann, auch wenn’s weh tut.”

Das hängt unmittelbar mit Farrells Disposable Male zusammen.

Damit ist aber auch klar, wie man den Satz zum Verschwinden bringen kann:
Entweder Frauen beißen die Zähne zusammen, geben ihr Schutzprivileg auf und zeigen flächendeckend die gleiche Opfer- und Einsatzbereitschaft und Leistungsfähigkeit wie Männer (auch und gerade in solchen Fällen)
Oder wir sorgen dafür, dass auch Männer diese Art von “Heldentum” nicht mehr anstreben. Dazu wäre es nötig, dass Frauen kompetente, starke, einsatzwillige Männer nicht mehr sexuell attraktiver finden als stille, schüchterne, schmale Jungs. Es würde auch bedeuten, dass unsere Gesellschaft ohne Polizei und ohne Feuerwehr auskommen müsste.

Damit wäre die Floskel, die gerne im Feminismus als etwas angesehen wird, was die Minderwertigkeit von Mädchen deutlich macht, eher ein Hinweis darauf, dass man nicht die gleichen Privilegien wie ein Mädchen genießt und einem daher dieses Verhalten nicht erlaubt ist. Es wäre also weniger eine Minderwertigkeit des Mädchens als ein „du darfst nicht, was sie dürfen, leiste etwas, leide zur Not, Streng dich halt an, opfere dich auf“.

Aus meiner Sicht durchaus verständlich, denn Jungs sind eben zumindest evolutionär eher darauf ausgerichtet auf einen harten Wettkampf untereinander zu trainieren und Spielvorlieben, bei denen Jungs auch heute noch eher zu „rough and tumble play“ neigen, geben das heute noch wieder.

In Disposable Male könnte man das insofern einordnen, weil Jungs eben auch früh erkennen, dass man solche Spielereien von Mädchen nicht erwarten kann bzw. diese im Schnitt anders spielen. Insofern ist es auch ein Merkmal der Gruppenidentität, welches eine Ausformung natürlicher Grundlagen sein kann: Männer und Frauen sind in diesem Bereich eben im Schnitt anders, so dass es nicht verwundert, dass dieses Unterschied auch wahrgenommen wird.

Ich hatte dazu in einem anderen Artikel geschrieben:

Man kann aus einer anderen Betrachtung heraus aber auch einfach darauf abstellen, dass die Frauenrolle mehr Freiheiten lässt als die Männerrolle und daher Abweichungen von dieser weniger toleriert werden. Danach wird nicht generell weibliches Verhalten abgewertet, sondern weibliches Verhalten von Männern diesen nicht zugestanden. Man könnte sagen, dass sie nicht “privilegiert” genug sind, um ein solches Verhalten zeigen zu dürfen.

Dafür spricht meiner Meinung nach, dass ein Großteil des Verhaltens, dass als zu weiblich beim Mann kritisiert wird, bei Mädchen erwartet wird. Dies wäre mit einer reinen Abwertung dieses Verhaltens nicht zu erklären.