Abstract
Based on the Empathizing–Systemizing (E–S) theory, it was hypothesized that the underrepresentation of female students in the physical sciences and the underrepresentation of males in the social sciences relates to differences in E–S cognitive style between the sexes. This hypothesis was tested in 115 physical science students and 155 social science students from a university in the Netherlands. The students completed visuospatial tests and the systemizing quotient-revised (SQ-R) as measures for systemizing, and a Cartoon Prediction test and the empathy quotient (EQ) as measures for empathizing. Independent of sex, the physical science students scored significantly lower than social science students on EQ (with large effect size) and ‘brain type’ that represents the standardized difference score between EQ and SQ-R (with large effect size). Physical science students, furthermore, scored significantly higher on the Cartoon Prediction task and one of the visuospatial tasks; however, these effects were only small of size. Unlike the scores on the SQ-R and the performance tests, the ‘brain type’ score of the EQ and SQ-R questionnaires was a good predictor of entry into social or physical sciences. Interestingly, the typical sex differences in more empathizing and less systemizing in females compared to males were only small for EQ and ‘brain type’, and absent for the SQ-R and the performance tests. This study only partially confirms the E–S theory, because typical sex differences were only minor in this selective sample and only the self-report measures predicted academic area in the absence of a role for sex.
References
Baron-Cohen S (1999) Can studies of autism teach us about consciousness of the physical and the mental? Philos Explor 3:175–188
Baron-Cohen S (2002) The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends Cogn Sci 6(6):248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01904-6
Baron-Cohen S (2009) Autism: the empathizing–systemizing (E–S) theory. Year Cogn Neurosci 1156:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2004) The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord 34(2):163–175
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. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 358(1430):361–374. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1206
Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer R, Belmonte M (2005) Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science 310(5749):819–823. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115455
Billington J, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2007) Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences and humanities: questionnaire and performance tests of empathy and systemizing. Learn Individ Differ 17(3):260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.004
Chen PD, Simpson PA (2015) Does personality matter? Applying holland’s typology to analyze students’ self-selection into science, technology engineering, and mathematics majors. J High Educ 86(5):725–750. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0024
Christov-Moore L, Simpson EA, Coude G, Grigaityte K, Iacoboni M, Ferrari PF (2014) Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 46:604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
Contreras MJ, Colom R, Shih P, Alava M, Santacreu J (2001) Dynamic spatial performance: sex and educational differences. Personal Individ Differ 30(1):117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00015-5
Contreras MJ, Martinez-Molina A, Santacreu J (2012) Do the sex differences play such an important role in explaining performance in spatial tasks? Personal Individ Differ 52(6):659–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.010
Cook CM, Saucier DM (2010) Mental rotation, targeting ability and Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing–Systemizing theory of sex differences. Personal Individ Differ 49(7):712–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.010
Correa Varella MA, Benedetti Piccoli Ferreira JH, Pereira KJ, Raad Bussab VS, Valentova JV (2016) Empathizing, systemizing, and career choice in Brazil: sex differences and individual variation among areas of study. Personal Individ Differ 97:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.058
Diekman AB, Brown ER, Johnston AM, Clark EK (2010) Seeking congruity between goals and roles: a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychol Sci 21(8):1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
Ellis L, Ratnasingam M, Wheeler M (2012) Gender, sexual orientation, and occupational interests: evidence of their interrelatedness. Personal Individ Differ 53:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.008
Eslinger PJ, Moore P, Troiani V, Antani S, Cross K, Kwok S, Grossman M (2007) Oops! resolving social dilemmas in frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 78(5):457–460. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.098228
Focquaert F, Steven MS, Wolford GL, Colden A, Gazzaniga MS (2007) Empathizing and systemizing cognitive traits in the sciences and humanities. Personal Individ Differ 43(3):619–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.004
Fuermaier ABM, Tucha L, Koerts J, Hauser J, Kaunzinger I, Aschenbrenner S, Weissbrod M, Tucha O (2015) Cognitive impairment in adult ADHD-perspective matters! Neuropsychology 29(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000108
Geiser C, Lehmann W, Corth M, Eid M (2008a) Quantitative and qualitative change in children’s mental rotation performance. Learn Individ Differ 18:419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.09.001
Geiser C, Lehmann W, Eid M (2008b) A note on sex differences in mental rotation in different age groups. Intelligence 36:556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.12.003
Groen Y, Fuermaier ABM, Den Heijer AE, Tucha O, Althaus M (2015) The empathy and systemizing quotient: the psychometric properties of the Dutch version and a review of the cross-cultural stability. J Autism Dev Disord 45:2848–2864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2448-z
Halpern DF (2011) Sex differences in cognitive abilities, 4th edn. Psychology Press, New York and Hove
Horn W (1983) Leistungsprüfsystem L-P-S, 2nd edn. Hogrefe Verlag, Göttingen
Kimura D (2002) Men and women display patterns of behavioral and cognitive differences that reflect varying hormonal influences on brain development. Sci Am 12:32–37
Kret ME, De Gelder B (2012) A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia 50(7):1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.022
Ling J, Burton TC, Salt JL, Muncer SJ (2009) Psychometric analysis of the systemizing quotient (SQ) scale. Br J Psychol 100:539–552. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X368261
Lippa RA (2006) The gender reality hypothesis. Am Psychol 61(6):639–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.639
Malgwi CA, Howe MA, Burnaby PA (2005) Influences on students’ choice of college major. J Educ Bus 80(5):275–282. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.5.275-282
Manson C, Winterbottom M (2012) Examining the association between empathising, systemising, degree subject and gender. Educ Stud 38(1):73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.567032
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (2015) Panorama de la educación; Indicadores de la OCDE. http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/inee/internacional/panorama-de-la-educacion-2015.-informe-espanol.pdf?documentId=0901e72b81ee9fa3. Accessed 25 Sept 2017
Montagne B, Kessels RPC, Frigerio E et al (2005) Sex differences in the perception of affective facial expressions: do men really lack emotional sensitivity? Cogn Process 6:136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-005-0050-6
Montreuil T, Bodnar M, Bertrand M, Malla AK, Joober R, Lepage M (2010) Social cognitive markers of short-term clinical outcome in first-episode psychosis. Clin Schizophr Relat Psychos 4(2):105–114. https://doi.org/10.3371/CSRP.4.2.2
National Science Foundation (2013) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2017
Nazareth A, Herrera A, Pruden SM (2013) Explaining sex differences in mental rotation: role of spatial activity experience. Cogn Process 14:201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0542-8
O’Sullivan M, Guilford JP (1976) In: Sheridan Psychological Services (ed) Four factor tests of social intelligence (behavioural cognition). Manual of instructions and interpretations. Consulting Psycholgists Press, Palo Alto
Platform Beta techniek (2014) Facts and figures 2014. http://www.platformbetatechniek.nl/media/files/publicaties/FF2014-DEF(1).pdf. Accessed 17 June 2015
Prediger DJ (1982) Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: missing link between interests and occupations? J Vocat Behav 21:259–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(82)90036-7
Rodán A, Contreras MJ, Elosua MR, Gimeno P (2016) Experimental but not sex differences of a mental rotation training program on adolescents. Front Psychol 7:1050. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01050
Sasson NJ, Pinkham AE, Richard J, Hughett P, Gur RE, Gur RC (2010) Controlling for response biases clarifies sex and age differences in facial affect recognition. J Nonverbal Behav 34:207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-010-0092-z
Schmader T (2010) Stereotype threat deconstructed. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 19(1):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359292
Spelke, ES (2005) Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A critical review. Am Psycholog 60(9):950–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950
Su R, Rounds J (2015) All STEM fields are not created equal: people and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Front Psychol 6:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189
Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI (2009) Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychol Bull 135:859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364
Vellante M, Baron-Cohen S, Melis M, Marrone M, Petretto DR, Masala C, Preti A (2013) The “reading the mind in the eyes” test: systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 18(4):326–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2012.721728
Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden M (1995) Magnitude of sex-differences in spatial abilities—a meta analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117(2):250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
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 Res 1:47–56
Woodcock A, GrazianoW G, Branch SE, Habashi MM, Ngambeki I, Evangelou D (2013) Person and thing orientations: psychological correlates and predictive utility. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 4:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612444320
Acknowledgements
We thank our test assistants and the participants for their valuable contribution to the study. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Handling editor: Juan Lupianez (University of Granada).
Reviewers: María José Contreras (National Distance Education University, Spain), Marcin Bukowski (Jagiellonian University, Kraków), Andrea Marotta (University of Granada).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groen, Y., Fuermaier, A.B.M., Tucha, L.I. et al. How predictive are sex and empathizing–systemizing cognitive style for entry into the academic areas of social or physical sciences?. Cogn Process 19, 95–106 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0848-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0848-z