Ameya Naik
There has been an ongoing debate about whether the differences between males and females stem from differences in biological development. Neurosexism is the theory which proposes that the behavioural differences between the two sexes occur due to variations in the development of the brain instead of socialisation (Casad & Petzel, 2017). The sex differences primarily comprise of females typically having higher emotional perception whereas males having a greater ability at mathematics. This blog post aims to examine the theory of neurosexism by analysing studies that have supported and challenged the theory. The post will also delve into the negative repercussions neurosexism has on society and individuals.
Researches supporting the neurosexism primarily assume that differences between the sexes are hardwired, namely, both sexes have different development of the brain, therefore have a disparity in their gendered roles and behaviour. One of the major basis of neurosexism stems from the organisational-activational hypothesis (Phoenix et al., 1959). The hypothesis posits that differences in testosterone during early critical development lead to permanent sexual differences in the brain of the organism, thereby their behaviour. Female guinea pigs treated prenatally with testosterone demonstrated more masculine behaviour— less lordosis (typical female behaviour) and more mounting (typical male behaviour) during adulthood (Wallen, 2009). Another widely used hypothesis justifying the innate sex differences is the Empathizing/Systemizing (E/S) hypothesis (Baron-Cohen, 2003). The hypothesis postulates that a lower level of testosterone during fetal development leads to predominant development of empathy or development of a ‘female brain.’ Similarly, a higher level of testosterone during fetal development results in hard-wiring of the behaviour of systemisation (building and understanding systems) or development of the so-called ‘male brain.’
With the advances in technology and neuroimaging, researchers are more capable of testing the structure and function of the brain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The theories and claims that were earlier extrapolated from animals could now be assessed on humans with the help of neuroimaging techniques. Gur et al. (2000) conducted a study to understand the sex differences in specific activation of the brain to verbal and spatial tasks using an fMRI. From 27 participants, they found that the verbal task showed left-lateralised changes for both males and females, however, spatial tasks showed an increased right-lateralisation in males along with some left activation which was absent in females. This differentiation in the activation of tasks between males and females, as seen from an fMRI, suggested a performance-based sex difference. Similarly, the neural network for effectively encoding emotional stimuli to memory was different between the sexes, which caused females to have stronger retention of emotional events as compared to men (Canli et al., 2002).
While the aforementioned researches and several others validate neurosexism, the neurosexist claim that differences in brain development between sexes are innate and perpetual has gotten a lot of criticism. This is because the claim fails to acknowledge the social nature of humans, namely, that individuals are significantly affected by their cultural and social environments. In reference to this biosocial view, Bonnot and Croizet (2007) demonstrated that the internalisation of the stereotype that women are inferior in math had a significant impact on females statistical performance since their self-evaluation of math ability was low which then interfered with their working memory. Similarly, when males were told that females performed better on a social sensibility test than them, their performance automatically worsened than males who were not told (Koenig & Eagly, 2005). These examples of internalisation of stereotypes delineate how differences in sexes are strongly affected by social influences and are not solely innate. It brings to light how an individual can be conditioned into thinking that they can excel at certain tasks and behaviours or would do badly in others, even when the individual may not have experienced it for themselves.
The notion that the brain differences between the sexes are permanent has also been severely critiqued by neuroscientists. A reason why it cannot be permanent is because of neuroplasticity, namely, the ability of the brain to change, modify and adapt both structurally and functionally in response to the environment throughout life. This can be seen in the experiment by Wraga et al. (2006), who tested the impact of the stereotype that males are better at spatial reasoning than females on neurological differences using an fMRI in females. Results showed that the performance of females primed with the negative stereotype was significantly poorer, which corresponded to higher activation in the brain regions related to increased emotional load. Conversely, females primed with a false but positive stereotype performed significantly better and had higher activation in the visual processing area. This research highlights how the simple act of positive or negative priming can have a significant neurological change, therefore a change in the behaviour. Hence, even if hormones do affect the development of the brain, socialisation and cultural norms can also significantly influence the manifestation of gendered behaviour, since individuals are conditioned into internalising the existing differences in behaviours and roles from a young age.
The practice and belief in neurosexism can have severe consequences in the functioning of society. The research promoting neurosexism can be easily misused as a scientific finding that validates the existence of sex-based stereotypes and roles. This validation of gendered behaviour can significantly hinder the development and life choices of males and females because they would subconsciously try and conform to the seemingly accepted stereotypical behaviours. The internalisation of the stereotypes can limit an individual’s confidence and ability in doing certain roles or behaviours even without trying them. Given that most individuals are not aware of how the internalisation of stereotypes can affect their behaviour, research suggesting innate sex differences justifies a specific part of their behaviour while disregarding the social influence that in fact cause the behaviour. Therefore, neurosexism reinforces cultural stereotypes which have detrimental repercussions on the human development.
References:
Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism (Reprint ed.). Basic Books.
Bonnot, V., & Croizet, J. C. (2007). Stereotype internalization and women’s math performance: The role of interference in working memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 857–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.006
Canli, T., Desmond, J. E., Zhao, Z., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10789–10794. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.162356599
Casad, B., & Petzel, Z. (2017). Neurosexism. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender, 1243–1246. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384269.n
Gur, R. C., Alsop, D., Glahn, D., Petty, R., Swanson, C. L., Maldjian, J. A., Turetsky, B. I., Detre, J. A., Gee, J., & Gur, R. E. (2000). An fMRI Study of Sex Differences in Regional Activation to a Verbal and a Spatial Task. Brain and Language, 74(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2325
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype Threat in Men on a Test of Social Sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52(7–8), 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3714-x
PHOENIX, C. H., GOY, R. W., GERALL, A. A., & YOUNG, W. C. (1959). Organising Action Of Prenatally Administered Testosterone Propionate On The Tissues Mediating Mating Behaviour In The Female Guinea Pig1. Endocrinology, 65(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1210/endo-65-3-369
Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., Cisneros-Franco, J. M., & de Villers-Sidani, T. (2017). Dynamic Brains and the Changing Rules of Neuroplasticity: Implications for Learning and Recovery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01657
Wallen, K. (2009). The Organizational Hypothesis: Reflections on the 50th anniversary of the publication of Phoenix, Goy, Gerall, and Young (1959). Hormones and Behavior, 55(5), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.03.009
Wraga, M., Helt, M., Jacobs, E., & Sullivan, K. (2006). Neural basis of stereotype-induced shifts in women’s mental rotation performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl041
Comments
Post a Comment