Investigating self-reported and performance sex differences in empathising and systemising
Abstract:
Background: Previous research has found there are clear sex differences in the ability to empathise and systemise which derives from the work of Baron-Cohen (2002) which suggest individuals with autism and Asperger syndrome have traits of an Extreme male brain and find it difficult to empathise. Methodology: The current research uses four separate test, EQQ and SQQ are used to measure empathising and systemising as self-report. The RME and PPQ were used to measure empathising and systemising performance. The researcher were also comparing these test with sex. Results: The researchers found that there was significant difference between sex and self-reported empathising and systemising, there was also a significant difference between sex and performance of empathising and systemising tasks. Conclusion: To conclude the research found that men scored higher on the SQQ as well as the performance measure of the systemising test the PPQ. In comparison women score better on the EQQ and the performance equivalent RME.
Literature review:
Theory has suggested there are gender differences in the ability to empathise and systemise. The difficulties with empathising and systemising is argued to stem from social and emotional difficulties which is typically linked to classic Autism and Asperger’s syndrome (Baren-Cohen 2009). The shares characteristics of autism and Asperger’s syndrome are, difficulty with social development, communication, and unusual interests and repetitive behaviour APA, 2000).
The theory of mind-blindness, suggest that children on the autism spectrum or have Asperger syndrome have a development delay in Theory of Mind (ToM), which is the ability to put themselves in someone else position, to imagine a person’s thought and feelings (McGuire & Michalko, 2011). This delays leaves them with a degree of mind-blindness and as a result they are unable to understand other people behaviours and can often get confused or frightened. According to Duffy and Dorner (2011), there is no evidence to support or disprove ToM. Despite this research has shown difficulty throughout childhood development of children who has autism or Asperger’s. Although the mind-blindness theory provide an explanation for social and communication difficulties in autism and Asperger’s syndrome. However, the theory does not measure true empathy which wold be an emotional response to a person’s state of mind, but the theory does use the reading the mind in the eye test. Additionally, Lombardo and Baron-Cohen, (2011) argue the self is also important when processing autism, and the self can be broken down to give new insight into Mind-blindness and social cognitive difficulties.
The empathising and systemising theory also tries to explain to social and communication problems within children with autism and Asperger’s. Baron Cohen, (2002) suggests that this is due to a delay in empathising whilst having advances skills in systemizing. As stated earlier as a criticism of the mind-blindness theory empathising is not only recognised as a mental state but also to produce the most appropriate emotional reaction. The Empathy Quotient (EQ) as devised to measure both aspects of empathy (Baron-Cohen, 2004). This instrument was a new way of seeing empathising, as it measured empathising as an affective, cognition and mixed component (Wakahayashi et al., 2006).
Systemising is the drive to analyse and construct systems. A system is following a set of rules when systemising individuals identify the rules that govern a system to understand and predict behaviour (Baron-Cohen, 2006). Baron Cohen and colleagues (2001) have found that children with autism and Asperger’s have high systemising skills, which was measured through the physics test. In addition to this Baron Cohen and colleague (2003) found that autism and Asperger’s have the scores on the SQ than the general population. An instrument that measures systemising is the systemising Quotient (SQ) on this test the higher you score the stronger your drive for systemising.
There has been a link between the empathising- systemising theory and the extreme male brain theory (Baron-Cohen, 2002), which suggest there is a clear sex difference in empathising and systemising, suggesting females perform better on the empathising and will therefore score higher on the empathising tests, and males perform better on the systemising and therefore score higher on the systemising test. This would suggest that Asperger’s and autism symptoms are similar to the extreme male brain. The extreme male brain theory is an extension of the empathising-systemising theory which theory identifies five brain types, type E, type S, type B, extreme type E and extreme type S. The current researcher are interested in the extreme types, the extreme type E are individuals who can empathise above average but are challenged but systematising. Extreme type S individuals have an above average systemising but struggle with empathising.
Byrd-Craven (2015) research into extreme brain type. The researchers used sample of 233 colleague student age range 18-22yrs. The researcher used the RIASEE personality type inventor, EQ and the SQ. The researcher found that male scores were higher on the SQ and the female scores were higher on the EQ. They concluded this may be as a result of reported interests rather than personality. However, the researcher only used college student and in order to generalise to the rest of the population a broader sample must be used. In addition, the research her were unable to identify whether the SQ was responsible for the gender differences in interested or whether it was other factors such as society.
In addition to this, Halperm and colleague (2007) suggest there are gender differences in the performance of some academic subjects. In support of this Wheelwright and colleagues (2006) and Billington and colleague (2007) also found evidence to support there are gender difference in empathising and systemising. Manson and Winterbottom, (2011) indented to investigate gender differences and degree subject choice. The researcher found there were gender differences and also found EQ and SQ were predictors for subject choice. However, there are limitation to the study, was the use of self-administered questionnaire can lead the results to bias.
The current research is interested in building upon our understanding of gender differences in empathising and systemising, as suggested by Baron-Cohen (2002). Previous research has used self-report questionnaires to measure this, which can often be biased as it the individuals perceptions, in order to reduce this, the current research are interested in measuring an individual’s ability, and also use The Reading the Min in the eyes test RME and the physical prediction questionnaire PPQ. The researcher hypothesised:
Research hypothesis 1: There will be a significant two-way interaction between sex and self-reported empathising/systemising. Specifically, it is predicted that males will report higher levels of systemising skills than empathising skills. For females, the opposite will be true.
Null hypothesis: There will be no significant interaction between the two factors.
Research hypothesis 2: There will be a significant two-way interaction between sex and performance on empathising/systemising tasks. Specifically, it is predicted that males will perform higher in a test of systemising (the PPQ) than in one of empathising (the RME). For females, the opposite will be true.
Method: (500)
Participants
Participant consisted of 995 adults, of which 51 participants results were removed, 50 were too young and 1 too old. The age criteria for the participants was between 18 and 60 years. The participants consisted of 462 males and 482 females. Their mean age was 395 months (SD=150, range 216-876months). The participants were recruited using an opportunity sampling method, those who were interested in the research participated. The participants were recruited using multiple researchers as the procedure is quite consuming and therefore with the large number recruited using multiple researchers was the best option.
Design
The independent variables of the research were the gender (Females and Males). Which used a within participants design. The dependent variable was the scores on the empathising and systemising tests. Utilising all the variables a factorial Anova was applied to analyse the data as the researchers were interested in the interaction between gender and self-report or performance.
Material
Two questionnaires and two tests were given to all participants. The participant were given the EQQ (short version) which consisted of 22 items of which had predetermined answers for the participants to select from. The EQQ was used to measure self-reported empathising scores. Similarly, the SQQ (Short Version) consisted of 25 items with the similar format for participants to answer, the SQQ was also to measure self-reported systemising score. The short version for both these self-reports were used for several reasons, firstly the participants each had to complete for separate tests which were time consuming, and to reduce the time it would take each participant we used the short version. Secondly, the short version was used to keep the participants engaged in the questionnaire and answer as truthfully as possible. The test were scored using a scoring sheet, for both questionnaires each question could score between 0-4. Some question required a negative score. The maximum score for the EQQ was 44 and for the SQQ 50.
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RME) was also used to measure performance on empathising, this test consisted of one practice and 36 pictures of eye displaying an emotion, the participant has to select one of four adjectives to describe the emotion being depicted. Scores were calculated on the number of correct answers. The RME was used as it a reliable measure (Fernández-Abascal and colleagues, 2013). The Physical Prediction questionnaire (PPQ) was used to measure performance on systemising scores, which has 40 tasks. The test instructed participants of a diagram involving a leaver and weights, the task was to predict the possible outcome out of four presented to you. Scores were marked on the number of correct answers. To ensure reliability, as there were multiple researcher each researcher was given the same set of instruction for them selves and to read to the participants. The researcher were all aware what was expected of them.
Procedure
The participants were asked to sign consent before participating in the research which explain they had the right to withdraw at any time (see appendix one). The participants were asked to meet at the University Of Manchester in a quiet room. On arrival the participants were explained the purpose of the research. They were given a desk to work on and a pen, each test was given individually, the self-reported questionnaires were given first, in any order. Then the PPQ was administrated, the participants had the tasks explained to them and only began the test once they fully understood. They were encouraged to answer all the question to the best of their ability. The final task was the RME the instruction to the task were explained to the participant and a practice task was administrated. The participants were to write the correct adjective on a piece of paper provided. The researchers chose to conduct PPQ before the RME as the length of the PPQ may put participants off answer all the question had it been the last test. The participants were thanked and debriefed about the study.
Results: (500)
On screening the data, the results found 51 participant’s data was unavailable due to age. 50 participants were too young and one participant was too old. In addition to this one of the scores from the SQQ was removed for having a score of 178 when the maximum score was 50. These were taken to ensure they did not have any implications on the results.
Hypothesis 1:
The tests compared in hypothesis one are the self-reported tests, EQQ and SQQ. The variance for these test indicate there was homogeneity of variance and the histograms also indicate a parametric test could be used (See appendix two). The box plots shows there were a cluster of women who scored high on the SQQ the researcher chose to keep these in to investigate why. Additionally, there were a few women who scored low on the EQQ which were also kept in.
Table1: mean (SD) for gender on self-report test of empathising and systemising.
Males Females
EQQ 21.0(7.4) 25.5(7.3)
SQQ 24.8(9.2) 15.4(8.6)
The main effect of self-report was not significant: F(1,942)= 1.031, p=.31, partial դ"²" =<.001.
The main effect of sex was significant F(1,942)=9.533, p=.002, partial դ"²" =.001
There was a significant in interaction between self-report and sex: F(1,942)=315.192, p= <.001, partial դ"²" =.251. This interaction is shown on the graph below, it shows males score higher on the SQQ in comparison to female on the SQQ. Males on the EQQ score lower than females on the EQQ. Therefore support the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2:
The tests compared in hypothesis two are the performance test, RME and PPQ. The descriptive statistics for hypothesis two indicate there was not a homogeneity of variance, and was non-parametric, however the researchers chose to use a factorial anova as it was the most powerful test to use (see appendix three). The box plots showed there was below average score on the RME for both men and women and the researcher chose to keep them in to see the implication on the results.
Table1: mean (SD) for gender on performance test of empathising and systemising.
Males Females
RME 24.8(4.8) 26.8(4.8)
PPQ 26.9(9.2) 18.7(8.5)
The main effect for performance was not significant: F(1,942)=.102, p=.749, partial դ"²" =<.000
The main effect for Sex was significant: F(1,942)=22.767, p=<.001, partial դ"²" =0.024
There was a significant interaction between performance and sex: F(1,942)=228.277, p=<.001, partial դ"²" =.195. This interaction is depicted in the graph below, it indicates males scored lower on the RME and higher on the PPQ, whereas females scored higher on the RME and lower on the PPQ. Thus supporting the hypothesis of a two way interaction between sex and performance on empathising and systemising tasks.
Discussion:
Hypothesis one
The results testing hypothesis one shows that there was not a difference when comparing the results of the SQQ and the EQQ. Whereas there is an interaction between the EQQ/SQQ and gender. However the effect size of 0.251 indicated that the size of the interaction is only small. Despite this, further analysis of the line graph shows males score higher on the SQQ and lower on the EQQ. Correspondingly, the female participants scored higher on the EQQ and lower on the SQQ. This supports the hypothesis, which argues there will be a two way significant interaction between sex and self-reported empathising and systemising. As the results from the self-report corroborate with the hypothesis. This supports the findings of, Baron-Cohen (2002); Baron-Cohen and Colleague (2003). Similarly it also supported Preti and colleagues (2011) who found cross cultural comparison, of the EQQ and found similar results of women scoring higher on the EQQ. The results could also be due to Ferguson and Austin’s (2010) found a link between performance of ToM and emotional intelligence.
Hypothesis two
The result testing hypothesis two, shows there was not difference when comparing the RME and the PPQ score. However, there was a difference when comparing male’s results and females results, although the effect size is extremely small. Despite these findings the interaction between the performance on the RME and the PPQ and male and females results found a small interaction size of 0.195, although it is small it is a larger size then the performance. These finding support hypothesis two, which looks at a two way interaction between sex and performance on empathising /systemising tasks (RME/PPQ). Which suggest males will score higher on the PPQ and females on the RME. These finding, indicate Baron-Cohen (2002) types of brain, which would suggest the extreme male brain would enhance in systemising task and struggle in empathising, whereas the extreme female would score the opposite. The results of the current research, are similar to previous research, Khorashad and colleagues (2015) also found that women score significantly higher than males on the RME. Similarly, Kirkland and colleagues (2013), also found females adults score higher on the eye test, which is support by the work of Guariglia and colleague (2015). The results help understand the work of Hoffman and colleague (2010) which suggest that women have better facial emotional recognition than men.
Limitation
A limitation within the research, is the time taken to complete the four tests at one time. Although the researcher choice to use the short version of the SQQ and the EQQ. However the PPQ consisted of 40 tasks, which required a lot of time, and the RME, has 36 pictures to identify the emotions. Each participant took on average between 60-90 minutes. This can lead to the participant’s reduced attention span. However a possible way to increase attention span would be to split the test (Self-report/ performance) to be complete on two separate occasions. Addition further research could use, a between participants design.
In addition, another limitation of the research is the use of multiple researcher. Multiple researcher were used because of the sample size. However this can cause low inter-reliability, as a result of the way the tests were administered by each researcher. A solution for this, is to have set of guided instruction, to use prior to administrating the test and during the test. This would ensure each researcher was using the same conditions to do the test in and the instructions for each test would be the same. This would lead to a higher inter-rater reliability. Furthermore, the researcher used an opportunity sample can provide a biased representation of the sample as those who chose to participate would have an interest to the researcher. However, using an opportunity sample was the easiest way to gain a large sample size. further limitation to the research is not compared the self-reported results with the performance results which would have led to understand the relationship individuals self-reported opinion of their empathising and systemising skill in comparison on their actual performance on empathising and systemising task.
Further research and Implications
The current research, indicated the importance of future research, could compare self-report and performance on Empathising and systemising tasks. This will highlight if there are any differences between perceived and actual score on empathising –systemising tests. In addition to this extending research and compare performance with children also. Implications of the current research can lead to be used in the education system, as it can be supported by research which suggest there are more men in systemising related subjects such as physics and maths.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear to say in terms of empathising and systemising it can be measured in terms of self-report on an EQQ and SQQ and performance on a RME and PPQ. On comparing interaction between the two the researcher found two separate interaction between sex * self-report and sex * performance. The research was largely based on Baron-Cohen (2002); research. As predicted by previous research, men scored higher on the SQQ and women on the EQQ, (Wheelwright and colleagues, 2006). It also found that men scored higher on the PPQ and women scored higher on the RME which support the finding of Khorashad and colleagues (2013). However the research did not compare the interaction between the self-reported test and the performance test, which many help understand between perceived and actual scores of empathising and systemising.