Sex differences in achievement self-attributions: An effect-size analysis

An effect-size analysis of the findings on sex differences in the use of achievement self-attributions was performed to determine if there were relationships between these two variables that accounted for more than 5% of the variance. The effect-size index used was an estimate of omega squared ( ² ). Two kinds of sex difference effects were examined: (a) the main effect for sex and (b) the simple sex difference effects for success and failure, respectively. With the exception of luck attributions for success, whose ² was .01, all ² s were less than .01. It was concluded that the studies surveyed provided no evidence of the existence of consequential relationships between sex, achievement, and self-attributions.     

Sex differences in ADHD: Conference summary

Clinical samples of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been dominated by males. Consequently, female manifestations and sex differences have been relatively neglected in the extensive ADHD research. Because ADHD is so common (3% to 5% of school children) and chronic (lifelong in many cases), even a small proportion of females multiplied by such a large base means hundreds of thousands of girls and women with ADHD, a significant public health problem. An NIMH conference concluded that research is needed not only on sex differences related to ADHD, but also on manifestations of ADHD in females as such. Areas of focus should include differences in life course (sex-differential age effects); effects of hormones; effects of ADHD parenting (in utero and postnatal) on the next generation; response to and implications for design of psychosocial treatment; effects of differential comorbidity; normative background sex differences that influence the manifestation of ADHD; differences in development of verbal fluency and social behavior; possible interactions of sex and ethnicity; a prospective study of both sex offspring of ADHD adults; and such methodological issues as appropriate instruments and diagnostic thresholds, power to prevent false negatives, valid impairment measures, validity and reliability of child self-reports, and more inclusive samples (all three subtypes: inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive, and combined).The following participants in the November 16–17, 1994, NIMH Conference on Sex Differences in ADHD may be considered ghost co-authors of the contents in this summary. Special thanks are due to Euthymia Hibbs, Ph.D., co-organizer of the conference; Peter Jensen, M.D., who suggested the successful format; Delores Parron, Ph.D., who gave much helpful advice on the conference arrangements; Emily Areia, Ph.D., who thoroughly critiqued the summary; Joan Cole, who helped abstract the recorded proceedings; and Jose Bauermeister, Ph. D., F. Xavier Castellanos, M.D., Stephen Hinshaw, Ph.D., and Mark Stein, Ph.D., who helped with referencing. Other participants, in alphabetical order, included Russell Barkley, Ph.D.; Joseph Biederman, M.D.; Caryn Carlson, Ph.D.; C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.; Monique Ernst, M.D.; Miranda Gaub; Jay N. Giedd, M.D.; Michael Gordon, Ph.D.; Jeffrey Halperin, Ph. D.; Betsy Hoza, Ph.D.; Hans Huessy, M.D.; Jean King, Ph.D.; Kathleen Kiely; Rachel Klein, Ph.D.; Benjamin Lahey, Ph.D.; Jan Loney, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Lorch, Ph.D.; Spero Manson, Ph.D.; Keith McBurnett, Ph.D.; Richard Milich, Ph.D.; Douglas Novins, M.D.; Daisy Pascualvaca, Ph.D.; Linda Pfiffner, Ph.D.; Jane Steinberg, Ph.D.; James Swanson, Ph.D.; Marcus Thomeer, Ph.D.; Lillie Williams, M.D.; Alan Zametkin, M.D.The opinions expressed herein are the views of the author and conference participants and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the National Institute of Mental Health or any other part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.     

Sex differences in impulsivity: a meta-analysis

Men are overrepresented in socially problematic behaviors, such as aggression and criminal behavior, which have been linked to impulsivity. Our review of impulsivity is organized around the tripartite theoretical distinction between reward hypersensitivity, punishment hyposensitivity, and inadequate effortful control. Drawing on evolutionary, criminological, developmental, and personality theories, we predicted that sex differences would be most pronounced in risky activities with men demonstrating greater sensation seeking, greater reward sensitivity, and lower punishment sensitivity. We predicted a small female advantage in effortful control. We analyzed 741 effect sizes from 277 studies, including psychometric and behavioral measures. Women were consistently more punishment sensitive (d = -0.33), but men did not show greater reward sensitivity (d = 0.01). Men showed significantly higher sensation seeking on questionnaire measures (d = 0.41) and on a behavioral risk-taking task (d = 0.36). Questionnaire measures of deficits in effortful control showed a very modest effect size in the male direction (d = 0.08). Sex differences were not found on delay discounting or executive function tasks. The results indicate a stronger sex difference in motivational rather than effortful or executive forms of behavior control. Specifically, they support evolutionary and biological theories of risk taking predicated on sex differences in punishment sensitivity. A clearer understanding of sex differences in impulsivity depends upon recognizing important distinctions between sensation seeking and impulsivity, between executive and effortful forms of control, and between impulsivity as a deficit and as a trait.     

Sex differences in depression

The role of housewife has been hypothesized as the source of excess mental illness among married women as compared with married men. The present study found both housewives and working wives significantly more depressed than working husbands. Although working wives report that they do more housework than husbands, this factor was not significantly related to depression for either wives or husbands. It is suggested that the risk factors for depression, including marriage for women, may be better understood in the context of clinical theories of depression, especially the learned helplessness model.     

Sex differences in cognition

Sex differences in cognitive skills, grouped into three areas — motor, spatial, and linguistic — are assessed in the context of current notions of cerebral lateralization (Buffery and Gray, 1972). There are few convincing sex differences, either overall, or in interactions with (putative) functional localization. There are several qualifying criteria (nature of further interactions with age, birth order, culture, sex of experimenter, sex role pressure) which would have to be met, but these are as yet inadequately documented. Serious caution is urged on the proliferating number of researchers in this area.     

Sex differences in self-silencing

The construct of self-silencing was proposed to account for women's greater vulnerability to developing depression. This study of 1,117 students (795 women and 322 men) explored possible explanations for the empirical finding that men self-silence to the same or greater extent than women. Analysis showed that men reported more self-silencing than women. A factor analysis confirmed the subscale structure of the Silencing the Self Scale for women and men, with relatively few departures from the originally proposed subscales. Depression and self-silencing scores were correlated positively for both men and women. The results of two multiple regressions, performed separately for men and women, showed that depressive symptomatology accounted for a significant percentage of the variance in self-silencing but that social desirability did not account for a significant increment in the variance accounted for in silencing the self. The scores on the Care as Self-sacrifice and the Divided Self subscales were intercorrelated for women, but not for men, indicating that there may be a sex difference in perception of self-silencing behavior.     

Sex differences in pain

Are there sex differences in pain? For experimentally delivered somatic stimuli, females have lower thresholds, greater ability to discriminate, higher pain ratings, and less tolerance of noxious stimuli than males. These differences, however, are small, exist only for certain forms of stimulation and are affected by many situational variables such as presence of disease, experimental setting, and even nutritive status. For endogenous pains, women report more multiple pains in more body regions than men. With no obvious underlying rationale, some painful diseases are more prevalent among females, others among males and, for many diseases, symptoms differ between females and males. Sex differences in attitudes exist that affect not only reporting, coping, and responses to treatment, but also measurement and treatment. So many variables are operative, however, that the most striking feature of sex differences in reported pain experience is the apparent overall lack of them. On the other hand, deduction from known biological sex differences suggests that these are powerful sex differences in the operation of pain mechanisms. First, the vaginal canal provides an additional route in women for internal trauma and invasion by pathological agents that puts them at greater risk for developing hyperalgesia in multiple body regions. Second, sex differences in temporal patterns are likely to give rise to sex differences in how pain is "learned" and stimuli are interpreted, a situation that could lead to a greater variability and wider range of pains without obvious peripheral pathology among females. Third, sex differences in the actions of sex hormones suggest pain-relevant differences in the operation of many neuroactive agents, opiate and nonopiate systems, nerve growth factor, and the sympathetic system. Thus, while inductive analysis of existing data demonstrate more similarities than differences in pain experience between females and males, deductive analysis suggests important operational sex differences in its production.     

Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of 205 studies involving 23,702 Ss was conducted to determine whether there are sex differences in self-disclosure. Across these studies, women disclosed slightly more than men (d = .18). This effect size was not homogeneous across studies. Several moderator variables were found. Sex of target and the interaction effect of relationship to target and measure of self-disclosure moderated the effect of sex on self-disclosure. Sex differences in self-disclosure were significantly greater to female and same-sex partners than to opposite-sex or male partners. When the target had a relationship with the discloser (i.e., friend, parent, or spouse), women disclosed more than men regardless of whether self-disclosure was measured by self-report or observation. When the target was a stranger, men reported that they disclosed similarly to women; however, studies using observational measures of self-disclosure found that women disclosed more than men.     

Sex differences in attribution: A Norwegian study

A quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of sex on actor and observer attributions of success and failure. It was predicted that, contrary to American results in similar studies, Norwegian males and females would tend to be largely similar in their attribution of success and failure. Only same-sex attributions were explored. Subjects were asked to attribute causality along a set of six standard causal dimensions. The results showed that sex had a relatively minor effect on attributions, compared to the effects of attributor role and task outcome. Only in their attributions of ability did men and women differ to some degree in that women were more likely to use lack of ability as an explanation for own failure. The study concludes that cross-cultural research is needed in order to better assess the normative impact on attribution.     

Gender-specific common nouns: Sex differences in self-use

Males and females completed questionnaires on self-esteem and on their use, applied to themselves, of (a) girl/boy, (b) gal/guy, (c) lady/gentleman, and (d) woman/man in 10 situations. Terms chosen did not vary with self-esteem or with psychiatric vs nonpsychiatric status. Older subjects preferred lady/gentleman and woman/man. Females seldom chose gal, and used it less often than males used guy. Both sexes chose girl/boy most in negative situations. Females used girl more than males used boy in self-praise situations. Females preferred both sexes to think of them as ladies. Males preferred females to think of them as gentlemen and thought that term most complimentary, but preferred males to think of them as men. These results are discussed in terms of societal sex roles.The authors wish to thank Gary Leonardson, Ph.D., and Nancy Henley, Ph.D., for their aid in completing this study.     

Equity vs equality: Sex differences in leadership

The present study investigated differences between male and female leaders' responses to poorly performing subordinates. Ninety-four male and 94 female leaders were presented with a vignette describing an incident of poor performance that occurred in a distribution center. The subordinate in the vignette was either male or female, likable or dislikable, and performed poorly due to internal or external factors. Leaders studied the vignette and then rated the appropriateness of a series of corrective actions. Analyses indicated that the corrective actions of female leaders were more affected by the likableness and sex of the subordinate than were the corrective actions of male leaders. The results support the proposition that male leaders tend to respond to subordinates based upon a norm of equity, while female leaders respond to subordinates based upon a combination of equity and equality. Implications of the findings for management training and organizational effectiveness are discussed.     

Sex differences in romantic attachment: a meta-analysis

This article presents the first meta-analysis of sex differences in the avoidance and anxiety dimensions of adult romantic attachment, based on 113 samples (N = 66,132) from 100 studies employing two-dimensional romantic attachment questionnaires (Experiences in Close Relationships, Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised, and Adult Attachment Questionnaire). Overall, males showed higher avoidance and lower anxiety than females, with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Sex differences were much larger in community samples (bivariate D = .28) than in college samples (D = .12); web-based studies showed the smallest sex differences (D = .07) in the opposite direction. Sex differences also varied across geographic regions (overall Ds = .10 to .34). Sex differences in anxiety peaked in young adulthood, whereas those in avoidance increased through the life course. The relevance of these findings for evolutionary models of romantic attachment is discussed, and possible factors leading to underestimation of sex differences are reviewed.     

Sex differences in occupational values

In order to examine sex differences in occupational values, college women and men rated the importance of 18 job characteristics for their career choice. In addition, they indicated which three were the most important and which three were the least important. The findings showed that, in comparison to males, females attached greater importance to a large variety of values, and these results are discussed in relation to career choice.This research was supported by a grant from the University of Connecticut Research Foundation.     

Sex differences in instigative aggression

The instigative aggression paradigm, in which male and female subjects instructed a female confederate which shock to set for an opponent in a competitive reaction time task, was employed. It was observed that males instigated more aggression than females and that both passive and assertive noncooperation effectively reduced instigative aggression, the assertive form of noncooperation being only slightly less effective. Questionnaire data suggested that females found the passive noncooperator most desirable while males found her least so. Results were discussed in terms of violation of task role and sex role expectations.     

Sex differences in boredom proneness

To identify sex differences in boredom proneness, 146 undergraduates (66 men and 80 women) were asked to complete the Boredom Proneness Scale. An independent groups t test indicated a statistically significant mean difference in boredom proneness as men scored significantly higher than women.     

Sex differences in dichotic listening

The present study quantified the magnitude of sex differences in perceptual asymmetries as measured with dichotic listening. This was achieved by means of a meta-analysis of the literature dating back from the initial use of dichotic listening as a measure of laterality. The meta-analysis included 249 effect sizes pertaining to sex differences and 246 effect sizes for the main effect of laterality. The results showed small and homogeneous sex differences in laterality in favor of men (d=0.054). The main effect of laterality was of medium magnitude (d=0.609) but it was heterogeneous. Homogeneity for the main effect of laterality was achieved through partitioning as a function of task, demonstrating larger asymmetries for verbal (d=0.65) than for non-verbal tasks (d=0.45). The results are discussed with reference to top-down and bottom-up factors in dichotic listening. The possible influence of a publication bias is also discussed.     

Sex differences in working memory

In two separate studies, sex differences in modal-specific elements of working memory were investigated by utilizing words and pictures as stimuli. Groups of men and women performed a free-recall task of words or pictures in which 20 items were presented concurrently and the number of correct items recalled was measured. Following stimulus presentation, half of the participants were presented a verbal-based distraction task. On the verbal working-memory task, performance of men and women was not significantly different in the no-distraction condition. However, in the distraction condition, women's recall was significantly lower than their performance in the no-distraction condition and men's performance in the distraction condition. These findings are consistent with previous research and point to sex differences in cognitive ability putatively resulting from functional neuroanatomical dissimilarities. On the visual working-memory task, women showed significantly greater recall than men. These findings are inconsistent with previous research and underscore the need for further research.