Testosterone Rex

by Cordelia Fine

  82. Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review 9(3), 212–230. Quoted on p. 212.

  83. See, for example, the meta-analysis by Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.

  84. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884.

  85. Lippa, R. A., Preston, K., & Penner, J. (2014). Women’s representation in 60 occupations from 1972 to 2010: More women in high-status jobs, few women in things-oriented jobs. PLOS One, 9(5).

  86. Valian, V. (2014). Interests, gender, and science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 225–230. Quoted on p. 226.

  87. Valian (2014), ibid. Quoted on p. 227. Valian refers here to a different, shorter interests inventory.

  88. That the traditionally feminine job of nursing requires this kind of “systemizing” is a point made by Jordan-Young, R. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  89. Cahill, L. (July 11, 2014). Equal ≠ the same: Sex differences in the human brain. Cerebrum. Cahill cites two studies in support. The first are the categorical sex differences found for strongly sex-stereotyped activities (such as playing golf and taking baths). Carothers & Reis (2013), ibid. However, as noted earlier in the text, Carothers and Reis did not find categorical sex differences on any psychological traits studied. Second, Cahill cites a study that combined fifteen different personality measures into a “global personality score,” reporting that the overlap between the sexes on this multidimensional measure was much less than for a single personality measure: just 18 per cent. Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS One, 7(1), e29265. One legitimate rationale of the study was to look separately at the different factors that make up the Big Five, since sex differences in sub measures that make up each overarching personality trait may to some extent cancel one another out. But Swansea University psychologists Steve Stewart-Williams and Andrew Thomas argue that an important feature of the multidimensional statistic used to create the “global personality score” is that the more dimensions you add, the bigger the statistic gets. “This has an awkward implication.… Even for very similar populations—New Zealanders and Australians, for example—there will inevitably be many variables for which there are small average differences. If you were to take enough of these variables and treat them as a single multidimensional variable, you could use Del Giudice’s method to ‘prove’ that, psychologically, New Zealanders and Australians are virtually different species.” Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168. Quoted on p. 168. Additionally, Hyde (2014) has observed that Del Giudice et al.’s multidimensional measure doesn’t relate to any known concept in personality, making it difficult to know how to interpret the result. Hyde, J. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–398.

  90. Terman & Miles (1936), ibid. See Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender, nature, and nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

  91. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44; The Bem Sex Role Inventory, Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.

  92. In particular, the multidimensional gender identity theory of Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624–635. See also Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 451–463.

  93. Wolpert (2014), ibid. Quoted on p. 179.

  94. Valian, V. (2014). Developmental biology: Splitting the sexes. Nature, 513(7516), 32. Quoted on p. 32.

  95. Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2011). The generic/nongeneric distinction influences how children interpret new information about social others. Child Development, 82(2), 471–492. Sample explanations from Table 1, p. 477.

  96. Cimpian & Markman (2011), ibid. Quoted on p. 473.

  97. Browne, K. R. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology and sex differences in workplace patterns. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in the business sciences (pp. 71–94). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Quoted on p. 71.

  98. Carothers & Reis (2013), ibid. A similar point is made in relation to “non-kinds” in psychiatric classification by Haslam, N. (2002). Kinds of kinds: A conceptual taxonomy of psychiatric categories. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 9(3), 203–217.

  CHAPTER 5: SKYDIVING WALLFLOWERS

  1. Hoffman, M., & Yoeli, E. (Winter, 2013). The risks of avoiding a debate on gender differences. Rady Business Journal.

  2. Baker M. D., Jr., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391–395. Quoted on p. 392, references removed. The authors propose that additional benefits of male displays of risk taking are attracting allies and scaring off competitors.

  3. Baker & Maner (2008), ibid. Quoted on p. 392, reference removed.

  4. Hoffman & Yoeli (2013), ibid.

  5. However, it should be noted that economists regard risk taking and competition as separate concepts—the former involves engagement with an unpredictable world, while the latter involves engagement with unpredictable others.

  6. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601–630. Quoted on p. 602.

  7. Adams, R. (January 21, 2015). Gender gap in university admissions rises to record level. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/21/gender-gap-university-admissions-record on May 14, 2015.

  8. For example, the Choice Dilemma Scale: Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. (1964). Risk-taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt.

  9. For example, many of the studies on competition discussed later in the chapter “control” for risk-taking propensity by including a lottery task to assess risk taking. The unstated assumption is presumably that this particular measure of risk taking also captures propensity to take risk in a different domain, namely, taking the risk of competing against peers.

  10. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59–73. Quoted on p.66.

  11. Johnson, J., Wilke, A., & Weber, E. U. (2004). Beyond a trait view of risk taking: A domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefits, and perceived-risk attitudes in German-speaking populations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 35(3), 153–163. Quoted on p. 153. See also early discussion of this issue in Slovic, P. (1964). Assessment of risk taking behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 61(3), 220–233.

  12. MacCrimmon, K., & Wehrung, D. (1985). A portfolio of risk measures. Theory and Decision, 19(1), 1–29.

  13. Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290. Weber’s group then went on to find the same domain specificity of risk-taking propensity in a large sample of young Germans. Johnson et al. (2004), ibid.

  14. Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J. G., & Wilke, A. (2006). Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: An application to risk-taking behavior. Psychological Science, 17(4), 300–304.

  15. Weber et al. (2002), ibid.

  16. Cooper, A. C., Woo, C.
Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1988). Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 97–108.

  17. Weber et al. (2002), ibid. This is in line with arguments made by many in the field that risk per se—the possibility of loss—is always “repugnant” (p. 265). See also Yates, J., & Stone, E. (1992). The risk construct. In K. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior. New York: Wiley.

  18. Keyes, R. (1985). Chancing it: Why we take risks. Boston: Little, Brown. Quoted on pp. 10 and 9, respectively.

  19. Yates & Stone (1992), ibid. Quoted on p. 2.

  20. Keyes (1985), ibid. Quoted on p. 6.

  21. Weber et al. (2002), ibid.; Johnson et al. (2004), ibid.; Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 48–63. A similar principle was found to be at work in explaining cross-cultural differences in buying prices for risky financial options; these were found to be due to differences in perceptions of the risks of the financial options, not risk attitudes. Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205–1217.

  22. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

  23. Byrnes et al. (1993), ibid. Quoted on p. 377.

  24. Nelson, J. A. (2014). The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: The case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3), 211–231. Nelson uses the examples of domestic violence, and pregnancy and childbirth.

  25. Mortality ratio for pregnancy in the United States in 2011: 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births; available at http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/PMSS.html. Mortality ratio for skydiving in 2014: 0.75 deaths per 100,000 jumps; available at (http://www.uspa.org/AboutSkydiving/SkydivingSafety/tabid/526/Default.aspx).

  26. See http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-your-health/health-conditions-library/womens-health/Pages/high-heels.aspx.

  27. One of the generous colleagues who reviewed this book commented in the margin that this joke seemed a bit too corny for me. As you can see, he was wrong.

  28. Weber et al. (2002), ibid.; Johnson et al. (2004), ibid.; Harris et al. (2006), ibid.

  29. Harris et al. (2006), ibid. This turned out to be because women saw the chances of success as more probable and the positive consequences as better.

  30. For example, in the financial domain: Wang, M., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2011). The less you know, the more you are afraid of: A survey on risk perceptions of investment products. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 12, 9–19; Weber, E. U., Siebenmorgen, N., & Weber, M. (2005). Communicating asset risk: How name recognition and the format of historic volatility information affect risk perception and investment decisions. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 597–609. In relation to health and leisure risks, see Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135–138.

  31. Sunstein, C. (1996). Social norms and social roles. Columbia Law Review, 96(4), 903–968. Quoted on p. 913, reference/footnote removed from first quotation.

  32. This doesn’t seem to be due to differences in relevant knowledge. For example, female members of the British Toxicology Society provided higher risk ratings of chemicals than did their male counterparts. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Mertz, C., Neil, N., & Purchase, I. F. (1997). Evaluating chemical risks: Results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 16(6), 289–304.

  33. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.

  34. See Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2), 159–172; Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505. See also Palmer, C. (2003). Risk perception: Another look at the “white male” effect. Health, Risk and Society, 5(1), 71–83. This survey found that the “white male effect” extended to Taiwanese American males, for health and technology risks.

  35. Kahan, D. (October 7, 2012). Checking in on the “white male effect” for risk perception. The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved from http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/10/7/checking-in-on-the-white-male-effect-for-risk-perception.html on November 7, 2014.

  36. Olofsson, A., & Rashid, S. (2011). The white (male) effect and risk perception: Can equality make a difference? Risk Analysis, 31(6), 1016–1032.

  37. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(4), 329–342. Quoted on p. 333. Confirmatory evidence was also found by Weber et al. (2002), ibid., who similarly found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits.

  38. Flynn et al. (1994), ibid. Quoted on p. 1107.

  39. Kahan (2012), ibid.

  40. Flynn et al. (1994), ibid. Quoted on p. 1107.

  41. Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). People use self-control to risk personal harm: An intra-interpersonal dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 267–289.

  42. For example, Prentice, D., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.

  43. For example, Bowles, R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84–103; Rudman, L., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.

  44. Hoffman & Yoeli (2013), ibid.

  45. Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–613. Quoted on p. 610.

  46. Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 256–262.

  47. M. Ryan (personal communication).

  48. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25.

  49. Prentice & Carranza (2002), ibid.

  50. Brescoll, V. L., Dawson, E., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2010). Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1640–1642.

  51. Frankenhuis, W. E., & Karremans, J. C. (2012). Uncommitted men match their risk taking to female preferences, while committed men do the opposite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 428–431. Interestingly, the information had the opposite effect on men already in a committed relationship.

  52. Shan, W., Shenghua, J., Davis, H. M., Peng, K., Shao, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2012). Mating strategies in Chinese culture: Female risk avoiding vs. male risk taking. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 182–192. There was also a condition in which participants thought they were observed by someone of the same sex, which had intermediate effects on behavior. Quoted on p. 183, references removed.

  53. This was found to be mildly desirable in the U.S. sample and neither attractive nor unattractive in the German sample. Wi
lke, A., Hutchinson, J. M. C., Todd, P. M., & Kruger, D. J. (2006). Is risk taking used as a cue in mate choice? Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 367–393.

  54. Quoted from the title of Farthing, G. W. (2007). Neither daredevils nor wimps: Attitudes toward physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 754–777. This study obtained similar findings for both sexes.

  55. Wilke et al. (2006), ibid. Quoted on p. 388.

  56. Sylwester, K., & Pawłowski, B. (2011). Daring to be darling: Attractiveness of risk takers as partners in long- and short-term sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 64(9–10), 695–706. Sylwester and Pawłowski (2011) compared the appeal of risk takers and avoiders in the domains of physical, financial, and social risks. Their main finding was that risk taking was more desirable in a short-term partner than in a long-term partner. A study by Bassett and Moss (2004) created different profiles of a low, medium, and high physical risk taker, and asked participants to rate the desirability of someone in romantic and non-romantic contexts. Men and women differed only in the desirability of a risk taker as a long-term partner. Bassett, J. F., & Moss, B. (2004). Men and women prefer risk takers as romantic and nonromantic partners. Current Research in Social Psychology, 9(10), 135–144.

  57. Bassett & Moss (2004), ibid. Quoted on p. 140.

  58. Wilke et al. (2004), ibid. Quoted on p. 387.

  59. Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., Gray, P. B., Hoffman, M., Little, A. C., & Campbell, B. C. (2011). Androgens and competitiveness in men. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 4(1), 54–62. Quoted on pp. 55–56, references removed. Note that the first two authors extensively discuss the growing recognition of the importance of female competition in a later publication. Apicella, C. L., & Dreber, A. (2015). Sex differences in competitiveness: Hunter-gatherer women and girls compete less in gender-neutral and male-centric tasks. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(3), 247–269.

  60. Cashdan, E. (1998). Are men more competitive than women? British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 213–229.