Introduction

In the conventional worldview, men and women occupy distinct social roles and display different characteristics, forming a dimorphism from which various stereotypes stem. Whereas the physiological sex differences are easily discernible, the intangible psychological differences are difficult to examine. The contention of whether a psychological discrepancy exists between men and women traces back to the ancient world. Plato and Aristotle, two giants of ancient Greek philosophy upon which much of modern culture is constructed, represented the polarities of the classical debate. Plato posited that “women and men have the same nature in respect to the guardianship of the state” (Republic, 5.456), while Aristotle believed that the female mind’s inherent defects render women “more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, …more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike” (History of Animals, IX). 

It is necessary to illuminate certain definitions before delving into the argument. The modern definition of “psyche,” according to psychologist Carl Jung, is “the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious” (1971, p.797). However, the denotations of “men” and “women” are more complex. From ancient philosophers’ stylus to modern scholars’ keyboard, more nuances of the argument unfold as society dispels the false dichotomy underlying gender polarization. No longer synonymous with “sex,” the concept of gender has diverged from the biological definition and expanded into a continuous spectrum. As contemporary philosopher Judith Butler explained, sex refers to the “invariant, anatomically distinct, and factic aspects” of a body, whereas gender defines the “cultural meaning and form that that body acquires” (Butler, 1986, p.35). Due to this distinction, being a man or woman is to abide by the cultural implications for a male or female. The central question thus extends beyond its previous categorization of “men” and “women.” Because of this complexity, most scientific inquiries fell under the constraint of gender binarism. Consequently, discussions concerning “men” and “women” is hereinafter limited to the binary definition of gender synonymous with sex in this essay. Under this categorization, modern science has unraveled consistent evidence supporting the existence of several gender-based psychological differences, which do not validate the discriminative gender hierarchy in any way but do matter for constructing a comprehensive understanding of individual identity and collective culture. 

A Biological Perspective

From genetic, hormonal, and anatomical perspectives, physiological sex differences inevitably lead to psychological variations. The X and Y sex chromosomes dictating biological sex carry different genetic materials, and studies on sex chromosome aneuploidies (i.e. abnormal number of chromosomes) revealed that this difference may contribute to the proneness to suffer certain mental disorders: the Y chromosome may predispose males to autism, whereas an extra X chromosome may contribute to females’ vulnerability to depression (Green et al., 2019). The chromosomal difference also causes varying hormone levels that lead to behavioral differences. For example, the ovarian hormone estrogen renders females more susceptible to drug abuse (Anker & Carroll, 2011). Furthermore, differences in hormone levels give rise to neuroanatomical variances between the male and female brains (Goldstein et al., 2001; Ruigrok et al., 2014). For instance, Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, two regions responsible for language functions, are larger in the female brain. This observation corresponds to females’ higher sensitivity to verbal activities (Harasty et al., 1997; Kurth et al., 2017).  

Admittedly, inference from the biological perspective does not suffice to validate the claim that our minds are sexually dimorphic. Since the human psyche is heavily influenced by cultural and social factors, the narrow biology model fails to address all facets. Therefore, the holistic landscape of psychological differences between men and women needs to be evaluated and analyzed across three psychological aspects: cognition, how we perceive and evaluate the world; personality, how we process and react to feelings; and behavior, how we interact with others (Vandenbos, 2015).

Cognition: the smarter sex?

Prominent differences in the cognitive ability of men and women are consistently highlighted in visuospatial ability, verbal skills, and emotion processing. As far back as 1985, researchers have identified men’s advantages in spatial perception (Linn & Petersen, 1985). More recent evidence further supports that men outperform women in many visuospatial tasks, with the most robust difference in mental rotation (i.e. the ability to envision rotating a 3D object in space) (Voyer, 1995). In contrast, women have an edge over men in writing and reading comprehension (Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Halper et al., 2007). In emotion processing, women displayed an advantage in the perception of disgust, fear, and sadness from facial expressions; on the other hand, men showed superior sensitivity to anger (Kret & De Gelder, 2012). Notably, one of the most pervasive stereotypes that men excel over women at mathematics was disproved (Lindberg et al., 2010). In summary, men and women each display preponderance in some respects, but one does not override the other in cognitive ability. As psychologists Wendy Wood and Alice Eagly noted, “individuals of both sexes are potentially capable of effectively carrying out organizational roles at all levels,” regardless of minor inherent differences (2002, p.722). 

Unfortunately, the amplification of these differences often breeds social prejudices and sexual discrimination. For example, stereotype-based self-efficacy in intellectual capacities feeds the career gender gap in the workforce. In the United States, a country winning accolades for pioneering gender equality, only 15% of engineers are women, and only 11.2% of registered nurses are men (United States Census Bureau, 2021). This phenomenon is partially attributable to each sex’s low confidence in their abilities in the areas that do not seem to fit their gender identity (Wang & Degol, 2017; Tellhed et al., 2017). Correctly recognizing cognitive differences is therefore imperative for identifying gender stereotypes and maximizing individual potential. In this way, societies can adjust education schemes and encourage individuals to pursue their ambitions regardless of gender bias.

Personality: the assertive patriarch and the tender lady

Men and women also display intriguing differences in personality that align with ingrained gender stereotypes. Based on the Big Five personality traits, five broad categories describe personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993). Women have consistently demonstrated higher neuroticism and agreeableness, reflecting a disposition to experience negative emotions, empathize, and offer help (Costa & McCrae, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2008; Weisberg & Hirsh, 2011). Notably, this trend was observed on a cross-cultural level, suggesting that cultural differences do not break the pattern (Costa & McCrae, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2008). This observation resonated with women’s universal role as sentimental, perceptive nurturers. Nuances in openness and extraversion further bolster this image (Weisberg & Hirsh, 2011). A closer inspection of the sublevels of openness uncovered a divergent trend of women being more open to aesthetics and feelings and men to ideas. Similarly, for extraversion, women scored higher in gregariousness, whereas men scored higher in assertiveness, an attribute connected to aggression. These finer discrepancies fortify the traditional presumption of women’s emotionality and submissiveness in comparison to men’s rationality and dominance. 

Whether these different characteristics are the cause or the product of gender stereotypes is debatable. Either way, personality differences offer insights into gender differences in the origins and therapeutics of mental illnesses. As an example, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder occur twice as often in women globally (Goodwin & Gotlib, 2004). Some scholars have discovered that higher neuroticism corresponds to a greater capacity to feel emotions and a higher frequency to ruminate, thus contributing to a higher rate of affective disorders in women (Afifi, 2007). This trend illustrates that a gender-neutral approach to mental disorders would mask gender-based risk factors and compromise the efficacy of treatments. The implications of these findings have notable significance, as social expectations are taking an increasingly heavy toll on mental health. 

Behavior: the curious inquiry into human libido

Human behaviors also vary according to gender, especially with respect to romantic or sexual affairs. In general, men reported having higher sex drive, stronger emphasis on physical pleasure, and more embracing attitudes towards casual sex (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). On the contrary, women value emotional bonds and affection more. Sexual fluidity, the flexibility with which an individual responds to different sources of attraction, also displays prominent differences between men and women. A national survey in the U.S. reported an astonishing 900% increase in the number of women identifying as lesbian or bisexual after completing college education (from 0.4% to 3.6%), while the number of men identifying as gay or bisexual was only doubled under the same condition (Laumann, 1994). These statistics showed that women’s sexual orientation is more susceptible to environmental stimuli such as education. 

Differences in sexuality reflect the stereotypical roles of dominant men and subordinate women in orthodox relationships. At a more profound level, these behavioral differences unveil a factor behind the insidious misogyny and homophobia that lurk in the depths of people’s social perceptions. In consonance with findings in sexual fluidity, later studies revealed that men are generally less accepting of homosexual relationships than women, and gay men are judged with a more negative attitude than lesbians (Kite & Whitley, 1996; LaMar & Kite, 1998). These findings imply that for society, “masculinity” is superior and requires a more rigid adherence in juxtaposition with “femininity.” The frequent victimization of women in domestic violence, in which physical abuse is used as both an affirmation and expression of masculine power, manifests the discrimination. The same-sex attraction between two men where masculine authority is not properly declared is thus deemed a disgraceful violation of men’s natural dominance. Dissecting men’s and women’s respective sexual characteristics may therefore help society elucidate and remove the malignant ideology underpinning misogyny and hatred for gender minorities. 

Society’s sculpture on nature’s blueprint

Now, what factors drive the aforementioned psychological differences? Four theories established the basis of related research. The evolutionary psychology theory propounds that sexual selection and differential adaptive strategies shape these discrepancies (Buss, 1995). It links the subtleties of reproductive behaviors to personality differences by attributing women’s tender nature to their higher parental certainty and ensuing devotion to nurturing offspring. However, this theory only addresses a limited biological perspective that insinuates genetic determinism. Conversely, the cognitive social learning theory attributes these differences to social norms that morph behaviors through reinforcement and punishment (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). For example, the belief that women are more likely to fail in STEM could skew women’s career preferences. By similar logic, the sociocultural theory suggests that a division of labor based on physical strength creates restrictions and opportunities that gradually build the social status of men and women (Eagly & Wood, 2012). In this view, men tend to enact the dominator because they, having a natural physical superiority, are expected to do so. Taken together, these theories indicate that psychological differences between men and women arise from an interplay between hardwired features and acquired roles. Lastly, the antithetical gender similarities hypothesis asserts that men and women are more similar than different psychologically, but the foundational logic stands on the very premise that at least some differences, albeit moderate, exist (Hyde, 2005).  

Conclusion

While the minds of men and women are not separated by an unbridgeable chasm, intriguing psychological differences still exist in cognition, personality, and behavior. It is critical to keep in mind that every individual is a distinctive entity, and these generalizations do not constrain independent minds. However, the general psychological differences between genders still matter for their important social implications. While some differences seem to resonate with and reinforce discrimination, recognizing them through an objective lens is a pivotal prerequisite for understanding gender bias. Interpreting the abstruse circuitry underlying psychological differences between men and women will lead to valuable insights into the dynamics of existing social hierarchy and the removal of malignant stereotypes, which not only cause discord between the sexes but also jeopardize the rights of females and gender minorities. The revelation of gender differences in psychological traits is therefore a sine qua non for a genuine understanding of modern culture’s framework, along with ways to maintain its virtues and purge its evils. 

References

Afifi M. (2007). Gender differences in mental health. Singapore medical journal, 48(5), 385–391.

Anker, J. J., & Carroll, M. E. (2011). Females are more vulnerable to drug abuse than males: evidence from preclinical studies and the role of ovarian hormones. Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, 8, 73–96. doi.org/10.1007/7854_2010_93

Aristotle. (n.d.). History of animals (D. W. Thompson, Trans.). LacusCurtius. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E)

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevent evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5

Baumeister R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological bulletin, 126(3), 347–389. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347

Buss D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences. Origins through sexual selection. The American psychologist, 50(3), 164–171. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.50.3.164

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological review, 106(4), 676–713. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.676

Butler, J. (1986). Sex and gender in simone de beauvoir's second sex. Yale French Studies, (72), 35-49. doi.org/10.2307/2930225

Cahill L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 7(6), 477–484. doi.org/10.1038/nrn1909

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26

Goldstein, J.M., Seidman, L.J., Horton, N.J., Makris, N., Kennedy, D.N., Caviness, V.S., Faraone, S.V., & Tsuang, M.T. (2001). Normal sexual dimorphism of the adult human brain assessed by in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebral cortex, 11 6, 490-7.

Goodwin, R. D., & Gotlib, I. H. (2004). Gender differences in depression: the role of personality factors. Psychiatry research, 126(2), 135–142. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2003.12.024

Green, T., Flash, S. & Reiss, A.L. Sex differences in psychiatric disorders: what we can learn from sex chromosome aneuploidies. Neuropsychopharmacol 44, 9–21 (2019). doi.org/10.1038/s41386-018-0153-2

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics. Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society, 8(1), 1–51. doi.org/10.1111/ j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

Hamann S. (2005). Sex differences in the responses of the human amygdala. The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry, 11(4), 288–293. doi.org/10.1177/1073858404271981

Harasty, J., Double, K. L., Halliday, G. M., Kril, J. J., & McRitchie, D. A. (1997). Language-associated cortical regions are proportionally larger in the female brain. Archives of neurology, 54(2), 171–176. doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1997.00550140045011

Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41-45.

Hines M. (2011). Gender development and the human brain. Annual review of neuroscience, 34, 69–88. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113654

Hyde J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

Jung, C. G. (1971). Collected works of C.G. jung, volume 6. Princeton University Press.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336–353. doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002

Kret, M. E., & De Gelder, B. (2012). A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1211–1221. doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.022

Kurth, F., Jancke, L., & Luders, E. (2017). Sexual dimorphism of Broca's region: More gray matter in female brains in Brodmann areas 44 and 45. Journal of neuroscience research, 95(1-2), 626–632. doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23898

Lamar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189-196.

Laumann, E. O. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago u.a: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. doi.org/10.1037/a0021276

Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. doi.org/10.2307/1130467

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

Ngun, T. C., Ghahramani, N., Sánchez, F. J., Bocklandt, S., & Vilain, E. (2011). The genetics of sex differences in brain and behavior. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology, 32(2), 227–246. doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.10.001

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29

Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37–40. doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01221

Plato. (1969). The Republic (P. Shorey, Trans.). Perseus Digital Library. (Original work published ca. 370 B.C.E)

Ruigrok, A. N., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M. C., Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M. V., Tait, R. J., & Suckling, J. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 39(100), 34–50. doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Smith, N.D. (1983). Plato and Aristotle on the Nature of Women. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21(4), 467-478. doi:10.1353/hph.1983.0090.

STEM and STEM-Related Occupations by Sex and Median Earnings: ACS 2019. (2021, October). United States Census Bureau. census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/stem-occ-sex-med-earnings.html

Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2017). Will I Fit in and Do Well? The Importance of Social Belongingness and Self-Efficacy for Explaining Gender Differences in Interest in STEM and HEED Majors. Sex roles, 77(1), 86–96. doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0694-y

Vandenbos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological bulletin, 117(2), 250–270. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), 119–140. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological bulletin, 128(5), 699–727. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699