Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:16:40.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Differences in Cognition: The New Rise of Biologism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Lesley J. Rogers
Lesley J. Rogers*
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, University of New England, ARMIDALE NSW 2351
Get access

Abstract

Currently there is an increase in the number of articles published in scientific journals and in the popular scientific media that claim a biological basis for sex differences in cognition and in certain structures in the brain. It can be argued that there is over-emphasis on the differences rather than similarities between the sexes, but it is even more important to question the assumed causation of the differences. This paper discusses recent evidence for an interactive role of early experience and hormonal condition in determining sex differences in brain structure and function. Although early studies using rats were thought to show that the male sex hormone, testosterone, acts on the brain in early life to direct its differentiation into either the male or female form, it is know known that this result comes about indirectly by changing the mother’s behaviour towards the pups. The hormone does not act on the brain directly but rather it alters the environment in which the young animals are rasied and this, in turn, influences the development of the brain. Indeed, the brain is in dynamic register with its environment both during development and in adulthood. Other examples also show that old ideas of rigid biological determination of brain structure and function need to be laid aside.

The hypotheses for hormonal causation of sex differences humans rely heavily, if not exclusively, on the earlier interpretation of the experiments with rats, and there seems to be resistance to changing these notions based on the new discoveries. Apparently, there is strong pressure to cling on to biological determinist theories for sex differences in behaviour, and this has profound effects on social and educational policy. For example, biological determinism has been used to justify under representation of women in certain professions. Realisation of the dramatic effects that environmental stimulation and learning can have on the development of brain and behaviour leads us to an optimistic position for social change towards equality for women.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 1993 , pp. 2 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berrebi, A.S., Fitch, R.H., Ralphe, D.L., Denenberg, J.P., Friedrick, V.I. Jr., & Denenberg, V.H. (1988). Corpus callosum: Region specific effects of sex, early experience and age. Brain Research, 438, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lacoste, M.-C., Holloway, R.L., & Woodward, D.J. (1986). Sex difference in the fetal human corpus callosum. Human Neurobiology, 5,93–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Denenberg, V.H., Berrebi, A.S., & Fitch, R.H. (1989). A factor analysis of the rat’s corpus callosum. Brain Research, 497, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, M.C. (1988). Rat forebrain morphology: Right-left: male-female: young-old: enriched-impoverished. In Glick, S. (Ed.), Cerebral lateralization in nonhuman species (pp. 73–87). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43,95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kimura, D.(1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, 267, (3), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Vay, S.(1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034–1037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerner, R.M.(1992). Final solutions: Biology, prejudice, and genocide. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Maddox, J. (1991). Is homosexuality hard-wired? Nature, 353, 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A.A. (1972). Man and woman: Boy and girl. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, C.L. (1982). Maternal behaviour of rats is affected by hormonal condition of pups. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 96, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, C.L., Dou, H., & Juraska, J.M. (1992). Maternal stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord. Brain Research, 572, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C.L., & Morelli, G.A. (1979). Mother rats interact differently with male and female offspring. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 93,677–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, G. (1992, October 21). Sex on the brain. The Age, Melbourne, pp. 11.Google Scholar
Reinisch, J.M., Ziemba-Davies, M., & Sanders, S.A. (1991). Hormonal contributions to sexually dimorphic behavioural development in humans. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 213–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, L.J.(1982). Theideology of medicine. In Rose, S.P.R. (Ed.), Against biological determinism (pp. 79–93). London: Allison and Busby.Google Scholar
Rogers, L.J. (1988). Biology, the popular weapon: Sex differences in cognitive function. In Caine, B., Grosz, E.A., & de Lepervanche, M. (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Feminisms and the critique of knowledges (pp. 43–51). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Rogers, L.J. (1989, February 11 ). The left and right of brains at work. New Scientist, pp. 56–59.Google Scholar
Rogers, L.J., & Walsh, J. (1982). Short-comings of psychomedical research into sex differences in behaviour: Social and political implications. Sex Roles, 8, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vines, G. (1992, November 28). Obscure origins of desire. New Scientist, pp. 2–8.Google Scholar