The Associated Press (2009) story says that "women use more" brain than men in evaluating beauty. What Cela-Conde et al (2009) actually reported was greater bilateral activity as measured by MEG in women, relative to men, when being asked to rate landscape paintings or photographs as "beautiful" or "not beautiful." The actual ratings of beauty were not related to gender: "It is curious that, using different neural networks, the final result is very similar in women and men. But this seems to be the case".
Some days, I really want to hang up the DifferenceBlog and write an entire blog about science writing in the popular media; "more brain", seriously? Then again, I'm not sure what you do with this study.
My first guess for why women's results were more lateralized: they were more likely to think about whether the images were "objectively" beautiful -- at least, that's how I'd get distracted, and second-guess myself. My completely unfounded suspicion is that women were not just thinking "do I enjoy this image" but also "would most people enjoy this image?" Then again, I get totally paranoid whenever I have to rate my enjoyment of anything. I feel like there's something wrong with me if I don't enjoy something that someone else can.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Embarrassed by Peers
Gallup et al (2009) found that being the target of victimization in middle and high school affects men and women differently. The survey found that "diminishing, demeaning, and embarrassing" types of indirect aggression predicted sexual behavior in college, but in opposite ways. Girls who had been victimized reported more and earlier sexual partners; boys reported fewer and later activity.
Gallup points to reduced social status leading to fewer "mating opportunities" for boys. For girls, Gallup offers two possible explanations: first, that the girls are picked on because they are more attractive than their peers, or second, that the girls are less able to resist "sexual pressure" from males due to reduced self-esteem. Reduced self-esteem due to peer victimization would be consistent with Paquette and Underwood (1999), who reported that girls' self-concept was more affected by this type of relational aggression than boys' self-concept.
There's a bit of hand-wavy theorizing going on here, so bear with me. It looks like getting picked on in school reverses normal gendered behavior, according to Gallup's study: girls get more sexual, boys get less sexual. I am dubious about the reduction of mating opportunities for low-status boys: boys in general have fewer opportunities than girls, and I think that's important for the girls' result as well. What Gallup isn't catching, and what I think is really important here, is the way sex can be used to prop up faltering self-esteem, at least in the short-term. It was nearly the only source of my self-esteem between the ages of 19 and 22, so I may be biased.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Gallup points to reduced social status leading to fewer "mating opportunities" for boys. For girls, Gallup offers two possible explanations: first, that the girls are picked on because they are more attractive than their peers, or second, that the girls are less able to resist "sexual pressure" from males due to reduced self-esteem. Reduced self-esteem due to peer victimization would be consistent with Paquette and Underwood (1999), who reported that girls' self-concept was more affected by this type of relational aggression than boys' self-concept.
There's a bit of hand-wavy theorizing going on here, so bear with me. It looks like getting picked on in school reverses normal gendered behavior, according to Gallup's study: girls get more sexual, boys get less sexual. I am dubious about the reduction of mating opportunities for low-status boys: boys in general have fewer opportunities than girls, and I think that's important for the girls' result as well. What Gallup isn't catching, and what I think is really important here, is the way sex can be used to prop up faltering self-esteem, at least in the short-term. It was nearly the only source of my self-esteem between the ages of 19 and 22, so I may be biased.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Marijuana Use
In a Canadian survey, Tu et al (2008) examined correlates of cannabis use among 7th through 12th graders in British Columbia. They found that 14.3% of boys and 8.7% of girls met their criterion for "heavy" marijuana use: 10+ instances in the past 30 days. Most predictors were shared between sexes; ethnicity predicted use only for boys, while poorer mental health predicted use for girls. In the U.S., Kerr et al (2007) found that marijuana use had declined among men 18-25 since 1984, but had not among women, leading to convergence near 20% of people in this age group using within the past year by 2000; a similar convergence occurred in adults over 26, around 5%.
Interestingly, McGregor and Arnold (2007) found that female rats self-administered intravenous THC at a greater rate than males, and that this effect disappeared with ovarectomy. The authors argue that this could point to a estrogen-mediated reward system for the active compound in cannabis.
You know, the age 26 cut-off seems "right" to me. When I find out someone my age uses marijuana, I find myself adding the word "still" to that sentence: "she still smokes pot." I don't use the word "she" as a generic pronoun. I'm having trouble coming up with any man I know well who uses marijuana after age 25. I can think of several women, and they all seem to use it responsibly. However, one of my comic weaknesses is that I can't actually tell when people are under the influence of just about anything: my drug-dar is as faulty as my gaydar. So, it's entirely possible that half my friends are permanently stoned, but I just haven't noticed.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Interestingly, McGregor and Arnold (2007) found that female rats self-administered intravenous THC at a greater rate than males, and that this effect disappeared with ovarectomy. The authors argue that this could point to a estrogen-mediated reward system for the active compound in cannabis.
You know, the age 26 cut-off seems "right" to me. When I find out someone my age uses marijuana, I find myself adding the word "still" to that sentence: "she still smokes pot." I don't use the word "she" as a generic pronoun. I'm having trouble coming up with any man I know well who uses marijuana after age 25. I can think of several women, and they all seem to use it responsibly. However, one of my comic weaknesses is that I can't actually tell when people are under the influence of just about anything: my drug-dar is as faulty as my gaydar. So, it's entirely possible that half my friends are permanently stoned, but I just haven't noticed.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Throw like a girl
Watson (2001) calls the male advantage in aimed throwing one of the "largest reliable human sex differences known." Watson argues that these differences can not be strictly learned, citing studies of pre-sports-age children and differential ability between hetero- and homosexual matched pairs of men and women (Beer & Fleming, 1989; Hall & Kimura, 1995 respectively). More evidence for an "innate" difference in throwing ability is Duffy et al (2004, PDF), who found that time spent playing darts did not explain gender differences in dart-throwing performance.
I do not throw well. I have had very little experience with throwing, and most of my childhood was spent with a deeply ingrained distrust for sports of any kind, so it's not particularly surprising, and (in my case) not easily explained by gender. The thing I found most interesting about Watson's argument was that brain processing was given such high priority in throwing ability: the window for releasing a thrown object for accurate aiming was given as 1 to 10 ms. I can't come up with a particularly reasonable argument for "no innate difference" in throwing ability given this evidence, but I do question the causality suggested. Do men have greater throwing ability because they have better spatial sense, or do they have better spatial sense because they throw things? Sex differences on spatial tasks have been shown to be malleable (10/9/07), moreso than the throwing differences discussed here.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
I do not throw well. I have had very little experience with throwing, and most of my childhood was spent with a deeply ingrained distrust for sports of any kind, so it's not particularly surprising, and (in my case) not easily explained by gender. The thing I found most interesting about Watson's argument was that brain processing was given such high priority in throwing ability: the window for releasing a thrown object for accurate aiming was given as 1 to 10 ms. I can't come up with a particularly reasonable argument for "no innate difference" in throwing ability given this evidence, but I do question the causality suggested. Do men have greater throwing ability because they have better spatial sense, or do they have better spatial sense because they throw things? Sex differences on spatial tasks have been shown to be malleable (10/9/07), moreso than the throwing differences discussed here.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Monday, February 23, 2009
A double standard for the Oscars
Last night, at the 81st Annual Academy Awards (Oscars), the Oscar for leading man went to 48 year old Sean Penn, and the Oscar for leading woman went to 33 year old Kate Winslet. Some researchers have pointed out that, on average, male Oscar winners tend to be older than female Oscar winners. Markson and Taylor (1993) point out that only 27% of the female Oscar winners from 1927-1999 were over 39, but 67% of male winners were over 39.
Lincoln (2004) provides an alternate explanation for the age discrepancy than a sex-based double standard: the male winners, she suggests, started their careers later. Therefore, Lincoln believes that experience may be a moderating factor. However, Bazzini et al (1997) suggest that the roles written for older women may be "unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent" compared to their male contemporaries. Bazzini et al's analysis was based on top-grossing films, so consumer preference may influence the films included for analysis.
I'm not a big watcher of movies in general, and very few of the movies I do watch are dramas. Therefore, I've very rarely seen any of the Oscar-nominated performances. This year, I hadn't seen any of the best picture or best actor/actress nominated films. So, of course, I turn to my bestest friend: Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lists of Best Actors and Best Actresses by age at time of award. It's depressing, but I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of any older female roles which I found really compelling, and haven't seen many of the films on either Wikipedia list. Jessica Tandy in Fried Green Tomatoes (1991) is the only one I can really think of. Who's your favorite older female character from film?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Lincoln (2004) provides an alternate explanation for the age discrepancy than a sex-based double standard: the male winners, she suggests, started their careers later. Therefore, Lincoln believes that experience may be a moderating factor. However, Bazzini et al (1997) suggest that the roles written for older women may be "unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent" compared to their male contemporaries. Bazzini et al's analysis was based on top-grossing films, so consumer preference may influence the films included for analysis.
I'm not a big watcher of movies in general, and very few of the movies I do watch are dramas. Therefore, I've very rarely seen any of the Oscar-nominated performances. This year, I hadn't seen any of the best picture or best actor/actress nominated films. So, of course, I turn to my bestest friend: Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lists of Best Actors and Best Actresses by age at time of award. It's depressing, but I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of any older female roles which I found really compelling, and haven't seen many of the films on either Wikipedia list. Jessica Tandy in Fried Green Tomatoes (1991) is the only one I can really think of. Who's your favorite older female character from film?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sexuality in Older Adults
In their survey of sexual activity and health among U.S. adults over 57, Lindau et al (2007) state: "At any given age, women were less likely than men to be in a marital or other intimate relationship, and this difference increased dramatically with age". There seems to be a "dance partner" problem (8/13/07) with this finding, except for the tendency for women to choose older partners* (e.g. Buss, 1989). 35% of women and 13% of men reported that sex was "not at all important". However, similar difference were seen between the oldest and youngest groups (41%:15%) or the not-sexually-active vs. sexually-active groups (48%:5%), suggesting that more than gender is a factor in sexual desire. This study also found one of the rare areas of health care where women are less likely than men to seek treatment: despite similar levels of "problematic" sexual dysfunction, women were less likely to have spoken about it with a physician (22% to 38%). 14% of men and 1% of women had taken medication or supplements in the past year to improve sexual function.
*Or men to choose younger ones. Whatever. In the couples Lindau et al studied, the mean difference between men's and women's ages was 3.2 ± 5.7 years. With over 2,000 data points, a standard deviation that big suggests a lot of variation to me.
Now, I feel like I need to point out that this was a population prevalence survey. The authors did not seem to be aiming at drawing any causal conclusions, and I'd warn against that, too. The effects of aging on hormone levels, and any possible tie between hormones and libido, are not explicitly studied here (and barely mentioned). Same-sex relationships were explicitly mentioned, but the population was too small for subgroup analysis (8 out of 3,005 reported a same-sex relationship).
I hope I keep having sex as long as it's interesting. Five years ago (maybe even last year), I would have said "as long as I live", but ... well, now I can at least picture what it's like not to care about it. For me, there definitely seems to be a hormonal component, but I get less certain about that every year, as my prescribed dose of testosterone stays the same, but my libido creeps ever lower.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
*Or men to choose younger ones. Whatever. In the couples Lindau et al studied, the mean difference between men's and women's ages was 3.2 ± 5.7 years. With over 2,000 data points, a standard deviation that big suggests a lot of variation to me.
Now, I feel like I need to point out that this was a population prevalence survey. The authors did not seem to be aiming at drawing any causal conclusions, and I'd warn against that, too. The effects of aging on hormone levels, and any possible tie between hormones and libido, are not explicitly studied here (and barely mentioned). Same-sex relationships were explicitly mentioned, but the population was too small for subgroup analysis (8 out of 3,005 reported a same-sex relationship).
I hope I keep having sex as long as it's interesting. Five years ago (maybe even last year), I would have said "as long as I live", but ... well, now I can at least picture what it's like not to care about it. For me, there definitely seems to be a hormonal component, but I get less certain about that every year, as my prescribed dose of testosterone stays the same, but my libido creeps ever lower.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A matter of taste or of faith?
Shepherd and Towler (2007) found significant differences between men and women in regards to their attitudes towards nutrition and various classes of food. This difference was most pronounced in evaluations of the harmfulness of fried food: although both men and women considered fried foods harmful, women expressed far more negative attitudes about it. Differences in general evaluations of meat and dairy were non-significant.
Wardle et al (2004) found that half of the behavioral differences between men and women's dietary habits could be tied to their beliefs about their food choices. However, the Shephard and Towler study found disconnects for women between belief, intention, and behavior, especially around dairy products.
My relationship with food is complicated enough. I don't dare throw gender-politics into it (although I have noticed that I'm more self-conscious about just ordering a salad when I'm out!) My boyfriend, as I'm sure I've mentioned, seems to have some sort of biofuel engine that runs on deep-fryer oil. I love fried foods, but I don't feel great after consuming a lot of them. He seems to feel even better after a large meal of fried stuff with cheese. I have to wonder whether this is an adaptation to eating this kind of diet, or whether he actually has an easier time converting fried foods into energy and well-being.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Wardle et al (2004) found that half of the behavioral differences between men and women's dietary habits could be tied to their beliefs about their food choices. However, the Shephard and Towler study found disconnects for women between belief, intention, and behavior, especially around dairy products.
My relationship with food is complicated enough. I don't dare throw gender-politics into it (although I have noticed that I'm more self-conscious about just ordering a salad when I'm out!) My boyfriend, as I'm sure I've mentioned, seems to have some sort of biofuel engine that runs on deep-fryer oil. I love fried foods, but I don't feel great after consuming a lot of them. He seems to feel even better after a large meal of fried stuff with cheese. I have to wonder whether this is an adaptation to eating this kind of diet, or whether he actually has an easier time converting fried foods into energy and well-being.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Forgive us our trespasses
A Jesuit priest claims to have found gender differences in men's and women's sins, according to articles in the British papers (The Telegraph & The Times; 2009). According to Roberto Busa's examination of confessional data, men are most likely to commit sins of lust, gluttony, or sloth, while women's top sins were pride, envy, and anger.
This is only partially consistent with a multi-denominational survey conducted in the United States: Capps and Cole, 2000 found changes among U.S. laity between 1989 and 1999. Women in the U.S. survey most identified with a description of the sins of envy, gluttony, and pride in both years. However, "men's struggles with lust and melancholy increased dramatically" in the 10-year gap (p. 365). Perhaps most interesting from the U.S. survey was the finding that men tended to judge the sins they struggled with as the "worst", while women judged the sins they least identified with as more severe.
The studies are probably too dissimilar to compare: the information was collected in different countries, at different times, from people of different faiths, and the method of collection was vastly different. Capps and Cole avoided using the word "sin" in their survey, and instead used descriptions to avoid a stigmatized reaction. The information was collected under the name "Life Attitudes Survey"; struggling with the sin of lust, for example, was described as "an abusive and manipulative attitude toward persons of the other sex; treating them as objects or pawns." None of Capps and Cole's respondents in 1989 admitted to "lust."
I feel like there ought to be a sexy word for the study of sin: sinology is the study of Chinese culture. *typing noises* Ha! The internet knows everything: hamartiology is the study of sin. At any rate, I know I've personally rated my "favorite" sins a number of times, but I guess that's one thing the internet doesn't know. In eight years of blogging, I don't seem to ever have posted about it. I think sloth has been topping the list for the past year or so, but only because lust is too much work.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
This is only partially consistent with a multi-denominational survey conducted in the United States: Capps and Cole, 2000 found changes among U.S. laity between 1989 and 1999. Women in the U.S. survey most identified with a description of the sins of envy, gluttony, and pride in both years. However, "men's struggles with lust and melancholy increased dramatically" in the 10-year gap (p. 365). Perhaps most interesting from the U.S. survey was the finding that men tended to judge the sins they struggled with as the "worst", while women judged the sins they least identified with as more severe.
The studies are probably too dissimilar to compare: the information was collected in different countries, at different times, from people of different faiths, and the method of collection was vastly different. Capps and Cole avoided using the word "sin" in their survey, and instead used descriptions to avoid a stigmatized reaction. The information was collected under the name "Life Attitudes Survey"; struggling with the sin of lust, for example, was described as "an abusive and manipulative attitude toward persons of the other sex; treating them as objects or pawns." None of Capps and Cole's respondents in 1989 admitted to "lust."
I feel like there ought to be a sexy word for the study of sin: sinology is the study of Chinese culture. *typing noises* Ha! The internet knows everything: hamartiology is the study of sin. At any rate, I know I've personally rated my "favorite" sins a number of times, but I guess that's one thing the internet doesn't know. In eight years of blogging, I don't seem to ever have posted about it. I think sloth has been topping the list for the past year or so, but only because lust is too much work.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Nose Knows, but it isn't telling
According to an article in the New York Times (2009), human women's brains respond differently to sweat samples from sexually aroused men than unaroused men.* The women, however, don't report noticing any difference, so this reaction appears to be unconscious. The study (Zhou & Chen, 2008) scanned women using fMRI as they were asked to rate scent samples for intensity and pleasantness. The samples were obtained from men's armpits while watching either an erotic film or a neutral one. This study is unlike other studies we've looked at (e.g. Rantala et al, 2006) in that it did not rely on self-report exclusively to judge women's reactions.
So, to start with a caveat: I can not make any conclusions about what my brain is doing on a subconscious level. I hope this is obvious, but I feel like it bears repeating. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find no studies about men reacting to women's sweat. There is at least one study about women reacting to women's sweat, which I'll definitely want to look at more closely later (Berglund et al, 2006). I suspect three reasons for the lack of gender parity in these studies:
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
So, to start with a caveat: I can not make any conclusions about what my brain is doing on a subconscious level. I hope this is obvious, but I feel like it bears repeating. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find no studies about men reacting to women's sweat. There is at least one study about women reacting to women's sweat, which I'll definitely want to look at more closely later (Berglund et al, 2006). I suspect three reasons for the lack of gender parity in these studies:
- The general bias towards studying what makes women like men, as complained about last week (2/11/09)
- The fact that women tend to have more sensitive sense of smell (2/7/07)
- The fact that men have a stronger smell than women (9/17/07)
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hormonal effects on preferences
Interestingly, women with relatively high salivary T were found to have a greater preference for masculine faces than women with low levels (Welling et al, 2007). Roney and Simmons (2008) found greater preference for masculine faces in women when their estradiol levels were higher. Conversely, Welling et al, (2008) found that men preferred more feminine faces on women when their testosterone levels were relatively high. This effect did not transfer to men's assessments of femininity in male faces.
So, I've actually been thinking quite a bit about how my preferences seem to have changed since my transition. My most favorite women's faces used to be feminine faces with masculine trappings. I have developed more appreciation for masculine feminine faces - but a lot of that is probably related to the increased masculinity in my own face. I see a masculinized feminine face every day; so maybe I'm just more used to it.
(sorry today's post is late -- I forgot it was Monday, because I have a work holiday)
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
So, I've actually been thinking quite a bit about how my preferences seem to have changed since my transition. My most favorite women's faces used to be feminine faces with masculine trappings. I have developed more appreciation for masculine feminine faces - but a lot of that is probably related to the increased masculinity in my own face. I see a masculinized feminine face every day; so maybe I'm just more used to it.
(sorry today's post is late -- I forgot it was Monday, because I have a work holiday)
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Valentine's Day Surveys
The MH/WH survey also found that most (82.1%) of readers planned to spend $50 or less on Valentine's Day gifts, and (84.1%) thought their partner should spend $50 or less. Given that the respondents were split evenly by sex (1,000 each), this still seems low in comparison to Discover Card's annual survey (BusinessWire, 2009) which found men planned to spend an average of $118.30, while women planned an average of $49.80. An alternate average of $102.50 was reported by the National Retail Federation's annual survey (Miami Herald, 2009).
I think, and maybe I'm speaking too soon, that I've gotten over my Valentine's Day neurosis (2/14/07) about the heart-shaped box of chocolates. For years, I've accepted that I had to have it. I was disappointed to the point of hysteria if I didn't get the right box (pictured above, the one I got in 2007). It was what my father got for my mother, and I got completely insane about receiving one. But I don't think I got one last year (sweetie, I'm sorry if I've forgotten), and I was okay. This year, I have again given my partner permission to skip it. Still, I know that I have an irrational fixation on what's "supposed" to happen with Valentine's Day, and I'm working on it.
So far this year, I've spent about $20, but that's split between two recipients, and includes cards. I'm feeling really cheap after reading the consumer polls (presumably, that's the intention, right? A writer at WSJ had the same reaction), and I may run out for some last minute shopping this afternoon.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Status and Stereotypes
Much of the gender research on personality suggests that women tend to be expressive while men tend to me more instrumental/assertive. Gerber's review (2009) in the journal Sex Roles suggests that belief in personality differences and self-evaluation of personality in accordance with these stereotypes can be tied to social status. This holds especially true for the socially desirable aspects of these traits: "assertiveness" and "communion" are more likely to be explained by status than than "domineering" and "social aggression". The article is very reminiscent of a management research review nearly twenty years older: Gregory (1990). Gregory also suggested that gender differences in personality traits diminish when social status is controlled. Bozer and Yoden (2008) offer experimental support for this theory, with their replication of Williams and Sommer (1997): the 1997 study showed that women, but not men, worked harder when ostracized by coworkers. Bozer and Yoden's experiment showed that this difference could be erased when social status was manipulated.
So, what I'm seeing here is that men are dominant because they can be. Women build consensus because they have so little individual power. Honestly, I've always had a hard time understanding the appeal of the so-called feminine personality traits. When women have said that collaboration makes them enjoy being female, it's always struck me as sour grapes. Then again, my inability to understand the appeal of femininity was sort of related to my eventual rejection of the female role, so I'm probably not a good judge.
Possibly Related: Social Status & Adolescents, 11/20/07
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
So, what I'm seeing here is that men are dominant because they can be. Women build consensus because they have so little individual power. Honestly, I've always had a hard time understanding the appeal of the so-called feminine personality traits. When women have said that collaboration makes them enjoy being female, it's always struck me as sour grapes. Then again, my inability to understand the appeal of femininity was sort of related to my eventual rejection of the female role, so I'm probably not a good judge.
Possibly Related: Social Status & Adolescents, 11/20/07
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Facial Femininity vs. Estrogen
Yesterday (2/10/09), we discussed the relationships between hormone levels and male facial characteristics. The way that hormones effect facial characteristics in women seems to have received far less study. In fact, only Smith et al (2006) seem to have tested hormonal levels when categorizing women's faces for relative femininity. Smith's study found that femininity in women's faces was a predictor of estrogen levels, but less so for progesterone levels (femininity rated with and without make-up). Feinberg et al (2005) suggested that women's voice-pitch and facial femininity are tied to estrogen levels, citing Thornhill and Grammer (1999) for the connection. The 1999 paper cited eleven references for this connection (going back to Cunningham, 1986), none of which appear to have measured hormone levels in their female sample.
In a footnote to yesterday, Thornhill and Gangestad (2005) found that masculine traits in male and female faces correlated to respiratory disease, suggesting that whatever characteristics lead to facial masculinity may have a protective effect against some forms of disease.
I have another partial post written about hormones and faces, but I'm going to have to drop this topic for a little while, because it's getting under my skin. Right now, the conclusion I'm drawing isn't about hormones, or development, or facial dimorphism: it's about researchers. I can find a lot of studies about attractiveness. I can find a lot of studies where images of women are used as study stimuli. But I'm also finding a lot of evolutionary psychology which cites back to itself but no one ever seems to have tested the assumptions. I'm not finding a lot of women being studied as women, rather than being studied in relationship to men: what they find attractive in men, what men find attractive in women, etc. This line of research really has me feeling a second-class status for women, and I don't trust myself to continue fairly until I take a break.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
In a footnote to yesterday, Thornhill and Gangestad (2005) found that masculine traits in male and female faces correlated to respiratory disease, suggesting that whatever characteristics lead to facial masculinity may have a protective effect against some forms of disease.
I have another partial post written about hormones and faces, but I'm going to have to drop this topic for a little while, because it's getting under my skin. Right now, the conclusion I'm drawing isn't about hormones, or development, or facial dimorphism: it's about researchers. I can find a lot of studies about attractiveness. I can find a lot of studies where images of women are used as study stimuli. But I'm also finding a lot of evolutionary psychology which cites back to itself but no one ever seems to have tested the assumptions. I'm not finding a lot of women being studied as women, rather than being studied in relationship to men: what they find attractive in men, what men find attractive in women, etc. This line of research really has me feeling a second-class status for women, and I don't trust myself to continue fairly until I take a break.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Facial Masculinity vs. Testosterone
In the comments last week (2/4/09), Piterburg and I had a conversation about the evidence regarding relationships between facial masculinity and testosterone (T) levels in women. I suggested that I was unable to find any evidence that normal ranges of sex hormones were linked to facial masculinity. Today, I thought I'd give that a closer look:
Penton-Voak and Chen (2004) did find a connection between circulating T levels (salivary T) in men. The men with higher salivary T levels were judged to have more masculine faces by raters. In contrast, Peters et al (2008) found no correlation between salivary T and rated facial masculinity in men. This disconnect is noted by Peters et al, who explain: "there is no correlation between testosterone levels during adulthood and adolescence when masculine features are developing" (see von Bokhoven et al, 2006).
Sadly, I found no studies that examined the masculinity of female faces in relationship to T. However, such results might be suspect if they did exist: Granger et al (2004) notes that there are gender differences in the accuracy of T tests. Granger et al state: "the measurement of testosterone (in saliva or serum) in females is less accurate than in males" (see also: Shirtcliff, Granger, & Likos, 2002, Taieb et al, 2003).
So, to summarize: the masculinity of men's faces is probably an indication of their testosterone levels in adolescence, which bears little-to-no relationship to their adult testosterone levels. There appears to be little more than speculation about the effect of normal testosterone differences in women, but it's hard to tell, because women's T is hard to measure accurately. The difficulty is probably partially because there's so little testosterone in "normal" women: WebMD (2008) gives a normal range of 270–1,080ng/dL for men 20-39, 10-70 ng/dL for premenopausal women).
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Penton-Voak and Chen (2004) did find a connection between circulating T levels (salivary T) in men. The men with higher salivary T levels were judged to have more masculine faces by raters. In contrast, Peters et al (2008) found no correlation between salivary T and rated facial masculinity in men. This disconnect is noted by Peters et al, who explain: "there is no correlation between testosterone levels during adulthood and adolescence when masculine features are developing" (see von Bokhoven et al, 2006).
Sadly, I found no studies that examined the masculinity of female faces in relationship to T. However, such results might be suspect if they did exist: Granger et al (2004) notes that there are gender differences in the accuracy of T tests. Granger et al state: "the measurement of testosterone (in saliva or serum) in females is less accurate than in males" (see also: Shirtcliff, Granger, & Likos, 2002, Taieb et al, 2003).
So, to summarize: the masculinity of men's faces is probably an indication of their testosterone levels in adolescence, which bears little-to-no relationship to their adult testosterone levels. There appears to be little more than speculation about the effect of normal testosterone differences in women, but it's hard to tell, because women's T is hard to measure accurately. The difficulty is probably partially because there's so little testosterone in "normal" women: WebMD (2008) gives a normal range of 270–1,080ng/dL for men 20-39, 10-70 ng/dL for premenopausal women).
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Go Red For Women
The CDC (2009) names February as American Heart month. As part of this month of awareness about heart disease, the American Heart Association's Go Red For Women campaign sponsors Wear Red Day which took place this year on February 6th (last Friday). As discussed a couple of years ago (7/1/07), the CDC's WISQARS database lists heart disease as the leading cause of death for women after age 65, but for men after age 45. However, for all adults (men and women, ages 18+), heart disease is the leading killer overall.
My partner and I attended a hockey game last month with a "Go Red" promotion, and we talked a little about whether additional support for women was appropriate. Generally speaking, women are better at monitoring their health than men. Here's some of what has already been covered in Difference Blog about heart-disease differences between men and women:
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
My partner and I attended a hockey game last month with a "Go Red" promotion, and we talked a little about whether additional support for women was appropriate. Generally speaking, women are better at monitoring their health than men. Here's some of what has already been covered in Difference Blog about heart-disease differences between men and women:
- Ironically, both sexes seem to feel that heart disease risk is higher for the opposite sex than for their own (3/12/07).
- Women's heart attack symptoms present differently than men's, which can lead to misdiagnosis (10/11/06, 1/15/09).
- The care regimens for heart disease seem to work more effectively for women than men (12/10/08). Research for women's heart health also lags, but the difference in apparently available populations makes parity difficult (e.g. 11/26/08, 11/15/06)
- Men and women are equally likely to call an ambulance for a heart attack (9/10/07)
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Beep Beep!
Hennessy and Wiesenthal (2001) report that women are just as likely as men to participate in what they call "mild driver aggression": that is, horn-honking and fist-shaking, swearing, and purposeful tailgating. Men were more likely to flash high beams than women as a sign of annoyance, but this was the only "mild" aggressive behavior to show a significant gender difference. Interestingly, this may be a fairly new development, or an artifact of changed testing procedures. Older studies, including the seminal "horn honking" study (Doob and Gross, 1968) found decreased horn-honking among women.
Last night, my partner and I were driving home from a dinner visit, and there were a ton of examples of driver aggression for me to think about. What brought this particular item (horn-honking) to my attention is that I realized that I'd been thinking of the honker behind us as male, and when they passed us on the right, I saw that the driver appeared to be female.
I don't think I've ever honked in anger. I believe I've used the horn on any car less than 5 times. My lack of honk-expression frustrated the hell out of an ex of mine, who once honked the horn of a car I was driving when I got cut off in traffic. I wasn't mad about getting cut off, but I was sure mad about someone interfering with the wheel while I was driving.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Last night, my partner and I were driving home from a dinner visit, and there were a ton of examples of driver aggression for me to think about. What brought this particular item (horn-honking) to my attention is that I realized that I'd been thinking of the honker behind us as male, and when they passed us on the right, I saw that the driver appeared to be female.
I don't think I've ever honked in anger. I believe I've used the horn on any car less than 5 times. My lack of honk-expression frustrated the hell out of an ex of mine, who once honked the horn of a car I was driving when I got cut off in traffic. I wasn't mad about getting cut off, but I was sure mad about someone interfering with the wheel while I was driving.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Oh, must they?
Daniel D. Federman, M.D., from the Harvard Medical School, explains it all in his review for the New England Journal of Medicine, "The Biology of Human Sex Differences":
Federman's review covers differences in fertility, hormones (sexual and somatic), and genetics. In these areas, Federman seems to stay fairly factual. There is also a brief caveat just before the conclusion: "This article has focused on biologic factors involved in differences between the sexes, but the socio-cultural environment can produce additional differences", going on to cite examples from "agrarian societies" and "some countries" where "inequalities add to the female burden of illness."
I don't even know what to say to this. The science parts look okay, on first blush, but I'm having a little trouble reading them after the sweeping introduction and the patronizing conclusion. I was looking for some information on testosterone and the female sex drive to answer Piterberg's question from yesterday, but the section on that in this review was a bit of hand-wavy fluff about the magical mystical female sex drive that couldn't be explained by hormones, but maybe had something to do with testosterone. Oooh, women's sex drive is baffling and scary! Let's go to the bar! Seriously, I need to send him the O RLY owl.
Or maybe I'm just cranky and need a nap. That's possible too.
1Wizemann & Pardue, eds, 2001: Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Everyone in medicine and related fields understands that there are marked sex-based differences in the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, course, and therapy of disease1. Although very few of these differences are understood in molecular or cellular terms, the explanations must derive from the fundamental biological differences between the sexes." -- Federman (2006) (emphasis mine)
Federman's review covers differences in fertility, hormones (sexual and somatic), and genetics. In these areas, Federman seems to stay fairly factual. There is also a brief caveat just before the conclusion: "This article has focused on biologic factors involved in differences between the sexes, but the socio-cultural environment can produce additional differences", going on to cite examples from "agrarian societies" and "some countries" where "inequalities add to the female burden of illness."
I don't even know what to say to this. The science parts look okay, on first blush, but I'm having a little trouble reading them after the sweeping introduction and the patronizing conclusion. I was looking for some information on testosterone and the female sex drive to answer Piterberg's question from yesterday, but the section on that in this review was a bit of hand-wavy fluff about the magical mystical female sex drive that couldn't be explained by hormones, but maybe had something to do with testosterone. Oooh, women's sex drive is baffling and scary! Let's go to the bar! Seriously, I need to send him the O RLY owl.
Or maybe I'm just cranky and need a nap. That's possible too.
1Wizemann & Pardue, eds, 2001: Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
An untrustworthy face
Campbell et al (2009) compared women's sexual histories to their perceived masculinity and desirability as a long-term mate. Female raters assessed the women's faces for masculinity, while male raters assessed them for trustworthiness and desirability as a long-term mate. Sexual histories were taken by self-report. The authors concluded that more masculine looking women (who presumably have higher levels of testosterone) were more likely to cheat, and that men find masculine looking women less desirable as long term mates. The Telegraph (UK, 2009) offers examples from celebrity culture that follow this pattern.
This study pokes at one of the areas that bothers me about a lot of the women's testosterone studies: there's a lot of jumps in the reasoning. The size of a woman's chin = her testosterone levels = her sexual behavior? The thing is (1) they didn't test the female exemplars testosterone levels and (2) the studies they cite indicating that more testosterone = bigger chin were based on male subjects. I've poked at a few of the references, and I can't find support for the idea that women who have more masculine features necessarily have higher testosterone levels. That being said, my own features masculinized dramatically with the administration of testosterone at age 25. So, it's tempting for me to believe it, but I don't think that the assertion is supported.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
This study pokes at one of the areas that bothers me about a lot of the women's testosterone studies: there's a lot of jumps in the reasoning. The size of a woman's chin = her testosterone levels = her sexual behavior? The thing is (1) they didn't test the female exemplars testosterone levels and (2) the studies they cite indicating that more testosterone = bigger chin were based on male subjects. I've poked at a few of the references, and I can't find support for the idea that women who have more masculine features necessarily have higher testosterone levels. That being said, my own features masculinized dramatically with the administration of testosterone at age 25. So, it's tempting for me to believe it, but I don't think that the assertion is supported.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Seasonal Affective Disorder
As previously noted (1/9/07), women are more often diagnosed with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) than men, which may be due to higher rates of depression overall, or could be related to differences in average male and female routines. Lucht and Kasper (1999), for example, reported that 3.6 times as many women as men presented with SAD, and women were more likely to refer themselves to the German clinic that was the basis of their study.
Leibenluft et al (1994) examined whether there were differences in the symptoms presented by male and female SAD sufferers. Leibenluft's team found that clinician-rated symptoms and response to phototherapy did not differ by patient-sex. However, self-report symptoms varied widely: "men reported more severe illness, while women reported more carbohydrate craving, a greater percentage increase in weight, and more hours of sleep per night in the winter." The authors suggest that this may indicate a difference in reporting of symptoms, although it could indicate an actual difference in how the disease is experienced by men and women. These results are relatively consistent with Lucht and Kasper's findings, which found that men tended to underreport symptoms.
I haven't noticed any particular difference in how I respond to winter since transition, but as always, it's hard to distinguish changes due to lifestyle shifts and aging from changes related to transition. I am, however, reminded of one of the commercials from the SuperBowl this past weekend ("Pepsi Max", 2009 video), which showed a series of men getting hurt and responding "I'm good!" I feel like my tendency to downplay injuries and symptoms has increased -- except as relates to my transition. In a strictly Pavlovian response, I've found that I need to be fairly assertive in how I report transition-related discomfort, since it's the only way I can get treated for it.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Leibenluft et al (1994) examined whether there were differences in the symptoms presented by male and female SAD sufferers. Leibenluft's team found that clinician-rated symptoms and response to phototherapy did not differ by patient-sex. However, self-report symptoms varied widely: "men reported more severe illness, while women reported more carbohydrate craving, a greater percentage increase in weight, and more hours of sleep per night in the winter." The authors suggest that this may indicate a difference in reporting of symptoms, although it could indicate an actual difference in how the disease is experienced by men and women. These results are relatively consistent with Lucht and Kasper's findings, which found that men tended to underreport symptoms.
I haven't noticed any particular difference in how I respond to winter since transition, but as always, it's hard to distinguish changes due to lifestyle shifts and aging from changes related to transition. I am, however, reminded of one of the commercials from the SuperBowl this past weekend ("Pepsi Max", 2009 video), which showed a series of men getting hurt and responding "I'm good!" I feel like my tendency to downplay injuries and symptoms has increased -- except as relates to my transition. In a strictly Pavlovian response, I've found that I need to be fairly assertive in how I report transition-related discomfort, since it's the only way I can get treated for it.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Groundhog day
Happy Groundhog Day! The Canadian Encyclopedia (n.d.) claims that the marmota morax's weather predictions are accurate 37% of the time, which is no more than chance. Despite this, one-quarter of people surveyed by Rain-X (2007) put their faith in the Groundhog's predictions. No gender difference was reported in groundhog-faith, although a regional one was (people in the Northeast were more skeptical). However, Rain-X's survey did note that "women are more likely to know the date of Groundhog Day than the name of their local senator" (only 55% of all survey participants were able to correctly identify February 2nd as Groundhog Day).
The Howell Nature Center in Michigan suggests that their groundhog, Woody, has a better accuracy rate than the more famous Punxsutawney Phil. According to an interview in the Ann Arbor News (2008), handlers suspect that her accuracy is due to "intuition": most groundhog meteorologists are males. This could be due to the pattern of male groundhogs leaving the hibernation burrow earlier in order to start courtship (EurekAlert, 2003).
I feel like the Rain-X claim is ridiculously unfair: they didn't say how many men could name their local senator. I never feel like I need to know it: I look it up if there's a vote I care about, because I'm likely to be writing or calling three or four people about it, and it's not worth keeping track of all of their names. They change too often.
I was curious, this morning, over whether any of the major groundhogs were females, and whether women were more likely to believe in the prediction. Two years ago, I did find some evidence that women were more likely to believe in superstitions than men (3/2/07). Thinking about it, women may be more likely to believe in capricious fate due to a historically low level of control over their own lives. Well, ain't that a depressing way to end a post about an animal also known as the "land beaver"?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
The Howell Nature Center in Michigan suggests that their groundhog, Woody, has a better accuracy rate than the more famous Punxsutawney Phil. According to an interview in the Ann Arbor News (2008), handlers suspect that her accuracy is due to "intuition": most groundhog meteorologists are males. This could be due to the pattern of male groundhogs leaving the hibernation burrow earlier in order to start courtship (EurekAlert, 2003).
I feel like the Rain-X claim is ridiculously unfair: they didn't say how many men could name their local senator. I never feel like I need to know it: I look it up if there's a vote I care about, because I'm likely to be writing or calling three or four people about it, and it's not worth keeping track of all of their names. They change too often.
I was curious, this morning, over whether any of the major groundhogs were females, and whether women were more likely to believe in the prediction. Two years ago, I did find some evidence that women were more likely to believe in superstitions than men (3/2/07). Thinking about it, women may be more likely to believe in capricious fate due to a historically low level of control over their own lives. Well, ain't that a depressing way to end a post about an animal also known as the "land beaver"?
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
