Module Ref: 4

Psychology Department U24103 Psychological Investigation

Coursework Semester 2, 2010-2011 Student Number: 10059907 Practical Class Day: Thu Title: Sex Differences and the Relationship between Empathising and Systemising in Adults

Word Count:

Sex Differences and the Relationship between Empathising and Systemising in Adults

Women are associated with possessing higher levels of empathy than men. Men however often score better in tests that focus on systemizing. This study investigated the relationship between self-reported levels of empathizing and systemizing and tested how these variables are apportioned between the sexes. 130 (30 males, 100 females) participants completed a version of the empathy quotient (EQ) and systemizing quotient (SQ). As predicted, women scored significantly higher on the EQ whereas men scored significantly higher on the SQ. Only weak correlations were discovered between an individuals score on one of the quotientsregardless of gender in relation to their score on the other. The results give further support to the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory of sex differences and suggest that an individuals score on one of the quotients is not predictive of their performance on the other.

Introduction Two domains of cognition in early stages of human development are folk psychology and folk physics. Folk psychology is the intuitive ability to predict and understand behaviour in others. Theory of Mind (ToM) extends this and allows us to engage with another persons version of reality and set aside what we know to engage with some elses, even if they have a false belief. Folk physics is the intuitive, common sense, understanding of physical causality (e.g. an unsupported object will fall). Following on from folk psychology and ToM, empathising is the drive to identify emotions and thoughts in others and to respond to their mental states appropriately. Empathising allows one to predict anothers behaviour and provides a natural way of responding to others. Following on from folk physics, systemizing is defined as the drive to analyze and build systems e.g. technical, natural, taxonomic, numeric, motor, and social. Systemizing allows the subject to predict and construct systems (Lawson, Baron-Cohen, &Wheelwright, 2004).

Individuals can differ in their ability to empathise and systemise. Baron-Cohen, Richler, Bisarya, Gurunathan, & Wheelwright, (2003) devised a self-report questionnaire, the Systemising Quotient (SQ), to assess an individuals ability for systemising. To test an individuals ability for empathising Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) devised another self-report questionnaire, the Empathising Quotient (EQ). In using these measures BaronCohen et al., (2003) found that normal adult males scored significantly higher than females on the SQ and significantly lower on the EQ. Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) found that the sex difference in EQ was replicated. As well as a sex difference Baron Cohen et al., (2003) found an inverse correlation between SQ and EQ. This correlation whilst significant was small and was attributed to a trend for some trade-off between empathising and systemising. They suggested that even if the mechanisms for E and S were independent that there may be a special relationship between them, which needs to be understood from a biomedical point of view.

The Empathising-Systemising (E-S) model represents a view of the two cognitive styles: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S) in terms of strengths and deficits, linked to sex differences. The E-S model has been extended into the Extreme Male Brain (EMB) theory of autism, which broadens the two cognitive styles: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S) into categories of five brain types. A balanced score in empathising and systemising is known as Type B. Type E and Extreme Type E are classifications given to those who score higher on empathizing tasks (between one and two, and above two standard deviations higher than the mean respectively). Type S and Extreme Type S are the classifications given to those who score higher on systemizing tasks (using the same sizes of discrepancy) (Lawson at el., 2004). The E-S model predicts that females are more likely be associated with Type E, whilst males are more likely to be associated with Type S. EMB theory proposes that individuals with

Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) have an extreme of the male brain and therefore are more likely to be associated with Extreme Type S.

Sex differences in systemising and empathising skills, where males can be said to have a systemising cognitive style and females to have an empathising cognitive style, is discussed more fully in Lawson at el., (2004). This study tested E-S and EMB theories using different measures to the SQ and EQ but participants did complete empathising and systemising tasks. They found that on the empathising task (Social Stories Questionnaire) females performed better than males and on the systemising task (Physical Prediction Questionnaire) females performed worse than males. They found that in the general population sample 55% had nonbalanced brain types: females were more associated with Type E and males were more associated with Type S. These results support the E-S model. In this study there was no significant correlation between empathising and systemising tasks within either gender or overall group which suggests that they are independent abilities. The result is contradictory to the findings of Baron et al., (2003). Although Lawson et al., (2004) propose that this contradiction could in part be due to the limitations of the sample size.

Carroll and Young (2006), as part of their research into autistic-like symptomatology within students, investigated sex differences in EQ and SQ scores with science and humanities students. They found that there was a significant association between sex and brain type. Men were distributed towards Type S and females were distributed towards Type E. There was no significant correlation between empathising and systemising tasks. This was consistent with the findings of Lawson at al., (2004).

A cross-cultural study by Wakabayashi, Baron-Cohen, Uchiyama, Yoshida, Kuroda, & Wheelwright (2007) sought to replicate the Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) study in Japan. This study largely replicated the results found by Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) and Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) which further supports E-S theory. They found a correlation between EQ and SQ, although the correlation in this study was found to be weak positive as opposed to inversely correlated. However, that there was a significant correlation led them to propose that empathising and systemising are independent, yet have a special relationship, although this is still to be specified. They concluded that E-S and EMB theories provide useful ways of understanding typical sex differences in cognitive styles.

The present study investigated the empathising-systemising theory of sex differences in adults from a student population, as opposed to a clinical population. It replicated the UK studies carried out by Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) and Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) using the SQ and EQ to test for predicted sex differences. It tested the following predictions: females would score higher on the EQ, showing female superiority in empathising (Type E) and males would score higher on the SQ, showing male superiority in systemising (Type S). Following on from Lawson et al., (2004) and Carroll and Young (2006) it was hypothesised that there would not be an association between empathising and systemising as these studies have smaller and more similar sample sizes to this study, unlike the studies by Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) and Wakabayashi et al., (2007) where larger samples were obtained.

Methods Participants Participants were students at Oxford Brookes University, enrolled on an undergraduate module in Psychology. 130 participants (100 females, 30 males) took part in the present study as part of the module requirements.
5

Materials Participants answered an internet-based self-report questionnaire that combined together the Empathising Quotient (EQ), as described by Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) and Systemising Quotient (SQ), as described by Baron-Cohen (2003). The questionnaire consisted of a set of 40 EQ items and a set of 75 SQ items. The EQ was presented on page 1, in parts 1-4. Page and the SQ on page 2, in parts 1-8. Participants rated each item in a forced-choice format, using a four point scale as strongly agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, strongly disagree (see appendix A for examples). Participants were told that their responses were anonymised and that they would not get any feedback or results. Only participants who completed the questionnaire were included in the data sample.

Design The dependent variables were the EQ score and SQ score. The independent variable was gender, a between-subjects variable with two levels: males and females. All participants completed the task individually. The order of questionnaires was not counterbalanced across participants.

Procedure Participants were asked to complete an internet-based self-report questionnaire. They were instructed to answer questions quickly, without thinking about responses too long. Once participants completed the EQ and SQ items they indicated their gender and student type.

Results The data from this experiment satisfies parametric assumptions (EQ skewness -.059, kurtosis -.348; SQ skewness .439, kurtosis -.209).

The results of the EQ and SQ are presented in Table 1 and were analysed with a betweensubjects t-test. Table 1. Means and SDs of the EQ and SQ scores by gender Gender Females Males N 100 30 EQ Mean Score 48.52 38.43 Standard Deviation 9.78 8.48 SQ Mean Score 47.92 56.10 Standard Deviation 18.40 23.24

In the EQ there was a significant effect for gender, t(128)= 5.10, p<.001, with females receiving higher scores than males. In the SQ there was also a significant effect for gender, t(128)= -2.01, p= .047.with males scoring higher than females. Mean scores and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. Figure 1. Scatter plot to show correlation between EQ and SQ

Pearson's correlation coefficient performed on the whole sample, r(128)=.23, p=.009, shows a weak positive correlation between SQ and EQ. Pearson's correlation coefficient performed on females shows a weak positive correlation between SQ and EQ r(98)= .37, p<.001. This is shown in Figure 1. The results showing the relationship between males SQ and EQ scores were not statistically significant, r(28)= .23, p= .229.

Discussion The primary aim of study was to investigate sex differences and the relationship between empathising and systemising in adults. As predicted there were sex differences in the expected directions on the EQ and SQ. Females did score higher on the EQ, showing female superiority in empathising (Type E) and males did score higher on the SQ, showing male superiority in systemising (Type S). The results from this study were consistent with the findings from other studies which test the Empathising-Systemising (E-S) model (BaronCohen et al., (2003); Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004); Wakabayashi et al., (2007); Carroll and Young (2006); Lawson et al., (2004)). Therefore, evidence from the general population shows that females demonstrate a pattern of superior empathising abilities, and score higher on the EQ; whilst males have been shown to score higher on the SQ, demonstrating a pattern of superior systemising abilities.

The relationship between empathising and systemising in adults is less straightforward. Lawson at el., (2004) propose that theoretically, a persons aptitude in empathising could be independent of their systemising, alternatively the two domains might be weakly or strongly, positively or negatively correlated. Studies by Lawson et al., (2004) and Carroll and Young (2006) had findings that suggest that empathising and systemising are independent abilities.

The results from this study reject the hypothesis that there would not be an association between empathising and systemising. There was a statistically significant very weak positive correlation between EQ and SQ within the group and it was also shown that females had a slightly higher positive correlation for SQ and EQ than the group. This positive correlation indicates that as EQ score increases so does SQ score, which is similar to the findings of Wakabayashi et al., (2007). Both of these results seem to be counter intuitive and contrast with the results of Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) who found that an inverse correlation between empathising and systemising, which fits with an E-S model of strengths and deficits.

The implications of these results were that further research needs to be carried out into the relationship between empathising and systemising as it is not clear if these two cognitive abilities are entirely independent. The special relationship between the two cognitive abilities alluded to by Baron-Cohen et al., (2003) and Wakabayashi et al., (2007) does demand further cognitive and neuroscientific research.

There may be some methodological issues that could explain the results of this study. Carroll and Young (2006) found that science students outperformed humanities students on the SQ. As this sample consisted of psychology students, who were mostly female this may suggest a reason why there was a weak positive correlation between SQ and EQ.

It should be noted that self-report problems have the advantage of being quick and easy to fill in. There are some limitations, although this test was anonymised, participants knew that the results were to be analysed by a group of peers. This might have induced participants to normalise their feedback and provide socially desirable answers so that they appear in a better light; particularly as the EQ and SQ are different to answer.

This questionnaire was presented to everyone in the same order so there was no process to negate order effects. Other studies using EQ and SQ have raised some concerns. Carroll and Young (2006) were concerned with the validity of SQ as it seems to assess preferences, which is different from assessing abilities. Wheelwright and Cohen (2004) highlight that there are limitations to EQ as self-report instruments are not sensitive to changes in mental state (drunk, angry etc.) and it may be difficult to have the appropriate level of self-insight. Future work could compare alternative ability tests for empathising and systemising, such as comparing a self-assessed EQ score with that based on ratings by a partner/parent of individual. Evidently, alternative ability tests may not have the benefit of being easy to administer and may take longer.

The results of this experiment indicate that sex differences in empathising and systemising in adults were supported. This provides evidence from the general population that supports EMB theory of autism as is more likely to be associated with Extreme Type S and males are shown to be more likely to be associated with Type S. It supports the theory that individuals with ASC have an extreme of the male brain. The special relationship between empathising and systemising may also provide further insights into genetic and cognitive components of ASC.

10

References

Baron-Cohen, S., &Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of Adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 (2), 163-175. Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The Systemising Quotient (SQ): An investigation of Adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, Special issue on Autism: Mind and Brain, 358, 361374. Carroll, J. M., & Chiew, K. Y., (2006). Sex and Discipline Differences in Empathising, Systemising and Autistic Symptomatology: Evidence from a Student Population. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 949-957. Lawson, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004) Empathising and Systemising in Adults with and without Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 (3), 301-309. Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Uchiyama, T., Yoshida, Y., Kuroda, M., & Wheelwright, S. (2007) Empathizing and Systemizing in Adults with and without Autism Spectrum Conditions: Cross Cultural Stability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1823-1832.

11

Appendix A Instructions for online questionnaire ALL INFORMATION REMAINS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL How to fill out the questionnaire Below is a list of statements. Please read each statement very carefully and rate how strongly you agree or disagree with it by selecting in the appropriate option. There are no right or wrong answers, or trick questions. IN ORDER FOR THE SCALE TO BE VALID, YOU MUST ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. Sample of EQ items Page 1 Part 1 1. I can easily tell if someone else wants to enter a conversation. 2. I find it difficult to explain to others things that I understand easily, when they don't understand it first time. 3. I really enjoy caring for other people. strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

4. I find it hard to know what to do in a social situation. 5. People often tell me that I went too far in driving my point home in a discussion.

12

Sample of SQ items

Page 2 Part 1 1 I find it very easy to use train timetables, even . if this involves several connections. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . I like music or book shops because they are clearly organised. I would not enjoy organising events e.g. fundraising evenings, fetes, conferences. When I read something, I always notice whether it is grammatically correct. I find myself categorising people into types (in my own mind).

strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree strongly slightly slightly strongly agree agree disagree disagree

13

Supporting Materials SPSS Output for Histograms

14

SPPS Output for Descriptives

15

Descriptives Statistic Empathy_Quotient_Score Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Systemising_Quotient_Score Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound 38.43 35.27 41.60 38.44 38.00 71.909 8.480 18 57 39 10 -.040 .802 56.10 47.42 64.78 55.63 55.00 540.231 23.243 17 103 86 35 .221 -.726 .427 .833 .427 .833 4.244 Std. Error 1.548

16

Descriptive Statistics Std. Minimu N m Maximu m Mean Statisti Statistic Statistic Empathy_Quotient_Score Systemising_Quotient_Scor e Valid N (listwise) 130 130 130 18 12 Statistic 69 103 c 46.19 49.81 Statistic 10.378 19.827 Deviatio n Skewness Statisti c Std. Error Kurtosis Statisti c -.348 -.209 Std. Error .422 .422

-.059 .212 .439 .212

SPSS Output for Correlations

Correlations Empathy_Quoti ent_Score Empathy_Quotient_Score Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Systemising_Quotient_Scor e Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 130 .228
**

Systemising_Qu otient_Score

.228** .009 130 1

.009 130 130

17

Correlations Empathy_Quotient_Score Systemising_Quotient_Score Empathy_Quotient_Score Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Systemising_Quotient_Score Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlations Empathy_Quotient_Score Systemising_Quotient_Score Empathy_Quotient_Score Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Systemising_Quotient_Score Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N 30 30 .229 30 .227 30 1 .229 1 .227 100 100 .000 100 .374
**

.374**

.000

100 1

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Empathy_Quotient_Score Systemising_Quotient_Score Missing Total Percent 100.0% 100.0%

Percent N Percent N .0% 30 .0% 30

30 100.0% 0 30 100.0% 0

SPSS Output for T-Tests

18

Group Statistics Participant_Gender Empathy_Quotient_Score Female Male N 100 30 Mean 48.52 38.43 Std. Deviation 9.776 8.480 Std. Error Mean .978 1.548

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Sig. (2tailed F Empathy_Quotient_Scor Equal e variance s assumed Equal variance s not assumed 5.509 54.21 0 .000 10.087 1.831 6.416 13.757 Sig. t df 128 ) .000 Mean Differenc e 10.087 Std. Error Differenc e Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

1.677 .198 5.102

1.977 6.175 13.999

Group Statistics Participant_Gender Systemising_Quotient_Scor e Female Male N 100 30 Mean 47.92 56.10 Std. Deviation 18.396 23.243 Std. Error Mean 1.840 4.244

19

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Sig. (2F Systemising_Quotient_Sco Equal re variance s assumed Equal variance s not assumed 1.76 9 40.50 4 .084 -8.180 4.625 17.52 4 1.164 3.29 Sig. . t 2.00 5 df 128 ) .047 Mean e -8.180 tailed Differenc Differenc e 4.080 Confidence Std. Error Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 16.25 3 -.107

8 072

20