Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Neuroethics pp 1447–1462Cite as

Sex and Power: Why Sex/Gender Neuroscience Should Motivate Statistical Reform

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Towards the end of the last century, statistical reporting in medical research underwent substantial reform, with null hypothesis significance testing replaced with an estimation approach. Interestingly, this reform may have been largely motivated by the social costs of error within medical research, rather than simply scientific error per se. This chapter briefly reviews the benefits of the estimation statistical approach as a means to producing reliable information about nature and then describes how the current statistical method of null hypothesis significance testing specifically contributes to scientific error in sex/gender neuroscience. The potential social harm that can arise from such errors in this area of research is then highlighted. It is suggested that sex/gender neuroscience may therefore provide a valuable model to motivate, on ethical grounds, statistical reform within the psychological sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   999.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15(8), 515–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Review Neuroscience, 7(6), 477–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, L. (2010). Sex influences on brain and emotional memory: The burden of proof has shifted. In I. Savic (Ed.), Sex differences in the human brain, their underpinnings and implications (Vol. 186, pp. 29–40). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, S., Nagel, S., & Slaby, J. (2009). Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties, 4, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity, 7(1), 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulson, M., Healey, M., Fidler, F., & Cumming, G. (2010). Confidence intervals permit, but don’t guarantee, better inference than statistical significance testing. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G., & Fidler, F. (2009). Confidence intervals: Better answers to better questions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G., Fidler, F., Leonard, M., Kalinowski, P., Christiansen, A., Kleinig, A., et al. (2007). Statistical reform in psychology: Is anything changing? Psychological Science, 18, 230–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dambrun, M., Kamiejski, R., Haddadi, N., & Duarte, S. (2009). Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of “geneticism”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of “Seductive Allure”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(1), 88–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2005). The bare bones of sex: Part 1–sex and gender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(2), 1491–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidler, F. (2011). Ethics and statistical reform: Lessons from medicine. In A. T. Panter & S. K. Sterba (Eds.), Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidler, F., & Loftus, G. (2009). Why figures with error bars should replace p values: Some conceptual arguments and empirical demonstrations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2012a). Explaining, or sustaining, the status quo? The potentially self-fulfilling effects of ‘hardwired’ accounts of sex differences. Neuroethics, 5(3), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2012b). Is there neurosexism in functional neuroimaging investigations of sex differences? Neuroethics, 6(2), 369–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2013). Neurosexism in functional neuroimaging: From scanner to pseudo-science to psyche. In M. Ryan & N. Branscombe (Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for theory. Theory & Psychology, 8, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 351–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, H., & Krauss, S. (2002). Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers? Methods of Psychological Research, 7, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, G. (2011). What, if anything, can neuroscience tell us about gender differences? In R. Bluhm, A. Jacobson, & H. Maibom (Eds.), Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihnen, S. K. Z., Church, J. A., Petersen, S. E., & Schlaggar, B. L. (2009). Lack of generalizability of sex differences in the fMRI BOLD activity associated with language processing in adults. NeuroImage, 45(3), 1020–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joel, D. (2011). Male or female? Brains are intersex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joel, D. (2012). Genetic-gonadal-genitals sex (3G-sex) and the misconception of brain and gender, or, why 3G-males and 3G-females have intersex brain and intersex gender. Biology of Sex Differences, 3(1), 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan-Young, R. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, A. (2012). Re-conceptualizing “sex” and “gender” in the human brain. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 220(2), 130–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, A., Haller, S., Schmitz, S., & Nitsch, C. (2009). On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews, 61(2), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitazawa, S., & Kansaku, K. (2005). Sex difference in language lateralization may be task-dependent. Brain, 128(5), E30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J., Fidler, F., & Cumming, G. (2012). Subjective p intervals. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 8(2), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D., & Castel, A. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M., Arnold, A., Ball, G., Blaustein, J., & De Vries, G. J. (2012). Sex differences in the brain: The not so inconvenient truth. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(7), 2241–2247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, R., Newman, E., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G., & Garry, M. (2013). On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, T., Haslam, S., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology, 27(6), 823–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, T., Haslam, S., & Hornsey, M. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., & Illes, J. (2005). fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2), 159–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., Waldman, S., Rosenberg, J., & Illes, J. (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine, 71(4), 725–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, J. (1990). Statistical power of psychological research: What have we gained in 20 years? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 646–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaywitz, B., Shaywitz, S., Pugh, K., Constable, R., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R., et al. (1995). Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature, 373, 607–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, I., Aleman, A., Bouma, A., & Kahn, R. (2004). Do women really have more bilateral language representation than men? A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Brain, 127, 1845–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, I., Aleman, A., & Kahn, R. S. (2005). Size does count: A reply to Kitazawa and Kansaku. Brain, 128, E31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, I., Aleman, A., Somers, M., Boks, M. P., & Kahn, R. S. (2008). Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the Planum Temporale and functional language lateralization. Brain Research, 1206, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirion, B., Pinel, P., Mériaux, S., Roche, A., Dehaene, S., & Poline, J.-B. (2007). Analysis of a large fMRI cohort: Statistical and methodological issues for group analyses. NeuroImage, 35(1), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoman, D., White, P., Yamawaki, N., & Koishi, H. (2008). Variations of gender-math stereotype content affect women’s vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 58, 702–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallentin, M. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language, 108(3), 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yong, E. (2012). Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). A subjective essentialist view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences & Melbourne, Business School & Centre for Ethical Leadership, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester Street, 3053, Carlton, VIC, Australia

    Cordelia Fine

  2. Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis (ACERA), Environmental Science, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, 3010, Carlton, VIC, Australia

    Fiona Fidler

Authors
  1. Cordelia Fine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiona Fidler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cordelia Fine .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Jens Clausen

  2. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

    Neil Levy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Fine, C., Fidler, F. (2015). Sex and Power: Why Sex/Gender Neuroscience Should Motivate Statistical Reform. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_156

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_156

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4706-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4707-4

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation