IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Men, women…who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Baez
  • Daniel Flichtentrei
  • María Prats
  • Ricardo Mastandueno
  • Adolfo M García
  • Marcelo Cetkovich
  • Agustín Ibáñez

Abstract

Research on sex differences in empathy has revealed mixed findings. Whereas experimental and neuropsychological measures show no consistent sex effect, self-report data consistently indicates greater empathy in women. However, available results mainly come from separate populations with relatively small samples, which may inflate effect sizes and hinder comparability between both empirical corpora. To elucidate the issue, we conducted two large-scale studies. First, we examined whether sex differences emerge in a large population-based sample (n = 10,802) when empathy is measured with an experimental empathy-for-pain paradigm. Moreover, we investigated the relationship between empathy and moral judgment. In the second study, a subsample (n = 334) completed a self-report empathy questionnaire. Results showed some sex differences in the experimental paradigm, but with minuscule effect sizes. Conversely, women did portray themselves as more empathic through self-reports. In addition, utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas were less frequent in women, although these differences also had small effect sizes. These findings suggest that sex differences in empathy are highly driven by the assessment measure. In particular, self-reports may induce biases leading individuals to assume gender-role stereotypes. Awareness of the role of measurement instruments in this field may hone our understanding of the links between empathy, sex differences, and gender roles.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Baez & Daniel Flichtentrei & María Prats & Ricardo Mastandueno & Adolfo M García & Marcelo Cetkovich & Agustín Ibáñez, 2017. "Men, women…who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179336
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179336&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justin A. Charles & Peder Ahnfeldt-Mollerup & Jens Søndergaard & Troels Kristensen, 2018. "Empathy Variation in General Practice: A Survey among General Practitioners in Denmark," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Alexia Barrable & David Booth, 2020. "Nature Connection in Early Childhood: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Hernando Santamaría-García & Miguel Burgaleta & Agustina Legaz & Daniel Flichtentrei & Mateo Córdoba-Delgado & Juliana Molina-Paredes & Juliana Linares-Puerta & Juan Montealegre-Gómez & Sandra Castelb, 2022. "The price of prosociality in pandemic times," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Wolfgang Habla & Mitesh Kataria & Peter Martinsson & Kerstin Roeder, 2024. "Should it stay, or swerve? Trading off lives in dilemma situations involving autonomous cars," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 929-951, May.
    5. Andrew Sommerlad & Jonathan Huntley & Gill Livingston & Katherine P Rankin & Daisy Fancourt, 2021. "Empathy and its associations with age and sociodemographic characteristics in a large UK population sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:149-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Lucas Murrins Marques & Scott Clifford & Vijeth Iyengar & Graziela Vieira Bonato & Patrícia Moraes Cabral & Rafaela Barreto dos Santos & Roberto Cabeza & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Paulo Sérgio Bogg, 2020. "Translation and validation of the Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) for the Portuguese language in a Brazilian sample," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 149-158, January.
    8. Hoon S. Choi & Michele Maasberg, 2022. "An empirical analysis of experienced reviewers in online communities: what, how, and why to review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1293-1310, September.
    9. Kari L. J. Goold & Reynafe N. Aniga & Peter B. Gray, 2020. "Sports under Quarantine: A Case Study of Major League Baseball in 2020," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Joana Correia Jesus & Sofia von Humboldt & Luisa Soares & Isabel Leal, 2024. "Neglect in Older Adults: A Sociodemographic and Health Approach in the Portuguese Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    11. Aleena Amir, 2024. "Mapping Femvertising Research: A PRISMA Driven Systematic Review of Literature," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 13(2), pages 663-670.
    12. Shilong Wei & Muhammad Safdar Sial & Wenxia Zhou & Alina Badulescu & Daniel Badulescu, 2021. "Improving the Environmental Footprint through Employees: A Case of Female Leaders from the Perspective of CSR," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-23, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.