Are women the more empathetic gender? The effects of gender role expectations

Are women the more empathetic gender? The effects of gender role expectations. Charlotte S. Löffler & Tobias Greitemeyer. Current Psychology, Feb 2 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-01260-8

Abstract: The present research aimed to extend the state of knowledge regarding the relationship between self-perceived empathy and traditional gender roles and placed particular focus on the contextual conditions under which gender differences in empathy are present, can be created, or eliminated. Across two studies, women rated themselves higher in empathy than men in all experimental conditions, whereas an objective female superiority in emotion recognition was only evident in one condition. In Study 1 (n = 736), using the term ‘social-analytic capacity’ instead of ‘empathic capacity’ increased gender differences in self-reported empathy and resulted in women performing better in the Eyes-test than men. In a neutral task (verbal intelligence), gender differences (in this case, a male superiority), were only found when participants believed that this task had an association with empathy. In Study 2 (n = 701), gender differences in self-reported empathic capacity, but not in performance in emotion recognition, increased when motivation for empathy was raised. Further, gender-role orientation mediated the association between gender and self-reported empathic capacity, whereas it did not account for the association between gender and emotion recognition. Overall, the present studies provide strong support for the idea that empathy is influenced by contextual factors and can be systematically biased by gender roles and stereotypical beliefs.

General Discussion

The present studies advance our knowledge regarding the relationship between the concept of empathy and traditional gender roles and demonstrates how a slight linguistic variation in one term (Study 1) or a motivational reframing of empathy (Study 2) can effectively create more pronounced gender differences. As previous research has shown, gender differences are most evident when empathy is assessed on self-report scales or when gender role expectations are made salient, but these differences become smaller or completely undetectable when more objective measurements are used (Eisenberg and Lennon 1983; Ickes et al. 2000). In line with these results, women rated themselves as significantly more empathic than men in all four conditions, while a female superiority in emotion recognition was only evident in the condition where empathy was referred to as ‘social-analytic capacity’. On this basis, the present studies lend strong support for the idea that there is a female tendency to report a stronger empathic response rather than an actual difference in male and female ability, as a number of authors have already suggested (e.g., Berman 1980; Eisenberg and Lennon 1983; Hodges et al. 2011; Ickes et al. 2000; Thomas and Maio 2008).

However, the assumption that gender differences in self-reported empathic capacity and performance in emotion recognition would be smaller when participants were not aware of the true nature of the tasks (Hypothesis 1a, Hypothesis 2a) could not be verified, as our experimental setup could not conceal the fact that empathy was measured by using the term ‘social-analytic capacity’. It is conceivable that, in the present case, the term ‘social-analytic’ appeared too sophisticated or even artificial and, as a consequence, had a deterrent effect on some participants, whereas, in the female sample, it apparently raised motivation for empathy. On the other hand, it is also conceivable that the term ‘social’ has a higher emotional connotation than the term ‘analytic’—so it might have overshadowed it. As a result, gender differences in both self-reported empathic capacity and objective emotion recognition were more pronounced when we used the term ‘social-analytic capacity’ compared to the term ‘empathic capacity’. Against this background, it seems reasonable to suppose that the term ‘social-analytic’, which was originally meant to be more neutral and less influenced by stereotypical beliefs than the term ‘empathy’, had the opposite effect and created gender differences in the performance in emotion recognition that were not observable when using the term ‘empathy’.

Regarding our hypothesis that gender differences on a neutral task (verbal intelligence) are more pronounced when participants believe that it is related to empathy (Hypothesis 1c), unexpectedly, we detected a male superiority in verbal intelligence when we evoked the association with empathy. Hence, it seems possible that even a presumed association with empathy might induce differences in the performance of men and women. But remarkably, in this case, men might have had a higher motivation and outperformed women when they were led to believe that a concept, with which they were familiar with, was related with empathy. The fact that verbal intelligence was weakly associated with masculine gender role orientation across the full sample cannot provide an explanation for this effect, because gender differences were only evident in the condition that had received the manipulation.

While in Study 1 we were able to manipulate emotion recognition by using an alternative term for empathy, emotion recognition was not significantly influenced in Study 2 by using external motivators (Hypothesis 2b). This result is contrary to some previous research in the field of empathic accuracy (Klein and Hodges 2001; Thomas and Maio 2008) that demonstrated that appropriate motivators could indeed increase the performance in emotion recognition. However, regarding self-reported empathic capacity, we did demonstrate more pronounced gender-differences in the condition that had received the motivation (Hypothesis 2a). This result suggests that external motivations can indeed manipulate self-reports and lends support for the notion that the context can play a key role in self-perception. But at this point, we have to concede that the stimuli we used to raise motivation for empathy turned out to be weak, as suggested not only by the failed manipulation check, but also the fact that we could only demonstrate a small motivational effect in females.

Apart from this, our research managed to demonstrate that the association between gender and self-reported empathy was fully mediated by gender role orientation (Hypothesis 3a), whereas gender role orientation did not account for the relationship between gender and emotion recognition (Hypothesis 3b). Together with the finding that a female superiority in emotion recognition was detected in only one case when the context had been manipulated successfully, these results provide strong evidence that a female superiority in empathy and related constructs does not reflect the differential ability of men and women and may indeed be a stereotype—a stereotype that causes women to present themselves as empathic, because being caring and interpersonally oriented are part of the traditional feminine role. On the other hand, men may tend to underestimate their full empathic potential in the absence of appropriate external motivators. It is also important to point out that in both studies there was only a moderate correlation between the self-reported empathy measure and the performance in the emotion recognition task. Taken together, the belief to be empathic may not be reflected in actual empathy.

As noted above, an important limitation of the present research is the failed manipulation check in Study 2. Hence, no strong conclusions are warranted how the motivation to appear empathic has an impact on gender differences in empathy. Furthermore, most of the present findings were small in terms of their effect sizes. In fact, analyses of variance did not reveal significant interaction effects (with one exception), but only the more statistically powerful planned comparisons yielded significant effects.

In conclusion, the present studies provide evidence that self-reported empathy and even objective performance in emotion recognition can both be influenced by the contextual setting, and that even a presumed association with the concept of empathy might induce gender differences. In addition, it was demonstrated that there is indeed a female tendency to report stronger empathic responses, while our results did not suggest a major female superiority in emotion recognition. We find it remarkable that at the present time that is characterized by reshaping traditional gender roles and societal structures empathy still appears to be perceived as a typical feminine trait. Therefore, it is questionable to use self-reports of empathy as a measure for actual empathic capacity in research. This is not only suggested by the fact that the association between gender and self-reported empathy was fully mediated by gender role orientation, but also by the weak correlation between self-reported empathy and performance in emotion recognition and that self-reported empathy was shown to be highly dependent on the experimental context. Against this background, some scientific results in this field might have been systematically biased by implicit gender stereotypes and that differences between males and females had been overestimated.

Regarding the present research, a female superiority in emotion recognition was only found in one of our experimental conditions. But even if there is indeed such a small female advantage, as Kirkland et al. (2013) and Warrier et al. (2018) suggested in their meta-analyses, it is important to keep in mind that the concept of gender differences is too narrow to map and explain the huge variety of inter-individual differences that are observable in psychological research and that a female advantage in empathy and related constructs could rather reflect a combination of biological factors, differing experience, socialization, and cultural expectations, which in turn appear to be mediated by some form of motivation (Hodges et al. 2011). The specific interactions between these factors remain to be determined by future studies. Another important question concerns the implementation of alternative instruments for measuring objective empathic responses, such as physiological or unobtrusive observations. Further, it would be of interest to address whether other constructs, that are likewise afflicted by gender stereotypes (e.g., emotionality, dominance, or intuitive processing), are also context-dependent and are influenced by gender role orientation in a similar way. Until then, it is important not to overemphasize these potential differences because, as Hyde (2013) has pointed out, gender similarities are as interesting and as important as gender differences.