In conclusion the experimenters found that because girls have a better "social scheme" suited for school they could perform better initially, but as boys are stimulated by use of visual spatial toys they tend to excel beyond there in-ability to sit still and surpass girls in academic ability. Because all of these behaviors are taught for the most part at home it is very important to note the role of parental influence and its long-term effects on academic ability.
General Discussion
Similarities and Differences:
In all the articles I have read there was no traits as frequent as men’s accelerated ability in visual-spatial tasks and women’s superior verbal ability. Both of these traits were almost always presented together in studies suggesting that they are generally accepted characteristics. From all the information I have pored over I have found that men visual-spatial ability is the most valid of all the sex different claims. However because so many of the articles covered the nature/nurture argument I would have to say that I believe it is a combination of both factors. I say this because nature through our ancestors shaped that ability to manipulate physical objects for hunting and tool making, which reflects itself in visual-spatial tasks (Bingham, 1988). But also through our own social traditions men have seemed to favor their children carrying on the physical tradition. Whether this be in the form of Lego blocks or sports men tend to stick to there physical roots which continually are reinforced through our current culture (Serbin, 1990). As to the issue of women’s superior verbal ability even though it is not as established as former male ability I still find it has roots in both nature and nurture. By this I mean because women are the half of the human race to have children this has caused not only a different physiological structure but also a different social structure. To elaborate, women with children had to stay close to a central location of protection and therefore be close to other women (Bingham, 1988). In this close association we see a need for better verbal communication because without it survival would have been hard without fellow women to help out in times of need. This tradition is also reinforced in culture because women are usually taught in act in a specific manner from early birth. (Serbin, 1990) This relates to verbal ability because this "training" often involves proper etiquette as well as proper social conventions. Because of these reinforced behavior patterns throughout human history we see the physiological differences in female communication area’s compared to that of a mans, particularly the corpus callosum. Another similarity throughout the articles was the lack of cross-cultural studies pointed out by Fleming, 1986. Because of this article I find that I cannot look at many of the studies done in the same way because such cultural influences are so essential in determining such skills as visual-spatial ability and social tendencies. One other fundamental, universal trait I found in many of the articles was male aggression in comparison to females, again I have to say I believe this is due to both man’s nature as well as social influence. It can generally be agreed upon that because man was traditionally a hunter he possessed a body that could allow him to do so (Bingham, 1988). Given the relative time since man has been has truly become "civil" its no wonder that we are as violent as we are. Nature has made us aggressive because it was an important survival technique and without it we may not have survived. Because modern society has no demand for the ancient hunter these primal needs can seen to be satisfied in other areas of culture. It is because culture still holds so many aspects of aggression that man is perhaps reluctant to let go of this familiar trait. In this matter nature is not innocent either, this is so because over time man has developed a mind that is not only culturally different then a females but also physiologically different as is pointed out in Bingham’s video.
Some of the differences that I did find in the various information I reviewed was inconsistency of detail, by this I mean some of the articles went very in-depth into the actual process’s involved in getting results were others were very general. This intern made it very hard to compare some of the studies. An additional difference I found was a variance in procedures used to come to conclusion about such issues as visual-spatial test etc. As Fleming pointed out in his article, clear globally conclusive studies can never be made if methods for researching sex differences are never established.
Relation of Experiment in Class:
The information from the experiment conducted in class coincides very accurately with the rest of the studies I have reviewed. In particular the area of the visual task was in total agreement with articles such as Deaux, Serbin, and Coltheart. The verbal task was also very accurate in the sense that the connection was somewhat weak, as is shown in Deaux, and Fleming’s studies. The relation of this study to the Coltheart experiment should be obvious, I found that the experiments were almost identical accept in the atmosphere which they were conducted. Personally I believe much error was probably involved in the class experiment because of people who were not aware of the procedure as well ill timing procedures. Even with these effects the results still show a similarity with the Coltheart experiment that can not be denied.
My Own Thoughts, Opinions and Criticism:
Personally I felt this essay was a learning experience but at times the amount of irrelevant information associated with the topic of sex differences was annoying. I thought that Fleming had the most effective article because he always kept focus on his issues and only brought in as much proof as was necessary to proof his point. I also enjoyed his article because it had very powerful, seemingly obvious points that were not explored in other articles. The worst article by far was Deaux’s because of the incredible difficulty of actually extracting useful information from the article. Ever time he did make a solid point he went on to disprove its validity in the next sentence. Also he never provided any useful concluding statements so at the end it was very hard to tie together all the various scattered information. To his credit I have to agree with him when he says new theories on the topic are relatively rare, yes techniques have varied but the true genius of ideas has only in my eyes been found in Fleming’s article. All in all I realized how truly difficult it is to come to conclusions about a seemingly black and white topic.
In conclusion the area of sex differences is as vast as 5 billion humans will allow. Even though many of the studies I reviewed are very in-depth they have also demonstrated how clear answers at this point in time can not be agreed upon. But because new inventive people and technology enter this field everyday there is great promise that one day a unified answer will be found.
- James Smeaton
Bibliography:
1) Deaux, K. (1985) Sex and Gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49-81
2) Fleming, A. (1986). Sex Differences and Cross Cultural Studies. Women and Theory, 4, 23-33
3) Coltheart, M. Hull, E. Slater, D. (1975). Sex Differences in Imagery and Reading. Nature, 253, 438-440
4) Bingham, R. (Writer and Producer). 1988. The Sexual Brain [Film]. (Available from films for the Humanities & Science, Inc., Princeton, NJ.)
5) Serbin, L. Zelkowitz, P. Doyle, A. Gold, D. Wheaton B. (1990) The Socialization of Sex-Differentiated Skills and Academic Performance: A Mediational Model. Sex Roles, 23, 613-627