Sex and power: Why sex/gender neuroscience should motivate statistical reform

Handbook of Neuroethics

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 1447-1462

  Fine, Cordelia ^a   Fidler, Fiona ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84931583447     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_156     Document Type: Chapter

References (64)

1. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228-235.
2. Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15(8), 515-520.
4. Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2011). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365-376.
5. Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Review Neuroscience, 7(6), 477-484.
6. 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.
7. Choudhury, S., Nagel, S., & Slaby, J. (2009). Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. Bio Societies, 4, 61-77.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
11. Cumming, G., & Fidler, F. (2009). Confidence intervals: Better answers to better questions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 15-26.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.
15. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891-904.
16. Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2013). The seductive allure of “Seductive Allure”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(1), 88-90.
17. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: WW Norton.
22. 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.
23. Fine, C. (2012b). Is there neurosexism in functional neuroimaging investigations of sex differences? Neuroethics, 6(2), 369-409.
24. 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.
25. Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for theory. Theory & Psychology, 8, 195-204.
26. 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.
27. Haller, H., & Krauss, S. (2002). Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers? Methods of Psychological Research, 7, 1-20.
28. 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.
29. Hunter, J. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3-7.
30. Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.
31. 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. Neuro Image, 45(3), 1020-1032.
32. Joel, D. (2011). Male or female? Brains are intersex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 57.
33. 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.
34. Jordan-Young, R. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Kaiser, A. (2012). Re-conceptualizing “sex” and “gender” in the human brain. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 220(2), 130-136.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Kitazawa, S., & Kansaku, K. (2005). Sex difference in language lateralization may be task- dependent. Brain, 128(5), E30.
39. Kline, R. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
40. 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.
41. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
42. Martin, C., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 45-57.
43. McCabe, D., & Castel, A. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. Chichester: Wiley.
50. Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., & Illes, J. (2005). fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2), 159-164.
51. Racine, E., Waldman, S., Rosenberg, J., & Illes, J. (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine, 71(4), 725-733.
52. Rossi, J. (1990). Statistical power of psychological research: What have we gained in 20 years? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 646-656.
53. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309-315.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Sommer, I., Aleman, A., & Kahn, R. S. (2005). Size does count: A reply to Kitazawa and Kansaku. Brain, 128, E31.
58. 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.
59. Thirion, B., Pinel, P., Meriaux, 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.
60. 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.
61. Wallentin, M. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language, 108(3), 175-183.
62. 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.
63. Yong, E. (2012). Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298-300.
64. 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.