Men and women are different, we know that now (efforts to the contrary in the 1970s aside) but when it comes to neuroscience, differences may be speculation, no matter how many studies you read saying this imaging study or that is correlated to a hypothesis.

Dr. Cordelia Fine is a psychologist at Macquarie University in Australia and first became interested in the gender issue as a parent reading a book about how differences between boys' and girls' brains mean they should be taught differently.  As a psychologist, she was curious about the research on which these claims were based because they would seem to reinforce stereotypes, and looked up the original studies.

She concluded, as all cautiously skeptical people should about a young field, that the results from these studies may not necessarily stand the tests of larger sample sizes or improved analysis techniques and it's too soon to know for sure what such results, even if they prove to be reliable, might mean for differences in male and female minds.  

"There were huge discrepancies between what the neuroimaging studies showed and the conclusions and claims that were being drawn from them," she says. That led to a new book and an article in Current Directions in Psychological Science where she discusses the ways that research goes astray between the fMRI and the press release.

Some of the problems start with the research. The studies Fine came across were often conducted with small numbers of men and women, where the differences seen could have been due to chance. It's very easy and obvious for neuroscientists to compare the sexes by default. But when neuroscientists habitually check for sex differences, some researchers, just by chance, will find statistically significant differences between the two groups—even if there's no real difference between men and women overall.

This problem of false positive results is understood by the neuroscientists who do the research; they know that one study with 20-odd participants that finds some small region of difference between males and females is not the final word on the issue. But these often subtle, questionable differences are readily seized on by journalists. 

Another problem is how to interpret sex differences in the brain. Neuroscientists are only beginning to understand how neural activity brings about complex psychological phenomena. The temptation, to which popular writers are particularly vulnerable, is to use gender stereotypes to bridge that gap in scientific knowledge.

The fact that neuroimaging studies use complex, expensive machines that seem to take pictures of the brain may also make their results seem more real, reliable, and impressive than behavioral studies. As a result, substantial behavioral evidence of gender similarity, or the sensitivity of gender differences to context, can be overshadowed by a single finding of a sex difference in the brain.

"A healthy dose of skepticism is required when it comes to reports of sex differences in the brain and what they mean," says Fine, who is concerned that claims about differences in male and female brains are reinforcing old-fashioned gender stereotypes.

Citation: Cordelia Fine, 'From Scanner to Sound Bite: Issues in Interpreting and Reporting Sex Differences in the Brain', Current Directions in Psychological Science, October 2010; vol. 19, 5: pp. 280-283, doi: 10.1177/0963721410383248