Sex differences in theory of mind: A male advantage on Happé's “cartoon” task
Abstract
It is a commonly held stereotype that women show superior performance on tests of social cognition such as face processing and theory of mind (ToM) compared to men. However, such purported differences have not been empirically tested. In this study 40 healthy men and 40 women matched for age and years of education completed a well-known experimental ToM test requiring the attribution of either physical or mental states (Happé's cartoon task). Men showed superior performance compared to women, with a medium effect size, on both the mental state and physical state cartoons. It is suggested that men may use a cognitive systemising strategy during these tasks. The results emphasise the task-specific nature of sex differences in social cognition and necessitate future work to elucidate individual differences at the interface of cognitive and affective processes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation.
“Furthermore, studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation (Krach et al., 2009;Russell, Tchanturia, Rahman, & Schmidt, 2007;Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2004;Campbell et al., 2002;Thayer & Johnsen, 2000).”
From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Russell, Tchanturia, Rahman, & Schmidt, 2007
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 58 · Cited by 125
- Authors
- Russell, T. A., Tchanturia, K., Rahman, Q., & Schmidt, U.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- University of East London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Russell, Tamara A.
- Venue
- Cognition & Emotion
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1554-1564
- ISSN
- 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0600
- OpenAlex
- W1977561052
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- sex differences, theory of mind, social cognition, mental state attribution, gender stereotypes, face processing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
