Cited by 256Personality Traits and PsychologyEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality

Open access
Del Giudice, Marco, Booth, Tom, Irwing, Paul·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards. SIGNIFICANCE: The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The generalizability of sex-linked distinctions has been questioned.

    “Yet the generalizability of these sex -linked distinctions has been questioned (Del Giudice et al. 2012; Plug et al. 2021; Dewi et al. 2024)”

    From Examining the linguistic and behavioural patterns of gender identity in women with dissociative identity disorder (2025) · cites this paper as Del Giudice et al. 2012

    The Discussion’s Conclusion (page unavailable) calls for replication with other datasets and personality measures, and for comparison with observer ratings, which supports caution about generalizing this study’s findings. It does not question the generalizability of sex-linked distinctions broadly; the Discussion instead describes its measured personality differences as large. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]Fausto-Sterling A 1992 Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.) New York Basic Books
  2. [67]Conn SR Rieke ML 1994 The 16PF fifth edition technical manual Champagne, IL Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-01-04
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e29265
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156603052
Cited by
256
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 5
FWCI
16.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Regione Piemonte (L.R.n.4./2006, 4/2006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
sex differences in personality, Big Five personality traits, 16PF, latent variable models, multigroup analysis, methodological limitations
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Personality Inventory, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Characteristics, Sex Differentiation, Mars, Venus

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