Why Mozart was not a woman?

In our previous blogs we have to some extent discussed sex differences in cognitive abilities – general intelligence, specific abilities, and their relation to brain function and structure. Here we address sex differences in creative cognition. In this area of research, studies are not as numerous as it is the case for intelligence. In addition to the two components usually investigated (test scores and brain differences), researchers include yet another one, namely real-world creative accomplishment in areas such as poetry, painting, sculpture, music and science. The present blog will provide a brief summary of sex differences observed in all three characteristics of creativity, providing the most prominent theoretical explanations for the observed differences.

Sex differences in creative test performance

Given the difficulties in creativity assessment mentioned in our previous blogs, these are even greater when trying to link them to sex differences. One of the first review papers addressing sex differences in creativity was by Kogan (1974), followed by Baer and Kaufman (2008), Runco et al. (2010), Pagnani (2011), and the most recent provided by Abraham (2016). The general conclusion drawn from these meta-analyses is that, although research results point in various and often contradictory directions, there are probably no sex differences in creative cognition. However, if they exists then women and girls tend to score higher on creativity tests than men and boys. Baer and Kaufman (2008), for instance, counted 21 studies where no sex differences in creative test performance were observed, in three studies males scored higher than females and in 6 studies the pattern was reverse, females outscored males. Mixed findings were reported in 17 studies. Similar findings were described when instead of creativity tests the method of subjective assessment of creativity was used (e.g., self-reports, or the assessment by others), or creative personality tests were taken as measures of creativity.

Pagnani (2011) analyzed 100 published studies on sex differences in creative potential; roughly half of them found no such differences, while the other half produced mixed evidence. The same inference was put forward in the most recent meta-analysis by Abraham (2016, p. 611): “…when taken together though, what the findings suggest is that human beings commence their creative development on a roughly even footing, or at least on one that is not significantly skewed solely as a function of gender.”

Some authors further suggested that mixed results in relation to sex differences are mainly reported in studies that have focused on comparisons of mean creativity test scores, whereas when analyzing sex differences in variability a more clear cut picture emerged. He and Wong (2011) for example, found support for the greater male variability hypothesis. Girls outperformed boys in thoroughness of thinking (subscales of continuations and completitions), while boys outperformed girls in boundary-breaking thinking (fragment dependent and independent). The Urban & Jellen Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCTDP) was used in the study. A similar finding was also reported in a study by Karwowski et al. (2016, p. 159): “Greater male variability of creative ability was found across studies and age groups, but while this pattern was characteristic for some aspects of creative ability (originality and unconventionality), higher female variability was observed in the case of the other aspects (adaptiveness)”.

Sex differences in high levels of creative achievement – fine art and science

All review papers agree that sex differences in real-world creative accomplishment are large and significant. Especially in domains such as science, musical composition and painting far more men than women attain eminence, whereas in expressive domains such as writing, musical performance, dance and drama the differences are less extreme (Baer and Kaufman, 2008; Pagnani, 2011; Abraham, 2016).

The observed sex differences have been mainly explained by biological or socio-cultural factors. Vernon (1989, p. 102-103), for example, argued: “It is entirely implausible that human society should approve of females becoming highly talented performers of music, dance, and drama, and even allowing them to become creative writers, while, at the same time, disapproving of their becoming musical composers or painters.” The most often mentioned biological characteristics related to sex differences in creative performance are genetic differences, hormonal differences, and brain differences in terms of overall size, size variability and organization (Abrham, 2016). We have to a great extent discussed sex-related brain differences in one of our previous blogs, thus in the last section we will just focus on those related specifically to creativity.

The genetic variability between sexes makes up 2% – 3%, and the exposure to different hormones in early development is an important factor in sex differentiation. An example of such an explanation is Geschwind and Galaburda’s (1985) hypothesis that there is a relationship between anomalous hemispheric dominance and special talents – neuropathology of superior intellectual functions (giftedness). The higher presence of androgens such as testosterone when a male fetus is in utero have many significant effects on brain development which are different to that of a female fetus. Testosterone slows the grows of the left hemisphere thereby allowing a more rapid development of the right hemisphere. Disrupted left cortical cytoarchitecture causes developmental learning disorders in males (dyslexia), autism, stuttering, delayed speech, left-handedness and hyperactivity. However, the enhanced development of the right hemisphere results in giftedness for those skills for which the right hemisphere is particularly involved, such as mathematics (science), music, artistic/spatial ability. Yet another explanation is the already mentioned higher male variability (flatter normal curves), often summarized as: "more prodigies, more idiots". Furthermore, the finding that females show more incremental (adaptive) rather than revolutionary (innovative) creativity was linked to the evolutionary mechanisms of sexual selection in the sense – creativity is sexy (Karwowski et al., 2016). Kaufman et al. (2014), for instance, showed that females have a stronger preference for ornamental/aesthetic creativity in a prospective sexual partner, while males prefer everyday/domestic forms of creativity.

Socio-cultural explanations of sex differences in creative performance focus on environmental and cultural influences. Most often mentioned are historically grounded inequalities in supply of resources and support, biased (mostly male) evaluation of creative achievements, socialization, conflicts between family and professional roles, a lower need for achievement and the suggestion that females seem to be more interested in the creative process than the product.

The gap in creative achievement is probably best explained by historically grounded inequalities. For instance, at the University of Oxford women were only allowed entry from the 1870s and were not allowed to matriculate or graduate till 1920. The first image shows a portrait of Wolfgang and Nannerl Mozart. Nannerl was also a gifted music performer[1]. She was part of the tour until she turned 18, then she was left behind in Salzburg, and her father only took Wolfgang on their next journeys around the courts of Europe. By going on tour a woman risked her reputation.

The male/female gap in creative production seems to increase after college. This was explained by the conflict of one’s own goals and expectations of others mostly grounded in the division of culturally assigned sex roles. It is interesting though that studies did not find a difference in the number of published articles between married females having families and those being single. On the other hand, females in general published less than males (Baer and Kaufman, 2008; Pagnani, 2011; Abraham, 2016). The complexity of the findings indicates that probably no single factor contributes to the observed difference, but most likely the interaction between socio-cultural and biological causes make the difference.

Sex based brain-related differences in creativity

To our knowledge, just five studies to date (two EEG and three fMRI) have addressed sex-related differences in brain function and structure related to creativity (Razumnikova, 2004; Fink and Neubauer, 2006; Ryman et al., 2014; Abraham  et al., 2014; Takeuchi et al., 2017).

In the study by Fink and Neubauer (2006), although no behavioral differences in creative test performance were observed, males and females significantly differed with respect to task-related synchronization of EEG alpha activity in anterior regions of the cortex. Razumnikova (2004) suggested that sex differences in creative performance were related to differences in hemispheric brain activity.

The fMRI study by Abraham at al. (2014) also revealed no sex-related differences in creative test performance. In contrast, the fMRI data showed that during divergent thinking, declarative memory related brain regions were more activated in men, while regions involved in theory of mind and self-referential processing were more engaged in women. The study by Ryman et al. (2014) revealed sex differences in the relationship between global connectivity and creativity. Females showed an inverse relationship between global connectivity and creative cognition, whereas there were no significant relationships observed in males. Creative females showed a more widespread activation pattern during creative test performance, whereas creative males demonstrated more direct paths and greater clustering. The study by Takeuchi et al. (2017) revealed significant positive correlations between regional white matter volume and creative test performance in widespread areas below the neocortex in females.

Although the number of studies is too low for generalization, a main finding in most of them is that similar creative test performance in both sexes is achieved by activating different brain structures and connections, suggesting differences in cognitive strategies employed by males and females. This is not a new explanation for observed sex differences in cognitive performance. Similar explanations have been put forward when analyzing the neuronal underpinning of sex-related differences in other cognitive abilities, for example in spatial ability (e.g., Jaušovec and Jaušovec, 2012).

References

Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: an overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9410-8

Abraham, A., Thybusch, K., Pieritz, K., & Hermann, C. (2014). Gender differences in creative thinking: behavioral and fMRI findings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9241-4

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender Differences in Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x

Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2006). EEG alpha oscillations during the performance of verbal creativity tasks: differential effects of sex and verbal intelligence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, , 62(1), 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.01.001.

Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1985). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology. Archives of Neurology, 42, 428-459.

He, W., & Wong, W. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(7), 807–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.027

Jaušovec, N., & Jaušovec, K. (2012). Sex differences in mental rotation and cortical activation patterns: Can training change them? Intelligence, 40(2), 151–162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.005

Karwowski, M., Jankowska, D. M., Gralewski, J., Gajda, A., Wiśniewska, E., & Lebuda, I. (2016). Greater male variability in creativity: A latent variables approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.005

Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Silvia, P., Kaufman, J. C., Ramesh, S., & Feist, G. J. (2016). Who Finds Bill Gates Sexy? Creative Mate Preferences as a Function of Cognitive Ability, Personality, and Creative Achievement. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(4), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.78

Kogan, N. (1974). Creativity and sex differences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 1-14.

Pagnani, A. R. (2011). Gender differences. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Second Edition) (pp. 551–557). San Diego: Academic. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123750389001060.

Razumnikova, O. M. (2004). Gender differences in hemispheric organization during divergent thinking: an EEG investigation in human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 362(3), 193–195. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.02.066.

Ryman, S. G., van den Heuvel, M. P., Yeo, R. A., Caprihan, A., Carrasco, J., Vakhtin, A. A., … Jung, R. E. (2014). Sex differences in the relationship between white matter connectivity and creativity. NeuroImage, 101, 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.027

Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Nouchi, R., Yokoyama, R., Kotozaki, Y., Nakagawa, S., … Kawashima, R. (2017). Creative females have larger white matter structures: Evidence from a large sample study: Creative Females Have Larger White Matter Structures. Human Brain Mapping, 38(1), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23369

Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 93-110). New York: Plenum Press.

---

[1] A correspondence between Nannerl and Wolfgang revealed that she also composed music, but never got adequate support from her father (Source: Sylvia Milo: The lost genius of Mozart's sister, The Guardian, 2015).