Original Article

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples

Corresponding Author

Peter Borkenau

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Borkenau, Institut für Psychologie, Universität Halle-Wittenberg, D-06099 Halle, Germany. Email: [email protected].Search for more papers by this author

Martina Hřebíčková,

Martina Hřebíčková

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Peter Kuppens,

Peter Kuppens

University of Melbourne

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Search for more papers by this author

Anu Realo,

Anu Realo

University of Tartu

Search for more papers by this author

Jüri Allik,

Jüri Allik

University of Tartu

Estonian Academy of Sciences

Search for more papers by this author

Peter Borkenau,

Corresponding Author

Peter Borkenau

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Martina Hřebíčková,

Martina Hřebíčková

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author

Peter Kuppens,

Peter Kuppens

University of Melbourne

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Search for more papers by this author

Anu Realo,

Anu Realo

University of Tartu

Search for more papers by this author

Jüri Allik,

Jüri Allik

University of Tartu

Estonian Academy of Sciences

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 13 February 2012

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00784.x

Citations: 22

This research was supported by grants from the German Science Foundation to Peter Borkenau; by grant P407/10/2394 from the Czech Science Foundation related to research plan AV0Z70250504 of the Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; and by grant SF0180029s08 from the Estonian Ministry of Science and Education to Jüri Allik. We thank the Estonian Genome Center of the University of Tartu and its director, Andres Metspalu, for their help in collecting the Estonian personality data and for their kind permission to use the data in the current study.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objective

Men vary more than women in cognitive abilities and physical attributes, and we expected that men would vary more in personality too. That this has not been found previously may reflect that (a) personality was measured by self-reports that confound target sex with informant sex, and (b) men actually vary more but accentuate personality differences less than women.

Method

We analyzed informant reports and self-reports on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R or NEO PI-3) collected for two community and two student samples from four countries: Czech Republic (N = 714; age M = 36.1, SD = 14.1; 58% women), Estonia (N = 1,685; age M = 42.6, SD = 13.4; 58% women), Belgium (N = 345; age M = 18.4, SD = 3.0; 78% women), and Germany (N = 302; age M = 23.4, SD = 2.7; 56% women).

Results

Higher male than female variability was found in each sample for informant reports of Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Men but not women were overrepresented in both tails of the distributions of several personality traits.

Conclusions

According to liability-threshold models of mental disorders, this may contribute to men's overrepresentation in some kinds of deviant groups.

References

Allik, J., Realo, A., Mõttus, R., Esko, T., Pullat, J., & Metspalu, A. ( 2010). Variance determines self-observer agreement on the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 421–426.
10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.005
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Archer, J., & Mehdikhani, M. ( 2003). Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Review of General Psychology, 7, 219–236.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Arden, R., & Plomin, R. ( 2006). Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 39–48.
10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Benbow, C. P. ( 1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–183.
10.1017/S0140525X00049244
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. ( 2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614.
10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Borkenau, P., Zaltauskas, K., & Leising, D. ( 2009). More may be better but there may be too much: Optimal trait level and self-enhancement bias. Journal of Personality, 77, 825–858.
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00566.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. S. ( 2011). Forming first impressions: The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 117–120.
10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Check, E. ( 2005). Genetics: The X factor. Nature, 434, 266–267.
10.1038/434266a
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Church, A. T. ( 2009). Prospects for an integrated trait and cultural psychology. European Journal of Personality, 23, 153–182.
10.1002/per.700
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. ( 2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.
10.1037/a0021212
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. ( 1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Orlando, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Google Scholar
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. ( 2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97–130.
10.1037/a0021591
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Thorpe, G., Wilson, V., Starr, J. M., & Whalley, L. J. ( 2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932. Intelligence, 31, 533–542.
10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. ( 1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.
10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. ( 2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72.
10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Feingold, A. ( 1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.
10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Feingold, A. ( 1995). The additive effects of differences in central tendency and variability are important in comparisons between groups. American Psychologist, 50, 5–13.
10.1037/0003-066X.50.1.5
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. ( 1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gülgöz, S. ( 2002). Five-factor model and NEO-PI-R in Turkey. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 175–196). New York: Kluwer.
10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_9
Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. ( 2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities ( 3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.4324/9781410605290
Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Friedman, L. ( 1993). Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A reanalysis of Feingold's results. Review of Educational Research, 63, 94–105.
10.3102/00346543063001094
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. ( 1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45.
10.1126/science.7604277
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & DeFruyt, F. ( 1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlisten, NEO-PI-R en NEO-FF-I. Handleigin. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Google Scholar
Hofstee, W. K. B. ( 1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal of Personality, 8, 149–162.
10.1002/per.2410080302
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hrˇebícˇková, M. ( 2002). Internal consistency of the Czech version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 46, 521–535.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. G. ( 1988). Sex differences in variability may be more important than sex differences in means. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 195–196.
10.1017/S0140525X00049402
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. ( 2005). The gender similarity hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. ( 2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494–495.
10.1126/science.1160364
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. ( 1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 523–551.
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. ( 1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. ( 2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280.
10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, R. C. ( 1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64, 311–337.
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00513.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lehre, A. C., Lehre, K. P., Laake, P., & Danbolt, N. C. ( 2008). Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 198–206.
10.1002/dev.20358
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Belhekar, V. M. ( 2002). The five-factor model of personality: Measurement and correlates in the Indian context. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 227–248). New York: Kluwer.
10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_11
Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A. ( 2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270.
10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., et al. ( 2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179–201.
10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00056-4
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. ( 2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317, 82.
10.1126/science.1139940
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. ( 2004). NEO-PI-R: NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae [NEO Personality Inventory according to Costa and McCrae]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Google Scholar
Piedmont, R. L., Bain, E., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. ( 2002). The applicability of the five-factor model in a sub-Saharan culture: The NEO-PI-R in Shona. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 155–173). New York: Kluwer.
10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_8
Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. ( 2010). HLM7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modelling [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. ( 2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vazire, S. ( 2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472–481.
10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vazire, S. ( 2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.
10.1037/a0017908
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. ( 2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216.
10.1037/a0013314
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vogt, D. S., & Colvin, C. R. ( 2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Personality, 71, 267–295.
10.1111/1467-6494.7102005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
West, S. G., Aiken, L. S., & Krull, J. L. ( 1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality, 64, 1–48.
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00813.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wood, D., & Wortman, J. ( 2012). Trait means and desirabilities as artifactual and real sources of differential stability of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80, 665–701.
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00740.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume81, Issue1

February 2013

Pages 49-60

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples

Abstract

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples

Abstract

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information