Lead
Recent scientific work is challenging the long-held idea that women are innately more empathetic than men. Studies spanning fetal hormone measurements (2006–2007), large genetic surveys (2018), a 2025 infant meta-analysis, and 2023 brain-imaging and behavioral experiments show small average differences, large within‑group variation, and strong effects of social context and motivation. The result: biology contributes but does not determine empathy, and socialisation, power dynamics and incentives shape how empathy is expressed.
Key takeaways
- 2006 study of over 200 children aged 6–9 linked higher fetal testosterone in amniotic fluid to stronger systemising scores; testosterone exposure predicted test results more than biological sex.
- A 2007 follow-up reported fetal testosterone was inversely correlated with empathy test performance in children.
- A 2018 genetic study of more than 46,000 participants found genetics account for roughly 10% of individual variability in empathy; no sex‑specific genes explained the gap.
- A 2025 meta‑analysis of 31 studies (40 experiments) found one‑month‑old boys and girls showed no consistent differences in face‑preference or social responsiveness.
- A 2023 neurological experiment showed men’s and women’s brainwaves respond similarly to others’ pain, but self‑reported empathy scores differed unless men were primed to expect high empathy.
- Power and perceived social rank distort empathic accuracy: lower subjective rank and financial disadvantage are associated with better emotion reading in some studies.
- Motivation and incentives—priming, reflection prompts or monetary reward—narrow or eliminate average gender differences in empathy measures.
Background
Gendered ideas about emotion and leadership have deep roots. Philosophers and rulers from Mary Astell (1705) to Queen Elizabeth I invoked masculine standards as the benchmark for public authority, creating a cultural template that linked caring and emotional attunement to femininity. Over centuries these associations hardened into norms that shape toys, schooling, parenting and expectations about who should show feeling and who should display dominance.
Contemporary psychology and neuroscience treat empathy as a multi‑part capacity: cognitive empathy (recognising others’ mental states) and affective empathy (sharing or responding emotionally). Researchers measure these with questionnaires, lab tasks and neural recordings. Across many studies women average slightly higher scores, but the spread of scores inside each sex is large and causal direction is not established; socialisation, incentives and power differences also change observed results.
Main event
Simon Baron‑Cohen has argued that fetal hormone exposure helps shape social cognition: his 2006 study found higher prenatal testosterone in amniotic fluid correlated with stronger systemising and, in a 2007 report, lower empathy scores. He frames these tendencies as part of sex‑linked neurodevelopmental trajectories that interact with environment. Proponents view this as a partial biological explanation for why women more often enter caregiving roles.
Other scientists push back. Neuroscientist Gina Rippon calls the idea of a uniformly “female brain” more myth than fact, pointing to brain plasticity and strong environmental effects in early childhood. A 2025 meta‑analysis of infant behaviour reported no reliable sex differences at one month, undermining claims that social attunement is present from birth.
Large‑scale genetics adds nuance: Varun Warrier’s 2018 study of 46,000+ people showed identifiable genetic contributions to empathy but estimated that genes explain only about one‑tenth of between‑person variation, with no sex‑linked gene driving a female advantage. This shifts attention toward non‑genetic forces—family practices, play, schooling and cultural expectations.
Behavioral and neuroscience experiments from 2023 demonstrate that neural sensitivity to others’ pain is similar across sexes, while self‑reported empathy can be swayed by framing. Men who were told they tend to be caring scored similarly to women, and monetary or reflective incentives improved empathic accuracy for all participants. These findings suggest measurement and motivation strongly influence observed gender gaps.
Analysis & implications
The research collective implies empathy is best seen as a malleable skill, not a fixed sex trait. If social cues, reward structures and power inequalities drive much of the measured difference, interventions—training, institutional incentives, and norms change—can shift outcomes. That matters for hiring, leadership selection and care policies: treating empathy as exclusively feminine narrows who is seen as leadership material and who is expected to carry care responsibilities.
There are public‑health consequences. Men’s lower help‑seeking and social isolation partly reflect masculinities that discourage emotional disclosure; suicide rates are higher among men in many countries. Reframing emotional competence as a human skill rather than a gendered attribute could improve mental‑health outreach and uptake among men and reduce stigma for women in leadership roles.
Economically, organizations that value emotional skills should design incentives and evaluation systems that reward empathic accuracy and perspective taking. Evidence that pay or explicit motivation increases empathic performance suggests structural levers—for example, performance metrics, training with feedback, and role modelling—could produce measurable change faster than waiting for slow cultural shifts.
Comparison & data
| Year | Sample / Method | Core finding |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | ~200 children, amniotic testosterone | Fetal testosterone linked to systemising; stronger predictor than sex |
| 2007 | Follow‑up tests | Inverse correlation between fetal testosterone and empathy scores |
| 2018 | 46,000+ participants, genetic GWAS | Genes explain ~10% of empathy variance; no sex‑specific genes |
| 2023 | Neurological & behavioural task | Brain responses similar; self‑reports differ but priming removes gap |
| 2025 | Meta‑analysis: 31 studies, 40 experiments, infants | No sex differences in one‑month‑old social responsiveness |
The table highlights consistent themes: biological signals exist but are small, and behavioural measures are sensitive to context, framing and incentives. Taken together the data argue for interpreting sex differences cautiously and for prioritising social and structural explanations where possible.
Reactions & quotes
Researchers and commentators interpret the evidence differently; context matters when evaluating each claim.
Supporters of biological contributions point to prenatal hormone studies as partial explanations for group averages, conditioned by environmental inputs.
“The female brain is predominantly hard‑wired for empathy,”
Simon Baron‑Cohen, Cambridge University (clinical psychologist)
Critics stress plasticity and cultural shaping across the lifespan.
“The idea that all women are naturally more empathic is part of the persistence of the so‑called ‘female brain myth’,”
Gina Rippon (neuroscientist)
Other scientists stress malleability and the role of motivation.
“Empathy is not static; it is dynamic across the lifespan and can be trained and influenced by expectations,”
Nathan Spreng, McGill University (neurologist)
Unconfirmed
- The causal magnitude of fetal testosterone on adult empathy remains unresolved; studies show correlations but not full causation.
- Specific gene variants that would directly cause sex differences in empathy have not been identified; the 2018 genetic study found no sex‑linked genetic drivers.
- The extent to which cultural change alone (without structural power shifts) can eliminate observed workplace penalties for empathic leaders is not settled.
Bottom line
Current evidence overturns a simple narrative that women are inherently more empathetic than men. Biology contributes to human social cognition, but its effect sizes are modest compared with socialisation, motivation and the distribution of power. Gender stereotypes and incentives shape who expresses empathy, how it is measured and how it is rewarded or penalised in society.
For policymakers, employers and educators the takeaway is practical: treat empathy as a learnable and incentivisable skill. Policies that change expectations, provide training with feedback, and rebalance caregiving and leadership norms will have more immediate and equitable effects than assuming fixed sex differences.