User:The Terrible Mutant Hamster/sandbox

Hello scandal, my old friend
There are several evaluation approaches for measuring human empathy which yield conflicting results. Whereas experimental and neuropsychological measures show no reliable sex effect, self-report data consistently indicates greater empathy in females, including Empathy Quotient. However, the cross-ciltural study of Caucasian Australians and Mainland Han Chinese has shown no significant differences in emotional, cognitive, and overall empathy scores among both Chinese and Australian males and Chinese females, while Australian females scored considerably higher than the other groups, thus highlighting the importance of culture–sex interaction in self-report empathy. META:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.3.424

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013760/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28632770/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16173891/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811903000788?via%3Dihub

A review published in the journal Neuropsychologia found that women tended to be better at recognizing facial effects, expression processing and emotions in general. Men only tended to be better at recognizing specific behavior which includes anger, aggression and threatening cues. A 2006 meta-analysis by researcher Rena A Kirkland in the journal North American Journal of Psychology found a small statistically significant effect for female superiority over males in "Reading of the mind" test. "Reading of the mind" test is an advanced ability measure of cognitive empathy in which Kirkland's analysis involved 259 studies across 10 countries. Another 2014 meta-analysis in the journal of Cognition and Emotion, found a small overall female advantage in non-verbal emotional recognition across 215 samples.

Some fMRI study have found the differences in empathy-related neural responses

Some have not

However, fMRI studies are criticized for small sample sizes that reduce statistical power and chance of detecting a true effect, making them unreliable. 

Following their qualitative review of the findings from 10 relevant studies, Graham and Ickes (1997) speculated that reliable gender‐of‐perceiver differences in empathic accuracy (a) were limited to studies in which the empathic inference form made empathic accuracy salient as the dimension of interest, and (b) therefore reflected the differential motivation, rather than the differential ability, of female versus male perceivers. These speculations were tested more rigorously in the present study, which examined a larger set of 15 empathic accuracy studies and applied the techniques of quantitative meta‐analysis to test Graham and Ickes’(1997) moderating variable hypothesis. The hypothesis was strongly supported, consistent with a motivational interpretation previously proposed by Berman (1980) and by Eisenberg and Lemon (1983), which argues that reliable gender differences in empathy‐related measures are found only in situations in which (a) subjects are aware that they are being evaluated on an empathy‐relevant dimension, and/or (b) empathy‐relevant gender‐role expectations or obligations are made salient.

Other studies show no significant difference, and instead suggest that gender differences are the result of motivational differences.

Although men showed greater lateralized activation in response to emotional stimuli (consistent with the generally greater hemispheric asymmetry of function that is sometimes observed for males; i.e., Killgore and Gangestad, 1999, Killgore, 2000), amygdala activity elicited by emotional stimuli was left-lateralized in both men and women.

A 2014 analysis from the journal of Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews also found that, overall, there are sex differences in empathy from birth, growing larger with age and which remains consistent and stable across lifespan. Females, on average, were found to have higher empathy than males, while children with higher empathy regardless of gender continue to be higher in empathy throughout development. Further analysis of brain tools such as event related potentials found that females who saw human suffering tended to have higher ERP waveforms than males. Another investigation with similar brain tools such as N400 amplitudes found, on average, higher N400 in females in response to social situations which positively correlated with self-reported empathy. Structural fMRI studies also found females to have larger grey matter volumes in posterior inferior frontal and anterior inferior parietal cortex areas which are correlated with mirror neurons in fMRI literature. Females also tended to have a stronger link between emotional and cognitive empathy. The researchers found that the stability of these sex differences in development are unlikely to be explained by any environment influences but rather

Both males and females with autistic spectrum disorders usually score lower on the EQ and higher on SQ (see below for more detail on autism and empathy).

The Evolutionary psychology approach postulates that the supposed sexual difference in empathy might have some roots in human evolution and inheritance. Throughout prehistory, females were the primary nurturers and caretakers of children; so this might have led to an evolved neurological adaptation for women to be more aware and responsive to non-verbal expressions. According to the Primary Caretaker Hypothesis, prehistoric males did not have the same selective pressure as primary caretakers; so this might explain modern day sex differences in emotion recognition and empathy.

Unreliable small kids from 2000

Really?! 

Sex differences
On average, female subjects score higher than males on the Empathy Quotient (EQ), while males tend to score higher on the Systemizing Quotient (SQ). Both males and females with autistic spectrum disorders usually score lower on the EQ and higher on SQ (see below for more detail on autism and empathy). A series of studies, using a variety of neurophysiological measures, including MEG, spinal reflex excitability, electroencephalography and N400 paradigm have documented the presence of an overall gender difference in the human mirror neuron system, with female participants tending to exhibit stronger motor resonance than male participants. In addition, the aforementioned studies found that female participants tended to score higher on empathy self-report dispositional measures and that these measures positively correlated with the physiological response. Other studies show no significant difference, and instead suggest that gender differences are the result of motivational differences. However, a 2014 analysis from the journal of Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews reported that there is evidence that "sex differences in empathy have phylogenetic and ontogenetic roots in biology and are not merely cultural byproducts driven by socialization."

A review published in the journal Neuropsychologia found that women tended to be better at recognizing facial effects, expression processing and emotions in general. Men only tended to be better at recognizing specific behavior which includes anger, aggression and threatening cues. A 2006 meta-analysis by researcher Rena A Kirkland in the journal North American Journal of Psychology found small significant sex differences favoring females in "Reading of the mind" test. "Reading of the mind" test is an advanced ability measure of cognitive empathy in which Kirkland's analysis involved 259 studies across 10 countries. Another 2014 meta-analysis, in the journal of Cognition and Emotion, found a small overall female advantage in non-verbal emotional recognition across 215 samples.

The 2014 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews analysis found that there are sex differences in empathy from birth, growing larger with age and which remains consistent and stable across lifespan. Females, on average, were found to have higher empathy than males, while children with higher empathy regardless of gender continue to be higher in empathy throughout development. Further analysis of brain tools such as event related potentials found that females who saw human suffering tended to have higher ERP waveforms than males. Another investigation with similar brain tools such as N400 amplitudes found, on average, higher N400 in females in response to social situations which positively correlated with self-reported empathy. Structural fMRI studies also found females to have larger grey matter volumes in posterior inferior frontal and anterior inferior parietal cortex areas which are correlated with mirror neurons in fMRI literature. Females also tended to have a stronger link between emotional and cognitive empathy. The researchers found that the stability of these sex differences in development are unlikely to be explained by any environment influences but rather might have some roots in human evolution and inheritance. Throughout prehistory, females were the primary nurturers and caretakers of children; so this might have led to an evolved neurological adaptation for women to be more aware and responsive to non-verbal expressions. According to the Primary Caretaker Hypothesis, prehistoric males did not have the same selective pressure as primary caretakers. So this might explain modern day sex differences in emotion recognition and empathy.