Sex differences in attention are present at birth

[TeenToTwenties]

This popped up in my emails, I thought some might be interested:
Sex differences in attention are present at birth, study finds | University of Cambridge

That looks really interesting. I like the improvements in the new study to remove potential bias.

It could be interesting to study if there is any difference between babies whose parents knew the sex pre birth, and those who didn't.

It has made me wonder whether changes in ways of nurture for different sexes happen pre-birth as well as post-birth.

I'm suspictious of any study Simon Baren Cohen recommends.
Firstly it's only 130 babies.
Secondly it says:

A study from the University of Cambridge published in 2000 found girls at birth on average looked longer at faces, and boys on average looked longer at objects. Since then, scientists in the field called for a replication of this study. However, no research team has attempted this until now, since it is very challenging to carry out research on newborn infants.

The team found that, regardless of sex, newborn infants generally preferred to look at the social stimulus. However, on average, female infants spent a greater proportion of the time looking at the social stimulus compared to male infants, while male infants spent a greater proportion of time looking at the non-social stimulus compared to female infants.

You're suspicious of a double blind study that reproduces the findings of a previous study.

OK.

What could parents do pre birth to change what a 4 hour old baby looks at?

I have no idea.

I'm thinking abstractly really. For example, people may feel a boy is 'more robust' and thus be more active in pregnancy than with a 'delicate' girl. e.g. continuing to run / horse ride etc longer.

Or a mother may 'talk' to a girl foetus more.

Or ... I have no idea.

But given it appears adults do treat baby boys and girls differently (I remember the child of our time experiment) it isn't impossible (though I agree unlikely) that mums to be may act differently once they know which sex they are carrying.

I get what you're saying but I think it's more likely that we aren't born blank slates than that that parents can do anything to change how much their 4 hour old baby looks at faces.

It's confirmation bias for me, of course, I have never believed we were born blank slates.

I don't dispute some differences in averages. Neither do I support the blank state.
What concerns me is this is conflated into rigid expectations which leads to differential treatment. Given the plasticity of the human brain, this can have consequences.
I am critical of Simon Baron Cohen's theory of systemizing brains and empathizing brains being set on a spectrum. They are not a spectrum. It reminds me of sex is a spectrum.

So what's the alternative to a spectrum model for those traits, a binary system with just the two options that we all fit into?

Systemizing and empathising have nothing in common. They are not opposites or a range of data like height. There is no overarching term, they are just different aspects of cognition.

A spectrum is a continuous range or scale of related things, ideas, or physical properties stretched between two extreme points. It originally refers to the band of colors produced when light passes through a prism (like a rainbow), but it also describes waves, opinions, or medical conditions like autism.

Well sex isn't a spectrum, it's binary but most things in life are a spectrum, otherwise known as a normal distribution or a bell curve.

I find it very odd that you talk about being afraid of rigid expectations with this research and then say ...

I am critical of Simon Baron Cohen's theory of systemizing brains and empathizing brains being set on a spectrum.

because they have been shown to be.

The spectrum is people who are very strongly skewed towards systemisation and low on empathy at one end, people who are very high on empathy and low on systemisation at the other, and a mix of people in the middle.

Not only have people been able to measure that but I see it around me in real life all the time.

You could pair any two traits like that and come out with a normal distribution.

I also find it odd that you want to dismiss a piece of research because of how you found out about it. If it was because of who carried it out or who commissioned it, that I would understand.

I agree systematising and empathising are two distinct traits. SBC's system doesn't say they are at opposite ends of a spectrum and it is quite possible to score high (or low) on both traits.

I would dispute that. They are linked in human cognition in that people who are very high on one also tend to be very low on the other. And the tests used are robust they certainly are a range of data.

The distribution/spectrum he is referring to. (I haven't read his research just done a cursory search) is not the absolute empathy or systemisation score, it is the proportion of each in any one person relative to other people.

It is perfectly possible to be high on systemizing and empathising, it is not one or the other.
As I said above the sample size on this is minute and doesn't prove anything.
The team found that, regardless of sex, newborn infants generally preferred to look at the social stimulus.
I'm surprised that a replication study can involve the person responsible for the original one.

130 is not a minute sample size for studies like this. The results are statistically significant.

From the detail of the study.

To assess these gaps, the present study aimed to reevaluate sex differences in neonatal attention. 130 neonates (67 males, 63 females; mean age = 33 h) were presented with a video of a human face and a non-social object. When analysing percentage looking times, on average, females allocated a greater percentage of time looking at the face relative to males ( d = 0.40). When analysing absolute looking times, females showed a preference for the face compared to the non-social object, while males showed no preference for either. However, no differences were observed between males’ and females’ absolute looking times for the face or object, indicating that sex differences are most prominent in the relative allocation of attention. Since sex differences in relative attentional patterns are present from the earliest days of life, one possible explanation for this effect may be due to contributions from prenatal factors (e.g., sex hormones). However, alternative explanations may be that these differences reflect general maturational differences between males and females or arise from low-level visual properties of the stimuli rather than their social versus non-social content.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sode.12790
Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Reveal no Gender Difference in Neonatal Social Perception
Lindsay Karson, Hersimren Minhas, Manraj Dhesi, Jeffrey Davies, Julie Patel, Lise Eliot
First published: 15 January 2025
ABSTRACT
Women score higher than men on measures of social cognition such as empathy and reading non-verbal cues. How early does this gender difference emerge? Systematic review and meta-analyses were used to assess gender difference in social perception within 1 month of birth. A total of 31 studies (40 experiments) reported on gender effects in 1936 neonates (50% girls) between 1968 and 2021. No significant difference (Hedges’ g = 0.076, p = 0.321) was found across 20 experiments measuring visual fixation on human faces. Nine experiments on neonatal imitative crying also revealed no gender difference (g = 0.157, p = 0.118). Seven studies using the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale found no gender difference in total orientation (g = 0.161, p = 0.154), but girls oriented more to both animate (g = 0.279, p = 0.011) and inanimate (g = 0.242, p = 0.003) stimuli in the studies that analyzed these separately. Existing evidence supports a possible maturational difference but not a specific social advantage for girls at birth. While more research and better reporting are needed, the present findings challenge the claim that girls are innately more socially perceptive than boys.

And in reality it is the boy babies who are more delicate, who are more likely to die within the first year of life etc. I think knowing the sex is problematic sometimes e.g. if everyone wanted a girl and it's a boy (usually the other way round, sadly).