Why women read more than men (or not)

Today on National Public Radio, Eric Weiner explored several hypotheses as to why women read more than men. It's a sadly under-researched article.

The article gets into trouble immediately by summarizing theories on the gender gap. Unfortunately, Weiner relies on a discredited book and several studies that simply examine gender-stereotype-based assumptions, rather than exploring different possibilities.

1. Cognitive psychology hypothesis: Empathy

Cognitive psychologists have found that women are more empathetic than men, and possess a greater emotional range—traits that make fiction more appealing to them.

It's good to investigate hypotheses like this, but the fact that these are the main hypotheses under investigation is pathetic. Just like we "know" women talk more (below), we "know" women are more empathetic. So that's what we study.

2. Neuroscience hypothesis: Empathy

Neuroscientists believe that mirror neurons hold the biological key to empathy.... Some studies have found that women have more sensitive mirror neurons than men. That might explain why women are drawn to works of fiction, which by definition require the reader to empathize with characters.

This study is a little more meaningful, but again seems to be looking for evidence based on a gender assumption. There isn't a lot of neuroscience literature in this area, so it's far from conclusive that this is "the cause". Regardless, I'm glad to see the investigation moving away from cultural assumptions and toward science.

UPDATE: Paul's comment below links to some additional neuroscience findings. The reaction of the mirror neurons appears to be shaped by socialization! Not only the other way around. So much for biological determinism.

As I said--Weiner jumped the gun, cherry-picking reporting these studies as meaningful without confirmation from the rest of the literature.

3. Pseudoscience hypothesis: The fidgets

Some experts see the genesis of the "fiction gap" in early childhood. At a young age, girls can sit still for much longer periods of time than boys, says Louann Brizendine, author of The Female Brain.

"Girls have an easier time with reading or written work, and it's not a stretch to extrapolate [that] to adult life," Brizendine says. Indeed, adult women talk more in social settings and use more words than men, she says.

Tsk tsk, NPR. Brizendine's book was trashed by premier science journal Nature, in an article calling her work "Psychoneuroindoctrinology". The review in Nature says The Female Brain "fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance.... The text is rife with 'facts' that do not exist in the supporting references."

In fact, the equally renowned journal Science has published studies demonstrating that there's no measurable gender difference in speech frequency. Brizendine now admits her statements aren't supported by science, and she will delete those passages in future editions.

No mention of the protagonist hypothesis

Weiner doesn't mention the studies that find men are less likely to read books by women, or about women. That finding indicates that the gender gap in reading may be in part due to social factors (how boys are socialized, and what reading is assigned during school), not simply an endemic psychological or biological gender difference.

The Guardian summarizes a study out of Queen Mary College in London:

Four out of five men said the last novel they read was by a man, whereas women were almost as likely to have read a book by a male author as a female.... Women, however, often gave several titles. The report said: 'Men who read fiction tend to read fiction by men, while women read fiction by both women and men.

'Consequently, fiction by women remains "special interest", while fiction by men still sets the standard for quality, narrative and style.'

Reading demographics: Blurry view

Weiner ends with a rather sloppy description of reading demographics.

Harry Potter made more of an impact on boys' reading habits. Sixty-one percent agreed with the statement "I didn't read books for fun before reading Harry Potter," compared with 41 percent of girls.

That's nice, but what about this article that says they won't KEEP reading once they finish Harry Potter. As I said a while back, that lines up with the studies that find kids read less as they get older. Which is not what Weiner said:

Young people, in general, read less than older people, and that does not bode well for books and the people who love them.

Weiner keeps blurring the lines. Those young people aren't the same group as the kids surveyed in the previous paragraph.

Those "older people" who read more are the elderly--they're from a couple generations back. Current generations read a lot as kids, then read less as they become young adults, and still less as adults. It's not that the younger generation are hopeless louts. Something new is happening between childhood and adulthood that decreases how much people read.

All lit is chick lit

I loathe and despise the term "chick lit", so this is the one point Weiner made that I like--and it's opinion, not pseudofact. He points out that as women are the main readers of fiction, one might as well call all literature "chick lit". (I hear pleasant echoes of Gloria Steinem's rant on the term "chick lit".)

Tags: reading, women, men, gender, psychology, science