Character  &  Context

The Science of Who We Are and How We Relate
Editors: Mark Leary, Shira Gabriel, Brett Pelham
Oct 23, 2017

“Work-Life Balance” and “Empathizing” Do Not Explain Women’s Career Choices

Image of young professional woman working in a home office

A viral letter by then-Google employee James Damore has renewed the conversation about diversity in Silicon Valley. One thread of the ensuing debate has focused on the scientific validity of Damore’s claims that men and women do in fact differ in their preferences. An unspoken assumption has been that differences in preferences—if such differences exist—would go a long way toward explaining why women have remained underrepresented in tech and similar fields, despite efforts to increase diversity.

This assumption can be put to the test. Damore claimed men and women differ on two major preferences: maintaining work-life balance and empathizing with others. If we knew how much various jobs allow people to maintain a good work-life balance and empathize with others, we would be able to see whether jobs that do not satisfy these preferences have fewer women in them. If this was not the case, Damore’s argument would be undercut. For instance, if women aren’t generally underrepresented in fields where you routinely have to work 80 hours a week, why would that be a factor in tech?

Fortunately, the data to weigh this key assumption are available. They were collected for a study that I published a couple of years ago with my collaborators Sarah-Jane Leslie, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. We asked members of 30 fields across the academic spectrum how many hours they worked per week and how much their field involved empathizing versus systemizing (which is the ability to reason about and analyze systems, thought to be higher in men).

We then used these responses to predict women’s participation in a field. If Damore is right, we should see fewer women in fields in which the workload is particularly heavy, or in fields that require more systemizing than empathizing.

The relationships we found were too weak to support Damore’s claims. For example, workload explained an underwhelming 0.09 percent of the distribution of women across fields. It is most definitely not the case that women are scarce in fields that require long hours.

Initially, the second prediction seemed more promising. Empathizing–systemizing showed a statistically significant relationship with women’s participation across the 30 fields in our sample. However, we then tried to look just at the fields in science and technology, fields that vary quite a bit in their gender composition. Perhaps some sciences have been more successful than others in attracting women because they allow women to express their preference for people and empathizing (while also requiring less systemizing). This wasn’t the case. Only about seven percent of the variability in gender gaps across the sciences was explained by this empathizing–systemizing factor—far lower than what you’d expect if women’s scientific careers were guided by a desire to empathize.

Continue reading the post by visiting Behavioral Scientist.


By Andrei Cimpian

This article originally appeared on the Behavioral Scientist, a non-profit online magazine that offers readers original, thought-provoking reports from the front lines of behavioral science.

About our Blog

Why is this blog called Character & Context?

Everything that people think, feel, and do is affected by some combination of their personal characteristics and features of the social context they are in at the time. Character & Context explores the latest insights about human behavior from research in personality and social psychology, the scientific field that studies the causes of everyday behaviors.  

Search the Blog

Get Email Updates from the Blog