Sex differences in music perception are negligible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Darwin 1 , researchers have proposed that human musicality evolved in a reproductive context in which males produce music to signal their mate quality to females. Sexually selected traits involve tradeoffs in the costs of high-quality signal production and high-fidelity signal detection 2 , leading to observable sexual dimorphisms across many species 3,4 . If musicality is a sexually selected trait in humans, males and females should then differ in their music perception ability, music production ability, or both. The evidence for this possibility is unclear, because previous reports of sex differences in human auditory perception are restricted in scope and inconsistent in direction 5–15 . Here, we report a test of music processing ability in 360,009 men and 194,291 women from 208 countries. In contrast to other non-musical human traits 16–19 , and in contrast to music-related traits in non-human animals 20–23 , we found no consistent advantage for either sex. The sex differences we did observe were negligible (Cohen’s d range: 0.009-0.111) and Bayesian analyses indicated evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no sex difference in general musical ability (Bayes Factor = 0.6). These results suggest that it is unlikely that music evolved in the context of sexual selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".