Women have Relatively Larger Brains than Men: A Comment on the Misuse of General Linear Models in the Study of Sexual Dimorphism

General linear models (GLM) have become such universal tools of statistical inference, that their applicability to a particular data set is rarely questioned. These models are designed to minimize residuals along the y‐axis, while assuming that the predictor (x‐axis) is free of statistical noise (ordinary least square regression, OLS). However, in practice, this assumption is often violated, which can lead to erroneous conclusions, particularly when two predictors are correlated with each other. This is best illustrated by two examples from the study of allometry, which have received great interest: (1) the question of whether men or women have relatively larger brains after accounting for body size differences, and (2) whether men indeed have shorter index fingers relative to ring fingers (digit ratio) than women. In depth analysis of these examples clearly shows that GLMs produce spurious sexual dimorphism in body shape where there is none (e.g. relative brain size). Likewise, they may fail to detect existing sexual dimorphisms in which the larger sex has the lower trait values (e.g. digit ratio) and, conversely, tend to exaggerate sexual dimorphism in which the larger sex has the relatively larger trait value (e.g. most sexually selected traits). These artifacts can be avoided with reduced major axis regression (RMA), which simultaneously minimizes residuals along both the x and the y‐axis. Alternatively, in cases where isometry can be established there are no objections against and good reasons for the continued use of ratios as a simple means of correcting for size differences. Anat Rec, 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  A. Green MASS/LENGTH RESIDUALS: MEASURES OF BODY CONDITION OR GENERATORS OF SPURIOUS RESULTS? , 2001 .

[2]  Richard J. Smith Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. , 2009, American journal of physical anthropology.

[3]  Robert P. Freckleton,et al.  Dealing with collinearity in behavioural and ecological data: model averaging and the problems of measurement error , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[4]  E. Ranta,et al.  Reinventing the wheel: analysis of sexual dimorphism in body size , 1994 .

[5]  U. Roessmann,et al.  Analysis of brain weight. II. Adult brain weight in relation to body height, weight, and surface area. , 1980, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  C. D. Ankney,et al.  Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? , 1992 .

[7]  Martin Voracek,et al.  Scientometric Analysis and Bibliography of Digit Ratio (2D:4D) Research, 1998–2008 , 2009, Psychological reports.

[8]  M. Westoby,et al.  Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[9]  J. Manning Digit ratio (2D:4D), sex differences, allometry, and finger length of 12–30‐year olds: Evidence from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) internet study , 2010, American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council.

[10]  T. Arnold,et al.  ON THE ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF AVIAN EGGS: A REASSESSMENT , 2007 .

[11]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  F. Galton Regression Towards Mediocrity in Hereditary Stature. , 1886 .

[13]  Richard J. Smith Relative Size versus Controlling for Size , 2005, Current Anthropology.

[14]  Andy J. Green,et al.  The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length , 2010 .

[15]  B. McArdle The structural relationship: regression in biology , 1988 .

[16]  J. Swaddle,et al.  Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health , 2002, Heredity.

[17]  Daniel S. Falster,et al.  User's guide to SMATR : standardised major axis tests and routines version 2.0, copyright 2006 , 2006 .

[18]  R. Holloway,,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in the human corpus callosum. , 1982, Science.

[19]  G. C. Packard,et al.  The Misuse of Ratios, Indices, and Percentages in Ecophysiological Research , 1988, Physiological Zoology.

[20]  J. Flegr,et al.  Differences in the 2nd to 4th digit length ratio in humans reflect shifts along the common allometric line , 2009, Biology Letters.

[21]  Johannes Hönekopp,et al.  Meta‐analysis of digit ratio 2D:4D shows greater sex difference in the right hand , 2010, American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council.

[22]  M. Tobler,et al.  Digit Ratio, Color Polymorphism and Egg Testosterone in the Australian Painted Dragon , 2011, PloS one.