Gender Differences in Cognitive Functioning: a Literature Review 

Toni Bush (Pacific Sports Entertainment)
 

  Introduction
 

Several studies have examined differences in cognitive functioning between the genders (Eagly, 1978; Wright, 1975; and Darley & Smith, 1995). Each has presented a different definition of cognitive functioning, which has made comparison between studies difficult. For example, Eagly (1978) cites the ability to be influenced, and the ability to conform as factors of cognitive functioning. In contrast, Wright (1975) makes reference to females' general self confidence, information processing confidence, and topical opinion leader ability as cognitive responses. Additionally, there are several studies which define cognitive functioning as the ability to perform cognitive processing tasks (Burstein, Bank, & Jarvik, 1980; Meyers-Levy, 1989; McGuiness & Pribram, 1979; and Darley & Smith, 1995).
 
 

Due to this definitional difficulty it has been argued that no real difference in cognitive functioning exists between the genders (Block, 1976). A stable definition of cognitive functioning needs, therefore, to be established in order to ascertain any differences in cognitive functioning between males and females. In this paper, the definition of cognitive functioning which is used will be "the process whereby the capacity to make accurate categorisations is met with the ability to evaluate outcomes or make accurate decisions" (McGuiness & Pribram, 1979, p.38).
 
 

This definition concurs with several recent studies of the way males and females process information. the majority of this literature supports the concept that males and females differ in the strategies they use to process information. Known as the selectivity model, it is hypothesised that males are selective processors while females are more likely to engage in a comprehensive processing strategy (Meyers-Levy, 1989). This paper examines the evidence for gender differences in cognitive functioning and discusses some explanations of the causes of any such differences.
 

  Evidence for gender differences
 

The evidence for gender differences will be presented in terms of (a) Use of Heuristics/Message Cues, (b) Spatial Abilities, and (c) Linguistic Skills.

  Use of Heuristics/Message Cues

Meyers-Levy (1989) proposes that males employ various heuristic devices that serve as surrogates for more detailed processing. She argues that males rely on single, as opposed to multiple, cues to make judgements. By contrast, "... females can be characterised as comprehensive information processors who attempt to assimilate all available cues" (Meyers-Levy, 1989, p. 221).
 
 

Examining the use of availability as a heuristic, Tversky & Kahneman (1973) found that generally people can assess availability quickly and accurately. For example they found that people are more likely to access information seen more recently than that absorbed longer ago. They hypothesised that, in the presence of multiple cues, males would tend to the more highly available cue in order to generate a response. Females, however, would access all cues to respond to the information. The results concurred with the hypothesis, in that the more familiar and available stimuli were recalled at a greater rate than unfamiliar objects.
 
 

Cupchick & Poulos (1984) also examined this single-cue, selectivity argument. Twenty-four male and twenty-four female undergraduate students were exposed to a paradigm in which the subject's own emotional reaction to affect-evoking visual stimuli was examined. Along with the individual's reaction to the affect-evoking stimuli being analysed, the study examined each subject's judgement of another person's expressive response. The individual responses to the evoking stimuli were recorded on a Likert-type scale form weak to strong. The expressive response of others' reactions was rated by the subject's as either high or low. The results corresponded to the selectivity hypothesis in that males' judgements related to the use of single cues while females made use of all available cues in generating a response.
 
 

As Meyers-Levy (1989) summarises, males classified as exhibiting a strong expressive reaction judged others' reaction as high, while weak expressive males judged others' as low. Thus males concurred with the use of a single cue and judged others in relation to themselves. In contrast, females exhibiting strong expressions judged others' reactions as low, while women reacting weakly judged others' as highly reactive. This finding indicates that females encode and elaborate on information more extensively. Males, however, tend to miss subtle stimuli and apply the same heuristics to all information (Darley & Smith, 1995, p.43).
 
 

Reporting these results, Cupchick & Poulos (1984) were able to concur with the selectivity hypothesis. Males did tend to rely on single, highly available cues. These cues were in relation to themselves and their reactions. Females though, processed the reactions of others effortfully and adhered to the selectivity model in that they considered multiple cues. These findings are consistent with results of other studies evaluating the interdependence between stimuli and expressive behaviour for males and females (Cupchick

& Leventhal, 1974; Leventhal & Cupchick, 1975).

  Spatial Abilities

Burstein et. al. (1980) claim that spatial abilities have avoided clear definition. However, one finding is consistent: males exceed females in spatial task abilities. Spatial task abilities are those which require the perception of a relationship amongst part of a whole.
 
 

Several studies have suggested that males perform better than females in this area. Although Burstein et. al. (1980) would argue that most studies are unable to show any difference between the genders in spatial abilities until at the very least adolescence, the fact that the authors recognise this gives credence to the argument that this is one area where males and females differ.
 
 

Numerous tests have been performed to determine gender differences in spatial tasks. These tests used mazes, form boards, and block counting from the Differential Aptitude Test and from the Primary Mental Ability (PMA), the Block Design and Picture Assembly subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Findings in the majority of studies indicate that boys score better than girls on spatial tests. Cohen, Schaie, & Gribbin (1977) tested spatial ability of 96 men and 100 women. They found that differences favoured men. While some critics (Burstein et. al., 1980) appear sceptical about the results and implementation of studies analysing spatial abilities, there is strong support for a gender difference.
 
 

A comprehensive analysis of the evidence for gender differences in spatial task abilities is provided by McGuiness & Pribram (1979). They reported that men rated higher on spatial tests conducted using the WAIS and WISC subtests. Further evidence supporting male superiority in this area is provided by the Bennett mechanical comprehension test (Bennett & Cruickshank, 1942). The test examined spatial task abilities as measured by mazes, puzzles, and assembly of small objects. Results indicated that a measurable difference was found between males and females. (However, no statistical evidence for this difference was reported). This supports other contentions for gender differences in spatial task abilities (Guilford, 1967; Tyler, 1965; Hutt, 1972; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).

  Linguistic Skills

In contrast to males, females exhibit greater flexibility in linguistic tasks (Meyers-Levy, 1989). Common linguistic skills in which females have been found to be superior are verbal fluency, speech articulation, grammatical skills, and use of more complex and longer sentences. Linguistic differences between males and females are demonstrated throughout the entire life span and not just during the later stages of life (Meyers-Levy, 1989). Meyers-Levy (1989) suggests that females' excellence in performing linguistic skills is demonstrated by their taking on a comprehensive processing strategy. They pay more attention to multiple cues and effortful processing of information, and are able to exhibit greater flexibility in linguistic ability. (Meyers-Levy, 1989; Darley & Smith, 1995).
 
 

Droege (1967) used the General Aptitude Test Battery to examine the difference between males and females in both spatial and verbal tasks. In every comparison girls scored higher than boys on verbal aptitude, form perception, clerical perception, motor co-ordination, and finger dexterity. These findings remained consistent throughout the testing and retesting periods amongst the initial subjects, thus giving support to the notion that females are superior to males in linguistic skills.
 
 

A further study concluded that females were superior to males in linguistic skills (Coates & Hartup, 1969). While watching a film, the subjects were required to repeat another person’s description of the male model's actions, in addition to describing the actions of the model in their own words. The results of the study indicated that women, in both the induced verbalisation and free verbalisation conditions, scored higher than males. Women were able to emit a more accurate verbalisation of the actions of the male model than men.
 
 

While these results lend evidence to gender differences in linguistic skills, it has been argued that the results were inconsistent and therefore unreliable. Eagly (1978) proposes that studies examining differences have varied widely in sensitivity of research design. This has included variations in sampling procedures, reliability and validity measurements. This argument is based on data acquisition methods. However, it needs to be asked whether, if different research designs and procedures were used, would the results be different? Most research has concluded that there are gender differences in cognitive functioning. This is more apparent in an area like linguistic skill, because the concept is more readily defined than spatial task abilities. However, several tests of spatial abilities have been employed and when a gender difference was found, it was in favour of males. The following section provides explanations of why these gender differences might occur.
 

  Explanations for gender differences in cognitive functioning
 

Reasons for gender differences have been explained by three propositions. Males tend to be right hemisphere dependent, females tend to be left hemisphere dependent, and male hemispherical functioning is more specialised. The concept that males and females differ in cortical organisation is consistent in the literature. Accordingly, it is presupposed that right hemisphere tasks differ from left hemisphere tasks. This section discusses evidence which supports the concept that the genders differ in cortical organisation.

  Males - Right Hemisphere Dependent

Meyers-Levy (1994) demonstrated that right hemisphere functions include non-verbal production, visual activity, and visual spatial processing. The superiority of males in these tasks indicates that males are right hemisphere dependent.
 
 

Kimura (1969) examined spatial localisation in left and right visual fields. Results found that men were able to localise spatial tasks more accurately in the left visual field (right hemisphere). Kimura (1969) explained that the superiority of the left visual field in spatial task localisation is a reflection of the greater contribution of the right hemisphere of the brain to visuospatial ability. This provided support for the proposition that males are right hemisphere dependent.
 
 

McKeever (1991) conducted a study to examine gender differences in spatial ability. Administering the Stafford Identical Blocks Test (SIBT) over a period of years, subjects were required to choose the lettered block which was the same shape as the block to the left. The test results found that males averaged 3.5 points higher than females on the test (McKeever, 1991). This added further support to previous studies on spatial ability and gender differences. Males rated better than females on spatial tasks associated with right hemisphere dependency.
 
 

McKeever's findings are supported by Hines (1986). In that study it was found that males outperformed females in memory tests involving pictorial stimuli. Males' superior performance was consistently better when the stimuli were pictorial. Hines (1986) also reported that females outperformed males when stimuli were presented verbally.
 
 

In another study examining verbal and visual tasks, Coltheart, Hull, & Slater (1975), reported a significant (x² = 6.50, p<0.05) effect for males being more correct than females in visual tasks. In contrast, they found that females completed the verbal task quicker than males. This study was supported by research conducted by Seamon & Gazzaniga (1973). Just as Coltheart et. al. (1975) provided evidence for males being right hemisphere dependent and females being left hemisphere dependent, Seamon & Gazzaniga (1973) provided similar results.

  Females - Left Hemisphere Dependent

Bouma (1990) provides evidences through which a notable gender difference in hemispherical dependency exists. The most clarified difference being that females outperform males in right hemispherical functions like verbal tasks. This study, which required subjects to identify letters from a verbal presentation, found a recall effect for the right visual field (left hemisphere). With females performing at a greater level than males, the verbal task offers evidence that females are left hemispherical dependent.
 
 

Female dependence on the left hemisphere is based on their processing strategies. Females are more likely to use verbal strategies to process information. As Burstein et. al. (1980) explain, girls' left hemisphere dominance is likely to guide girls in using verbal means of problem solving.
 
 

Further support for the presumption that females possess a left hemisphere dependence is that women manifest precocity and greater evidence in verbal communication (Meyers-Levy, 1994). Through a study of subjects with brain damage for subsequent verbal performance, the results indicate a dependence on the left hemisphere. Verbal tasks were unable to be completed when the left hemisphere is damaged. However, Coltheart et. al. (1975) report that for females with left hemisphere damage there was a positive correlation between their performance on verbal tasks and block design completion. Due to female dependence on the left hemisphere, their superiority in verbal tasks diminishes when that are has a lesion.
 
 

This finding is supported by Coltheart et. al. (1975), who performed a study to determine if the assumption that females (because they rely on verbal skills) should have more difficulty in detecting unpronounced letters than men. The subjects were asked to scan six photographically enlarged pages from novels, crossing out all occurrences of the letter 'h'. Given two minutes to complete the task, the results favoured the male subjects’ spatial ability. As Coltheart et. al. (1975) reported, the female miss rate was much higher than males. The findings concur with the proposition that females have more difficulty in detecting unpronounced letters than men. However, there is common agreement that females use verbal interpretations to process information (Coltheart et. al., 1975; Burstein et. al., 1980; Bouma, 1990).
 
 

Most of the studies reviewed above refer to female superiority in verbal skill. However, they also support the proposition that females are left hemisphere dependent. This is because verbal ability is a primarily left hemispherical function (Meyers-Levy, 1994). Arguments against females being left hemispherical dependent are difficult to up-hold, and are primarily directed towards methodological issues (Coltheart et. al., 1975; Burstein et. al., 1980). Again it needs to be questioned if another method of data collection was used would the results be different? Most studies present the conclusion that females are left hemisphere dependent (Coltheart et. al., 1975; Bourma, 1990; Burstein et. al., 1980; Meyers-Levy, 1975).

  Hemispherical Specialisation

Females are also suggested to be able to communicate between their two hemispheres more readily than males. According to Meyers-Levy (1994) it appears that males' hemispheres are more specialised than their female counterparts. This assumes that predominantly male functions like visuospatial skills are central to the right hemisphere. In comparison, females' superior verbal skills are located between their left and right hemispheres. Tucker (1976) explains that both left and right processing capabilities may be equally located within each female hemisphere. Wada, Clarke, & Hamm (1975) conducted a study which concluded that the neural regions responsible for verbal and visual spatial functioning may be similar in size in female hemispheres.
 
 

The contention that female hemispherical functions are flexible between left and right is well supported. Several papers offer explanation for why females are less specialised than males (Denckla, 1973; Allen, Gorski, Shin, Barakat, & Hines, 1987; Allen & Gorski, 1986). These explanations include females' greater facility in interhemispheric communication and in using both hemispheres concurrently.
 
 

However, there has been some debate as to whether male cognitive functions actually are limited to one hemisphere. McGuiness & Pribram (1979) cite evidence which suggests that males are more bilateral in their hemispherical functioning than females. It is suggested that the earlier and stronger development of lateralisation in females facilitates their verbal development. On the other hand, visual spatial skills call for more bilateral cerebral representation. This representation is assumed to be facilitated in men (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). While this proposition has been recognised, it appears to be overcome by the increasing amount of literature suggesting that it is males who are specialised in their hemispherical dependency (Denckla, 1973; Meyers-Levy, 1994).
 

  Conclusion
 

This paper summarises support for gender differences between males and females in cognitive functioning. These differences include the use of heuristic/message cues, spatial abilities, and linguistic skills. The evidence indicates that men use more heuristics, men specialise in spatial ability, and females are superior in linguistic skills. Why these difference occur has been attributed to the cortical organisation of the genders. It was found that males are right hemisphere dependent. In contrast, females are left hemisphere dependent. Each hemisphere is accorded different skills. The final explanation suggests males are more specialised in their hemispherical abilities. Although a comprehensive argument was put forward to the contrary, the majority of literature supports male specialisation. However, further research into the causes of gender differences in cognitive functioning may need to consider other factors. For example, how much influence does an individuals up-bringing and environment have on its cognitive processing?
 
 

In addition, future areas of research could include an examination into the implications of the finding that males are right hemispherical dependent and females are left hemisphere reliant. These studies could indicate the impact this would have on the production of advertising directed toward males and/or females. In addition, the future could benefit from research into new areas like sports marketing and the impact of recall and recognition rates of sponsor signage/advertising by male and female spectators. Studies like these are becoming increasingly necessary as companies continue to target the male and female markets as separate entities. Also, as females become more involved in sport (Shani, Sandler, & Long, 1992), it is logical that sponsors would like to capitalise on this market.
 

References
 

Bennett, G. K., & Cruikshank, R. M., 1942, Sex Differences in the Understanding of Mechanical Problems, Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 121-127.

Block, J., s1976, Issues, Problems and Pitfalls in Assessing Sex Differences: A Critical Review of the Psychology of Sex Differences, Merrill-Palmer.

Bouma, A., 1990, Lateral Asymmetries and Hemispheric Specialization: Theoretical Models and Research, Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.

Burstein, B., Bank, L., & Jarvik, L. F., 1980, Sex Differences in Cognitive Functioning: Evidence, Determinants, Implications, Human Development, 23, 289-313.

Coates, B., & Hartup, W. W., 1969, Age and Verbalization in Observational Learning, Developmental Psychology, 1, 556-562.

Cohen, D., Schaie, K. W., & Gribbin, K., 1977, The Organization of Spatial Abilities in Older Men and Women, J. Geront., 32, 578-585.

Coltheart, M., Hull, E., & Slater, D., 1975, Sex Differences in Imagery and Reading, Nature, 253, 438-440.

Cupchick, G. C., & Leventhal, H., 1974, Consistency between Expressive Behavior and the Evaluation of Humorous Stimuli, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 429-442.

Cupchick, G. C., & Poulos, C. X., 1984, Judgments of Emotional Intensity in Self and Others: The Effects of Stimulus Context, Sex, and Expressivity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 2, 431-439.

Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E., 1995, Gender Differences in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response, Journal of Advertising, xxiv, 1, 41-56.

Droege, R., 1967, Sex Differences in Aptitude Maturation During High School, Journal of Couns. Psychology, 14, 407-411.

Eagly, A. H., 1978, Sex Differences in Influenceability, Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1, 86-116.

Guilford, J. P., 1967, The Nature of Human lntelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York. Hutt, C., 1972, Neuroendocrinological Behavior and Intellectual Aspects of Sexual Differentiation in Human Development, in C. Ounsted and D. C., Taylor (eds)., Gender Differences: Their Ontogeny and Significance, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.

Hines, M., 1986, [Males' and Females' Recall of Pictorial and Verbal Stimuli]. Unpublished Data, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kimura, D., 1969, Spatial Localization in Left and Right Visual Fields, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 23, 6, 445-458.

Leventhal, H., & Cupchick, G. C., 1975, The Informational and Facilitative Effects of an Audience upon Expression and the Evaluation of Humorous Stimuli, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 363-380.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N., 1974, The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

McGuiness, D., & Pribram, K. H., 1979, The Origins of Sensory Bias in the Development of Gender Differences in Perception and Cognition, in Bortner (ed), Cognitive Growth and Development: Essays in Memory of Herbert G. Birch, Brunner/Mazel: New York.

McKeever, W. F., 1991, Handedness, Language Laterality and Spatial Ability, in Cerebral Laterality: Theory and Research, Kitterle, F. L (ed), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale: New Jersey.

Meyers-Levy, J., 1994, Gender Differences in Cortical Organization: Social and Biochemical Antecedents and Advertising Consequences, in Attention, Attitude, and Affect in Response to Advertising, E. Clark, T. Brock, & D. Stewart (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale: New Jersey.

Meyers-Levy, J., 1989, Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation, in Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, Cafferata, P., & Tybout, A. M (eds), Lexington Books, Canada.

Shani, D., Sandler, D. M., & Long, M. M., 1992, Courting Women Using Sports Marketing: A Content Analysis of the US Open, International Journal of Advertising, 11, 377-392.

Tucker, D. M., 1976, Sex Differences in Hemispheric Specialization for Synthetic Visuospatial Functions, Neuropsychologia, 14. 447-454.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D., 1973, Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability, Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.

Tyler, L., 1965, The Psychology of Human Differences, Appleton Century Croft, New York.

Wada, J. A., Clarke, R., & Hamm, A., 1975, Cerebral Hemispheric Asymmetry in Humans, Archives of Neurology, 32, 239-246.

Wright, P., 1975, Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 1-9.