Reports in public media suggest the existence of a stereotype that women are better at multitasking than men. The present online survey aimed at supporting this incidental observation by empirical data. For this, 488 participants from various ethnic backgrounds (US, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and others) filled out a self-developed online-questionnaire. Results showed that overall more than 50% of the participants believed in gender differences in multitasking abilities. Of those who believed in gender differences, a majority of 80% believed that women were better at multitasking. The main reasons for this were believed to be an evolutionary advantage and more multitasking practice in women, mainly due to managing children and household and/or family and job. Findings were consistent across the different countries, thus supporting the existence of a widespread gender stereotype that women are better at multitasking than men. Further questionnaire results provided information about the participants’ self-rated own multitasking abilities, and how they conceived multitasking activities such as childcare, phoning while driving, and office work.

It is proposed that emotional and cognitive functions may be differentiated based on sex. However, it is still unknown whether this assumption could be generalized for all emotional faces and working memory (WM) functions. To examine this, 50 females, and 60 males performed an emotion recognition task, consisting of a series of emotional faces as well as three working memory tasks from Cambridge Neuropsychological test battery (CANTAB); namely, spatial working memory (SWM), stocking of Cambridge (SOC), and intra/extradimensional shifts tasks (IED). The results found that females had faster response times in recognition of both positive and negative faces as compared to males. Furthermore, it was observed that while females were better on SWM task processing, males performed better on IED and four move SOC tasks, illustrating that processing of WM components may differentiate by sex. It has been concluded that emotional and cognitive functions are indeed sensitive to sex differences.

It is known that neuroticism impairs cognitive performance mostly in difficult tasks, but not so much in easier tasks. One pervasive situation of this type is multitasking, in which the combination of two simple tasks creates a highly demanding dual-task, and consequently high neurotics show higher dual-task costs than low neurotics. However, the functional neuroanatomical correlates of these additional performance impairments in high neurotics are unknown. To test for this, we assessed brain activity by means of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in 17 low and 15 high neurotics while they were performing a demanding dual-task and the less demanding component tasks as single-tasks. Behavioural results showed that performance (response times and error rates) was lower in the dual-task than in the single-tasks (dual-task costs), and that these dual-task costs were significantly higher in high neurotics. Imaging data showed that high neurotics showed less dual-task specific activation in lateral (mainly middle frontal gyrus) and medial prefrontal cortices. We conclude that high levels of neuroticism impair behavioural performance in demanding tasks, and that this impairment is accompanied by reduced activation of the task-associated brain areas.

Behavioural studies investigating the relationship between Executive Functions (EFs) demonstrated evidence that different EFs are correlated with each other, but also that they are partially independent from each other. Neuroimaging studies investigating such an interrelationship with respect to the functional neuroanatomical correlates are sparse and have revealed inconsistent findings. To address this question, we created four tasks derived from the same basic paradigm, one each for updating, inhibition, switching, and dual-tasking. We assessed brain activity through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in twenty-nine participants while they performed the four EF tasks plus control tasks. For the analysis, we first determined the neural correlates of each EF by subtracting the respective control tasks from the EF tasks. We tested for unity in EF tasks by calculating the conjunction across these four “EF-minus-control” contrasts. This identified common areas including left lateral frontal cortices [middle and superior frontal gyrus (BA 6)], medial frontal cortices (BA 8) as well as parietal cortices [inferior and superior parietal lobules (BA 39/7)]. We also observed areas activated by two or three EF tasks only, such as frontoparietal areas [e.g., SFG (BA8) right inferior parietal lobule (BA 40), left precuneus (BA 7)], and subcortical regions [bilateral thalamus (BA 50)]. Finally, we found areas uniquely activated for updating [bilateral MFG (BA 8) and left supramarginal gyrus (BA 39)], inhibition (left IFG BA 46), and dual-tasking [left postcentral gyrus (BA 40)]. These results demonstrate that the functional neuroanatomical correlates of the four investigated EFs show unity as well as diversity.