Gender differences in category-specificity do not reflect innate dispositions

Abstract

It is well established that certain categories of objects are processed more efficiently than others in specific tasks; a phenomenon known as category-specificity in perceptual and conceptual processing. In the last two decades there have also been several reports of gender differences in category-specificity. In the present experiments we test the proposition that such gender differences have an evolutionary origin. If they do, we would expect them to emerge even when the population tested comprises young individuals raised in a gender-equality oriented society. Contrary to this expectation we find no evidence of gender differences in category-specificity in a relatively large sample (N = 366) drawn from such a population; and this despite the fact that both tasks applied (object decision and superordinate categorization) gave rise to reliable category-effects. We suggest that a plausible account of this discrepancy is that previous reports of gender differences may have reflected differences in familiarity originating from socially-based gender roles.

The good, the bad, and the average: Characterizing the relationship between face and object processing across the face recognition spectrum

“…The real objects were drawn from various classes including animals, vegetables/fruit, vehicles, furniture, tools etc. ; for the complete list of items see Gerlach and Gainotti, (2016). All non-objects were chimeric combinations of real objects.…”

Mayo normative studies: regression-based normative data for ages 30–91 years with a focus on the Boston Naming Test, Trail Making Test and Category Fluency

“…It is possible that these differences emerge from early language exposures, as age of word acquisition predicts more efficient word retrieval for object naming, verbal fluency, and memory (Morrison et al, 1992). These differences may be mitigated in contexts with fewer socially constructed roles and systemic inequities for females (Gerlach & Gainotti, 2016). Thus, the inconsistent results across fluency categories suggest that the sex differences in verbal fluency are best contextualized as gender differences that are the result of sociocultural norms and experiences.…”

Different Measures of Structural Similarity Tap Different Aspects of Visual Object Processing

“…The dataset has been collected over a 5 year period (2011–2015), and parts of the dataset have formed basis for two published papers. As mentioned above, Gerlach and Marques (2014) examined the role of visual complexity on object individuation and superordinate categorization ( N = 184), whereas Gerlach and Gainotti (2016) examined whether there were any gender differences in category-effects which they did not find support for ( N = 366). The participants were students who performed the experiments as part of their education; a course in cognitive psychology.…”

“…are processed less efficiently than artifacts (vehicles, tools, etc.) when they must be individuated, as in object naming, but more efficiently than artifacts when assigned to a superordinate category, as in superordinate categorization ( Riddoch and Humphreys, 1987 ; Price and Humphreys, 1989 ; Gerlach et al, 2000 ; Kiefer, 2001 ; Gale et al, 2006 ; Gerlach and Gainotti, 2016 ). In both cases, it has been hypothesized that the category-effects reflect that natural objects are more structurally similar than artifacts ( Humphreys et al, 1988 ; Gerlach, 2016 ); a suggestion clearly compatible with the notion that structural similarity is harmful for object individuation but beneficial for superordinate categorization.…”