Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sex differences in favor of males have been documented in measures of spatial perspective taking. In this research, we examined whether social factors (i.e., stereotype threat and the inclusion of human figures in tasks) account for these differences. In Experiment 1, we evaluated performance when perspective-taking tests were framed as measuring either spatial or social (empathetic) perspective-taking abilities. In the spatial condition, tasks were framed as measures of spatial ability on which males have an advantage. In the social condition, modified tasks contained human figures and were framed as measures of empathy on which females have an advantage. Results showed a sex difference in favor of males in the spatial condition but not the social condition. Experiments 2 and 3 indicated that both stereotype threat and including human figures contributed to these effects. Results suggest that females may underperform on spatial tests in part because of negative performance expectations and the character of the spatial tests rather than because of actual lack of abilities.

Keywords

spatial ability perspective taking individual differences stereotype threat gender open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achim

A. M.

Guitton

Jackson

P. L.

Boutin

Monetta

(2013). On what ground do we mentalize? Characteristics of current tasks and sources of information that contribute to mentalizing judgments. Psychological Assessment, 25, 117–126.

Amorim

M.-A.

(2003). “What is my avatar seeing?”: The coordination of “out-of-body” and “embodied” perspectives for scene recognition across views. Visual Cognition, 10, 157–199.

Baron-Cohen

(2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 248–254.

Baron-Cohen

Wheelwright

Skinner

Martin

Clubley

(2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.

Beilock

S. L.

Rydell

R. J.

McConnell

A. R.

(2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 256–276.

Dar-Nimrod

Heine

S. J.

(2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435.

Fields

A. W.

Shelton

A. L.

(2006). Individual skill differences and large-scale environmental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 506–515.

Frith

(2010). The social brain: Allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 165–176.

Hamilton

Brindley

Frith

(2009). Visual perspective taking impairment in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Cognition, 113, 37–44.

10.

Hegarty

Waller

(2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175–191.

11.

Humphreys

L. G.

Lubinski

Yao

(1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250–261.

12.

Kaiser

Walther

Nennig

Kronmüller

Mundt

Weisbrod

. . . Vogeley

(2008). Gender-specific strategy use and neural correlates in a spatial perspective taking task. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2524–2531.

13.

Kessler

Wang

(2012). Spatial perspective taking is an embodied process, but not for everyone in the same way: Differences predicted by sex and social skills score. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 12, 133–158.

14.

Linn

Peterson

A. C.

(1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.

15.

McGlone

M. S.

Aronson

(2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 486–493.

16.

Meneghetti

Pazzaglia

De Beni

(2012). Which spatial abilities and strategies predict males’ and females’ performance in the object perspective test? Cognitive Processing, 13, 267–270.

17.

Michelon

Zacks

J. M.

(2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 327–337.

18.

Moè

Pazzaglia

(2006). Following the instructions!: Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 369–377.

19.

Money

Alexander

Walker

H. T.

(1965). A standardized road-map test of direction sense: Manual. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

20.

Pezzulo

Iodice

Ferraina

Kessler

(2013). Shared action spaces: A basis function framework for social re-calibration of sensorimotor representations supporting joint action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 800. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00800

21.

Piaget

Inhelder

(1948). The child’s conception of space. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

22.

Ruby

Decety

(2004). How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of -perspective-taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 988–999.

23.

Schmader

Johns

(2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.

24.

Schober

M. F.

(1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.

25.

Shelton

A. L.

Clements-Stephens

A. M.

Lam

W. Y.

Pak

D. M.

Murray

A. J.

(2011). Should social savvy equal good spatial skills? The interaction of social skills with spatial perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 199–205.

26.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

27.

Surtees

Apperly

Samson

(2013). Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes. Cognition, 129, 426–438.

28.

Surtees

A. D.

Noordzij

M. L.

Apperly

I. A.

(2012). Sometimes losing your self in space: Children’s and adults’ spontaneous use of multiple spatial reference frames. Developmental Psychology, 48, 185–191.

29.

Tversky

Hard

B. M.

(2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129.

30.

Uttal

D. H.

Meadow

N. G.

Tipton

Hand

L. L.

Alden

A. R.

Warren

Newcombe

N. S.

(2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402. doi:10.1037/a0028446

31.

Voyer

Bryden

M. P.

(1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.

32.

Wraga

Duncan

Jacobs

E. C.

Helt

Church

(2006). Stereotype susceptibility narrows the gender gap in imagined self-rotation performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 813–819.

33.

Zacks

J. M.

Mires

Tversky

Hazeltine

(2002). Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2, 315–332.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.59 MB