Evolutionary Psychology,

Workshop 10:
Female
Advantage in Object Recall?

Learning Outcomes.
At the end of this session you should be able to:
1. Review evidence concerning a possible female
advantage in object recall.
2. Assess possible sex differences in incidental
memory for spatial locations.
3. Collate the results from the group and discuss the
results.
4. Carry out an individual test of location memory
using the computerised game 'Memory'.

Background.
Silverman & Eals (1992) and Eals & Silverman (1994)
found that females were better able to recall objects
and identify which objects had moved locations
within an array.
This was conducted using pictures of familiar
objects, pictures of uncommon objects, and real-life
familiar and unfamiliar objects.
Female performance was better when incidental
rather than directed recall was assessed especially
for object location memory (item-moved task).
Several criticisms have been put forward.

1. Sex-Typicality of the
Objects.
Some authors have pointed out that the sexes may
differ in attentional processing, particularly if the
objects to be remembered are thought to have
masculine, feminine or neutral characteristics.
McGivern et al., (1997) examined visual recognition
memory for stimuli which varied in terms of gender
relatedness.
Adults and children were presented with male-,
female- and random-oriented stimuli. After this they
received the same set of objects containing extra
items and had to identify the added items.
Females at all ages were more accurate on random
and female objects. Males performed no differently to
females on identifying male items.

Cherney & Ryalls (1999).

Children had to recognise

18
gender-stereotyped
toys, seen previously in a
playroom.
Adults had to recall and
identify the location of 30
gender-stereotyped
objects previously seen in
an office.
No
sex
differences
emerged in either study.
However,
males
and
females
better
remembered
toys
or
objects
that
were
congruent with their own
sex.

Cherney & Ryalls (1999) p 313

Gallagher (1998).
Common items were first rated on their degree of
masculinity or femininity. The 15 most masculine,
feminine, and neutral items were used.
30 males and 30 females (15 in directed, and undirected
conditions) were presented with an array of 33 objects
(11 masculine, feminine and neutral).
Following a distracter task they had to identify added
items, and items that had moved.
No sex differences emerged overall.
When divided into gender-types, males performed
better on masculine items while females performed
significantly better on feminine and neutral items.
There

were

no

differences

directed learning conditions.

between

incidental

or

Possible Explanations?
1. The feminine objects may have been more
distinctive.
24 new participants were shown pictures of all 45
items and rated them on their distinctiveness.
The most and least distinctive items that changed
position in the item-moved task were feminine objects.
2. It is possible that it may be easier to detect a
greater change in overall position than a small change.
The average distance moved for each item was also
calculated. The feminine items moved significantly
further than either masculine or neutral items.

Neave et al., (1999).

60 new participants (30 male, 30 female) carried out
an item-moved task in which items exchanged
places with other gender-specific items (i.e. female
item-female item swaps).
Item distinctiveness and distance moved were
controlled.
All participants performed this experiment under
directed conditions.
No sex differences were found, but there were clear
effects of distance, as items that moved furthest
were identified more easily by both sexes.

2. Verbalisation of the
Objects.
Chipman & Kimura (1999) pointed out that object recall
tasks use stimuli which is heavily verbal in nature and a
female advantage in verbal ability is often reported.
In their study male and female students performed
several incidental and directed tests of object memory
using verbal and non-verbal stimuli.
A female advantage emerged under both conditions but
no sex difference emerged when using objects that
were less easy to code verbally.
Lewin et al., (2001) reported that females performed
better on tasks requiring verbal processing, the sexes
did not differ in tests where verbalisation was not
possible, and males performed better on tasks
requiring visuospatial processing.

Verbalisation (continued).
Epting & Overman (1998) argued that the stimuli
used by Eals & Silverman (1994) resembled
mechanical parts and could easily be given verbal
labels (e.g. 'axle', 'sieve', 'piston' etc), using this
version of the task they failed to find a sex difference.

Eals & Silverman,

1994, p99

3. How the Objects are

Moved.
James & Kimura (1997) pointed out that in previous
studies items are swapped with another item so the
overall pattern of the array does not alter.
Shifting items to previously unfilled areas would
change the appearance of the array.
They administered either a location-exchange or a
location-shift task to males and females.
Females outperformed males on the location-exchange
task (as in the Silverman & Eals 1992 study) but there
were no sex differences in the location-shift task.
If females are better able to recall the location of
objects within an array then they should outperform
males on all object recall tasks, but they clearly don't.

Location Shift Versus

Location Exchange.

From James &

Kimura, 1997 p161

4. Violation of Domain
Specificity?
A key concept of evolutionary psychology is that the
human cognitive architecture consists of a set of
adaptations which are functionally specialised
(domain specific) to solve specific problems.
If
human
females
evolved
object
location
mechanisms to locate plants and recall their
position, then such abilities would not perhaps
generalise to pictures of gender stereotypical
objects manufactured within the past hundred or so
years.
The use of pencil-and-paper tests lack ecological
validity.

Ecologically-Valid
Studies.
Neave et al (2000) tested the 'Gathering Hypothesis'
using the identification of real plants within
naturalistic arrays.
In 3 indoor tasks, and 2 outdoor tasks, participants
were firstly shown a target plant.
They then had to locate examples of the target in an
array of other plants.
Females recalled the locations of the stimuli faster
than males and made fewer errors.
However, this study was simply concerned with
recognition ability.

Example of the Test Stimuli

Target

Array containing 6 targets

Time Taken to Locate Target

Plants
in an Indoor Array.

time (s)

160
140
120
100
80
60
40

**

20
0
A

C
Plant

Tot

males
females

Correct Number of Target Plants

Located in the Outdoor Array.
*P<0.05

males
females

correct /6

5
4
3
2
1
0

Neave et al., (2001) Study.

Participants viewed a target surrounded by 5 other
plants (attention was not drawn to these incidental
targets).
5 examples of the target had to be found in a large
array (object recognition).
Following a delay, the same examples had to be found
again (object location memory).
Finally, they were asked to identify the incidental
exemplars within the array (incidental recognition).
The sexes did not differ in the time taken to recognise
the targets, though females were faster.
Following the delay, females were significantly quicker
at re-locating the same targets.
There was no sex difference in incidental recall.

Results.

Males
Recognition
sec
Object location
Incidental recognition /5

Females
69.7 sec
61.3

47.7 sec
2.0

34.3 sec
2.3

Summary of Ecologically-Valid
Studies
There is some evidence for a small female
superiority in plant recognition.
This is unlikely to be due to a speed/accuracy tradeoff as females tend to be quicker and more accurate.
Females do appear to have a clearer advantage in
object recall.
We found no evidence of an incidental advantage for
females.
This preliminary data provides some support for the
Gathering Hypothesis.
More ecologically-driven methodologies are required
in this field of research.

Tasks.
1. Silverman & Eals (1992) object recall task.
You each presented 2 males and 2 females with the
initial array and then gave them the item-added
task, and item-moved task.
We will collate data from each person and discuss
the results.
2. 'Memory' task.
We
will
assess
sex
differences
using
the
computerised game 'Memory' as described by
McGivern et al., (1997).

Results from this Session

Object Location task
Participants

Correct Items Added / 20

Correct Items Moved / 14

MALES (N=40)

15.32

7.85

FEMALES (N=48)

16.33

8.35

Memory Game
Number of Misses

Time Taken (s)

MALES (N=12)

100.75

360.67

FEMALES (N=41)

93.75

340.12

References.

Cherney, I.D., & Ryalls, B.O. (1999). Gender-linked differences in

the incidental memory of children and adults. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 72: 305-328.
Chipman, K., & Kimura, D. (1998). An investigation of sex
differences on incidental memory for verbal and pictorial
material. Learning and Individual Differences, 10: 259-272.
Epting, L.K., & Overman, W.H. (1998). Sex-sensitive tasks in men
and women: a search for performance fluctuations across the
menstrual cycle. Behavioural Neuroscience, 112: 1304-1317.

Gallagher, P. (1998). The effects of item gender-stereotypes on the recall

of object arrays. Undergaduate dissertation, Northumbria University.

James, T.W., & Kimura, D. (1996). Sex differences in

remembering the locations of objects in an array: location-shifts
versus location-exchanges. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 18:
155-163.

References (continued).

Lewin, C., Wolgers, G., & Herlitz, A. (2001). Sex differences favouring
women in verbal but not in visuospatial episodic memory.
Neuropsychology, 15: 165-173.
McGivern, R.F., Huston, J.P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegle, G.J., & Reilly, J.
(1997). Sex differences in visual recognition memory: support for sexrelated difference in attention in adults and children. Brain and
Cognition, 34: 323-336.
Neave, N., Gallagher, P., & Hamilton, C. (1999). Female advantage in
object recall? Some methodological considerations. Proceedings of the
British Psychological Society, 7: 133.
Neave, N., Hamilton, C., Hutton, L., Tildesley, N., Gallagher, P., &
Pickering, A.T. (2001). A female advantage in plant recognition and
plant location memory: some preliminary observations of object
location memory within an ecological context. Unpublished
manuscript.
Neave, N., Hamilton, C., Hutton, L., Gallagher, P., & Pickering, A.
(2000). Female advantage in location memory using ecologically valid
measures. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 8: 40.