See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245600343

Gender differences in selective attention: Evidence from a spatial orienting

task

Article  in  Journal of Vision · September 2005

DOI: 10.1167/5.8.1000

CITATIONS READS

5 8,505

7 authors, including:

Paul S Merritt Elliot Hirshman

Clemson University San Diego State University
17 PUBLICATIONS   506 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   2,635 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Whitney Wharton
Emory University
129 PUBLICATIONS   2,114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TransConnect View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul S Merritt on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This article was originally published in a journal published by
Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the
author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for
non-commercial research and educational use including without
limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s
administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without
limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,
or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s
website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
 Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

py
Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention

co
a,*
Paul Merritt , Elliot Hirshman b, Whitney Wharton b, Bethany Stangl b,
James Devlin a, Alan Lenz a
a
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi,
TX 78412, United States

al
b
Department of Psychology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States

Received 7 December 2006; received in revised form 8 January 2007; accepted 15 January 2007
Available online 23 March 2007
on
Abstract
rs

Selective attention is considered a central component of cognitive functioning. While a number of studies
have demonstrated gender differences in cognitive tasks, there has been little research conducted on gender
pe

differences in selective attention. There is limited empirical evidence that indicates males and females may
differ in selective attention. To explore this issue we present results from two experiments using a basic Pos-
ner cueing paradigm in which females show larger validity effects in endogenously cued tasks, but not with a
peripheral cue or exogenous cue. Specifically, we found that while females show costs from an invalid cue
relative to a no-cue control condition, males showed a benefit to invalid cues compared to no-cue control
conditions. This empirical finding has important implications for future studies using the Posner cueing
r's

paradigm. In addition, the possible contribute of gender differences in selective attention to other cognitive
gender differences is explored.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
o

Keywords: Gender differences; Selective attention; Spatial cueing

th
Au

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 361 825 2971; fax: +1 361 825 6098.
E-mail address: paul.merritt@tamucc.edu (P. Merritt).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.016
598 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

1. Introduction

The notion that selective attention is central to human performance has a well established his-
tory in experimental psychology (Posner & Peterson, 1990). In addition, individual differences be-
tween males and females have been demonstrated in a number of domains (Halpern, 2000).

py
Traditionally, males are shown to be superior at visual-spatial tasks (Collins & Kimura, 1997),
while females have a demonstrated advantage in verbal and episodic memory tasks (Herlitz, Nils-
son, & Bäckman, 1997). While females have been shown to suffer in tests of sustained attention
(Giambra & Quilter, 1989), the limited empirical research regarding gender differences in selective

co
attention thus far demonstrates this may be an important component of cognitive gender differ-
ences (Bayliss, di Pellegrino, & Tipper, 2005; Merritt et al., 2005). If there are gender differences in
selective attention, such differences may moderate or contribute to observed gender differences in
other tasks. For example, the ability to inhibit information (e.g. Hasher, Zachs, & May, 1999)
could play a role in the advantages females show on episodic memory tasks.

al
The question we address in the current study, is whether males and females differ in the mech-
anisms of selective attention. Specifically, we focus on a task in which participants attend to one
stimulus while ignoring another stimulus. Tasks in which subjects attend differentially to attri-
on
butes of a single stimulus (e.g. Stroop Tasks) may share mechanisms with more traditional selec-
tive attention tasks, but they may also involve more complex mechanisms, so we do not focus on
these tasks here.
rs

A primary measure used in studies of visual selective attention is reaction time (RT). In this
context, selective attention results are often described in terms of the costs (increased RT) and
benefits (decreased RT) associated with selective attention (Jonides & Mack, 1984). Benefits usu-
pe

ally accrue to an attended stimulus, while costs can arise when one must respond to a previously
ignored stimulus. For example, in spatial orientation tasks benefits are derived from valid cues
(i.e. the correct location is cued) but costs are incurred from invalid cues (an incorrect location
is cued) (Posner, 1980).
Here we examine whether males and females differ in the benefits or costs associated with selec-
tive attention. Males and females might differ in processing of an attended stimulus and therefore
r's

show differences in the benefits associated with a target stimulus. On the other hand, males and
females may process an attended stimulus similarly but differ in how to-be-ignored information
is processed. In the latter case, males and females might differ in the costs associated with selective
o

attention. A limited set of studies have addressed this issue. One study has shown that females
show increased costs from an ambiguous cue relative to a valid cue in a spatial orienting task
th

(Robinson & Kertzman, 1990), in a pilot study we observed females to show larger validity effects
for symbolic cues (Merritt et al., 2005), and in another study females were shown to exhibit larger
validity effects for symbolic cues, but not peripheral cues (Bayliss et al., 2005). In a related study,
Au

Jiang, Costello, Fang, Huan, and He (2006) show that both gender and sexual orientation may
contribute to selective attention based on the type of information presented. They show that sub-
liminal erotic images can influence the allocation of attention based on type of image, gender and
sexual orientation. Finally, one study indicates males and females do not differ in spatial or iden-
tity negative priming (Koshino, Boese, & Ferraro, 2000). Together, these results suggest that
males and females may differ in allocation of selective attention.
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 599

2. Experiment 1

To explore gender differences in selective attention, we examined data from a spatial orienting
task (Filoteo et al., 1997) in which participants are presented with an endogenous visual cue (e.g.
an arrow) that directs their attention to one of four locations within the visual field. Following a

py
variable interval, a target is presented at one of the four spatial locations and the participant indi-
cates (via key press) when they detect the target. The cue can be valid (pointing towards the loca-
tion where the target will appear) or invalid (pointing towards one of the alternative locations).
RTs are faster for valid cues than invalid cues (Posner, 1980). The validity effect (invalid RT–valid

co
RT) is a measure of the cost of orienting to an incorrect location, relative to the benefit of orient-
ing to a correct location (Jonides, 1980). Examining performance when participants orient to a
correctly cued location in comparison to a no-cue control condition provides a measure of the
benefits of selective attention. Examining performance when participants orient to an incorrectly
cued location in comparison to a no-cue control condition provides a measure of the costs of

al
selective attention.
Some accounts of selective attention hold that the increased RT from an invalid endogenous
cue occurs because participants must disengage from the cued location and redirect their attention
on
to the location of the target (Posner, 1980). Others have argued that participants de-select the
alternative locations by actively inhibiting their representation (Goldsmith & Yeari, 2003) and
the RT cost is then incurred because of these inhibitory processes.
rs

To explore the temporal extent of these costs and benefits, we also manipulated the time between
the presentation of the cue and the appearance of the target (stimulus-onset asynchrony, SOA).
This manipulation provides a measure of the temporal dynamics of selective attention and previous
pe

studies have demonstrated differential effects across SOAs (Posner, 1980). Typically, validity effects
demonstrate an inverted u-shaped function with effects emerging at relatively short SOAs (e.g. 50–
100 ms), peaking around 300–500 ms and decreasing at longer SOAs (Filoteo et al., 1997).

3. Method
r's

3.1. Participants
o

Data was collected from 73 Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi undergraduates (20 males)
who participated for extra credit. TAMUCC is a Hispanic serving institution located in South
th

Texas serving a large number of non-traditional students. Data was only included for students
aged 18–35, with an average age of 24.15 (SEM = 1.02) for males and 23.92 (SEM = .58) for
females.
Au

3.2. Apparatus

All stimuli were presented using a Dell Optiplex GX1p. RT data were collected via a PST-Net
Serial Response Box. Stimuli were presented and data collected using E-Prime following the sug-
gested reaction time data protocols.
600 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

3.3. Stimuli

Participants were presented with a fixation point and four boxes located to the left, right, above
and below fixation (see Filoteo et al., 1997). Each box was located 4.5 of visual angle from fix-
ation and subtended 4.5 by 4.5. The target (*) was presented in the center of one of the locations

py
and subtended 1. For cued trials, an endogenous cue consisting of an arrow pointing in one of
the four directions was presented at fixation. A total of 288 trials were presented, with 240 cued
trials and 48 trials with no cue (control trials). For cued trials, the cue pointed to the location of
the target (valid cue) on 80% of trials, and to an alternative location (invalid cue) on 20% of trials.

co
3.4. Procedure

All sessions were conducted in the morning between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. to control for time of
day effects as a potential confound.

al
Participants were seated approximately 57 cm from the monitor and made all responses using
their preferred hand. Participants were instructed to press a button as soon as they detected the
target and that the target would appear in one of four boxes. The instructions indicated that they
on
were to respond as soon as they detected the target. The full set of trials was then presented in
random order.
Each trial began with the four boxes and central fixation point presented for 500 ms. For cued
rs

trials, the cue then appeared for 150, 250, 500 or 1000 ms stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). For
control trials the screen remained unchanged for all four SOAs until the target was presented. The
target remained on the screen until the participant responded.
pe

4. Results

4.1. Data analysis

r's

We began by eliminating anticipatory responses by excluding trials with RT < 100 ms. Males
and females did not differ in the number of anticipatory responses (p > .50). For each participant
we computed the geometric mean RT for each trial type and SOA which are shown in Fig. 1. RT
o

data is generally skewed due to the presence of outliers, geometric means have been shown to suf-
ficiently account for skewness in RT data (Snodgrass, Levy-Berger, & Haydon, 1985) and are cal-
th

culated by taking the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithm of RTs. While median
RT is often used to account for outliers, median RT has been shown to be biased in designs with
an unequal number of trials across conditions (Miller, 1988).
Au

4.2. Validity effect

Validity effects (invalid RT–valid RT) were calculated for all participants for each SOA which
were submitted to a 2 · 4 (gender · SOA) mixed-analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Gender
(males vs. females) as a between-subjects factor and SOA (150 vs. 250 vs. 500 vs. 1000 ms) as a
within-subjects factor. The most important finding from this analysis was a significant main effect
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 601

py
co
al
on
rs

Fig. 1. Mean RTs for males (left panels) and females (right panels) for control, valid and invalid trials in the
endogenous cue task.
pe

of gender (F(1, 71) = 7.85, p = .007, g2 = .10) in which females show greater validity effects
(M = 53.95, SEM =3.60) than males (M = 34.65, SEM = 5.86). As shown in Fig. 2, this effect
was qualified by a significant interaction with SOA [F(3, 213) = 3.74, p = .01, g2 = .05].
o r's
th
Au

Fig. 2. Mean validity effects in Experiment 1 for males (squares) and females (circles) across the four SOAs. * indicates
a significant difference between males and females, p < .05.
602 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

4.3. Mean RT

A 2 · 3 · 4 (gender · trial type · SOA) mixed-ANOVA was conducted on mean RTs (see
Fig. 1). A three-way interaction between gender, trial type and SOA [F(6, 426) = 2.58, p = .02,
g2 = .04] was found. A significant effect of gender was also found [F(1, 71) = 15.18, p < .001,
g2 = .18], with males showing reduced RTs (M = 279.50, SEM = 13.36), compared to females

py
(M = 340.45, SEM = 8.20). Main effects of Trial Type [F(2, 142) = 125.86, p < .001, g2 = .64;
valid < invalid = control] and SOA [F(3, 213) = 49.01, p < .001, g2 = .41; 150 > 250 > 500 =
1000] were also found.

co
To further explore the interaction between Gender, Trial Type and SOA we conducted separate
ANOVAs for each gender. All main effects and interactions were significant (ps < .01), the most
important and rather surprising finding was that while our female participants showed a typical
cueing pattern (valid < control < invalid, ps < .02) our males showed a cueing benefit to invalid
cues compared to the no-cue control (valid < invalid < control, ps < .01). Given this pattern of re-

al
sults it is clear that the results from the validity effects are not due to faster responses by our male
participants, as this shows a qualitatively different pattern of responses for males compared to
females.
on
Our core finding that males and females show differential responses to a basic Posner cueing
paradigm has significant implications for research in this field. Given the large number of studies
conducted using this type of cueing task, this is an important empirical observation which may
rs

constrain the interpretation of studies utilizing this procedure.

Thus far we have limited testing to an endogenous cue task. Traditionally, this task is thought
to reflect voluntary shifts of attention. In order to determine whether our results are limited to
pe

voluntary shifts in attention, we conducted another experiment with both an endogenous cued
task and a peripheral or exogenous cued task.

5. Experiment 2
r's

A central component of theories of visual selective attention refers to how participants respond
to different cue types in spatial orienting tasks. Endogenous cues are assumed to elicit voluntary
shifts in attention, whereas exogenous cues are thought to involve automatic processes. Both here
o

and in previous studies, gender differences have been observed only for endogenously cued spatial
orienting tasks using both informative and non-informative cues (Bayliss et al., 2005). Bayliss et al
th

specifically tested endogenous versus exogenous cues and found no evidence of gender differences
using exogenous cues, but found females show larger validity effects using non-informative central
arrow and eye gaze cues. Given this potentially revealing limitation, further investigation of
Au

whether gender differences are limited to endogenous cues may provide theoretical constraints
to these observed differences. It is possible that these empirical findings are due to some voluntary
difference in attention such as performance strategy (Decaix, Sieroff, & Bartolomeo, 2002).
Another important consideration is whether or not observed gender differences are due to dif-
ferential inhibition of non-cued locations. Inhibitory accounts of spatial orienting argue that when
participants are cued to one location, they actively inhibit representation of the uncued locations
(Rafal & Henik, 1994). As a first step in investigating inhibitory accounts we included an inhibi-
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 603

tion-of-return (IOR) task. In peripherally cued tasks valid cues result in increased RTs at later
(e.g. greater than 300 ms) SOAs because participants shift attention to non-cued locations and in-
hibit the cued location.
To test these potential explanations we tested participants with the same endogenously cued
task from Experiment 1 as well as a peripherally cued task. If a gender difference is observed

py
in the peripheral task this would provide evidence that our findings are not limited to voluntary
shifts of attention. A null result can also be revealing and provide theoretical constraints on these
findings. In addition, we constrained participation in the study to eliminate potential influences of
other gender co-variates such as attention deficit disorder, previous concussive head injury and

co
substance abuse.

6. Method

al
6.1. Participants

Data was collected from 70 undergraduates (35 male) at TAMUCC who participated as part of
on
a larger study examining physical fitness and cognition. Participants completed a virtual Morris
Water Maze task as well as a mental rotation task in addition to the spatial orienting tasks. All
participants were right handed, 18–35, and reported no major illness, history of ADD/ADHD or
rs

concussion, consumption of no more than two alcoholic drinks per day and no psychoactive drug
use. Participants received $25 compensation for completing the study.
pe

6.2. Stimuli – peripheral cue task

The stimuli used were identical to those used in the endogenous cue task with the exception of
the type of cue presented and the number of trials. For the peripheral cue task, a circle appeared
within the location where the target would appear (valid trials), at an alternative location (invalid
trials) or at fixation (neutral cue trials). The cue appeared for 50 ms and the target appeared 150,
r's

250, 500, or 1000 ms following cue onset. A total of 336 trials were presented, 48 with a neutral
cue, 144 valid cues and 144 invalid cue trials.
o

6.3. Procedure
th

All participants completed an initial pre-enrollment evaluation during which they gave in-
formed consent and completed a series of questionnaires focusing on the exclusion criteria and
a number of fitness/health measures. Participants meeting the requirements for the study were
Au

scheduled for a test session, and instructed to fast on the morning of testing.
All test sessions were conducted in the morning between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m. to control for po-
tential time of day effects on gender differences. Upon arrival, each participant was given a light
breakfast. Participants were then given a series of cognitive tasks to complete, including the spa-
tial orienting tasks. Upon completion of the cognitive testing, each participant completed a series
of physical fitness/health assessments including measurement of height, weight, body fat, blood
pressure, and resting heart rate.
604 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

In the spatial orienting tasks, participants were seated approximately 57 cm from the computer
monitor and made all responses using their right hand. For both spatial orienting tasks, partici-
pants were given the same instructions as Experiment 1. The full set of trials was then presented in
random order. The order of tasks was counterbalanced within each gender.

py
7. Results and discussion

7.1. Data analysis

co
Procedures for analyzing data were identical to those followed in Experiment 1. For both tasks,
males and females did not differ in the number of anticipatory responses (ps > .20).

7.2. Endogenous cue task

al
7.2.1. Validity effect
Validity effects were scored and evaluated using the same analysis as Experiment 1. The most
on
important finding from this analysis was significant main effect of gender [F(1, 68) = 5.96, p = .02,
g2 = .08] in which females show greater validity effects (M = 46.36, SEM = 3.81) than males
(M = 33.19, SEM = 3.81) as seen in Fig. 3. A significant effect of SOA [F(3, 204) = 3.35,
p = .02, g2 = .05] was found while no interaction between gender and SOA was detected
rs

[F(3, 204) = 1.69, p = .17, g2 = .02].

pe

7.2.2. Mean RT
As before, a 2 · 3 · 4 (gender · trial type · SOA) mixed-ANOVA was conducted on mean RTs
(see Fig. 1). Importantly, no significant effect of gender was found [F(1, 68) = 2.16, p = .15,
g2 = .03]. However, a significant gender · trial type interaction was found [F(2, 136) = 9.32,
p < .001, g2 = .12]. Main effects of trial type [F(2,136) = 162.52, p < .001, g2 = .71; valid <
o r's
th
Au

Fig. 3. Mean validity effects from Experiment 2 for the endogenously cued task for males (squares) and females (circles)
across the four SOAs. * indicates a significant difference between males and females, p < .05.
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 605

invalid < control] and SOA [F(3, 204) = 79.02, p < .001, g2 = .54; 150 > 250 > 500 > 1000] were
also found.
To further explore the interaction between Gender and Trial type we conducted separate
ANOVAs for each gender. For males, main effects of Trial Type [F(2, 68) = 83.31, p < .001,
g2 = .71], SOA [F(3, 102) = 40.35, p < .001, g2 = .54] and a significant interaction were found
[F(6, 204) = 2.76, p = .01, g2 = .08]. As in Experiment 1, our males showed a cueing benefit to in-

py
valid cues compared to the no-cue control condition. For females, main effects of trial type
[F(2, 68) = 88.85, p < .001, g2 = .72] and SOA [F(3, 102) = 38.38, p < .001, g2 = .53] were found,
while no interaction was detected [F(6, 210) = 1.44, p = .20, g2 = .04]. Females again show a ben-

co
efit to a valid cue, but no difference between invalid cues no-cue control conditions.
While the endogenously cued results from Experiment 2 do not precisely mirror those of Exper-
iment 1, the core finding that males and females show differential responses to a basic Posner cue-
ing paradigm is once again replicated. Thus we show larger validity effects for females relative to
males. Furthermore, we also replicate the findings from Experiment 1 in which males show a ben-

al
efit from an invalid cue relative to a no-cue control condition.

7.3. Peripheral cue task

on
7.3.1. Validity effects
A 2 · 4 (gender · SOA) mixed-ANOVA was conducted on validity scores computed using the
rs

same procedure as the endogenous cue task. No main effect of gender was detected
[F(1, 68) = 2.43, p = .12, g2 = .04], while the interaction between Gender and SOA approached,
but did not reach the criterion for significance [F(3,204) = 2.30, p = .08, g2 = .033]. A main effect
pe

of SOA was found in which validity effects at early SOAs (150 and 250 ms) were greater than at
later SOAs (500 and 1000 ms).
Given the relatively weak inhibition-of-return we were able to generate (see Fig. 4), we feel that
there is some caution in interpreting our results. Pilot testing indicated this task generated typical
inhibition-of-return at 500 and 1000 ms SOA. We do note however, that males did show greater
o r's
th
Au

Fig. 4. Mean validity effects from Experiment 2 for the exogenous cue for males (squares) and females (circles) across
the four SOAs. * indicates a significant difference between males and females, p < .05.
606 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

py
co
Fig. 5. Mean RTs for males (left panel) and females (right panel) for control, valid and invalid trials in the exogenous
cue task from Experiment 2.

al
overall IOR at 500 ms, and closer examination of our results show that 22 out of 35 males show
on
IOR at 500 ms, while only 17 females show IOR.

7.3.2. Mean RT
rs

For the record, we present the full set of RT results in Fig. 5. We conducted a 2 · 3 · 4 (gen-
der · trial type · SOA) mixed-ANOVA. Significant effects of SOA [F(3, 204) = 58.04, p < .001,
g2 = .46] and a trial type · SOA interaction [F(6, 408) = 5.18, p < .001, g2 = .07] were found, while
pe

no other significant effects were detected (ps > .11).

8. Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to explore whether males and females differ in selective
r's

attention. Indeed, the core empirical finding shown is that males and females show differential re-
sponses in an endogenously cued visual selective attention task. While both males and females
were shown to benefit from valid cues, females show increased costs to an invalid cue and while
o

males benefit from an invalid cue compared to no-cue control condition. This demonstrates a un-
ique qualitative difference in how males and females respond to a selective attention task.
th

According to traditional accounts of endogenously cued spatial orienting, participants volun-

tarily shift their attention to the cued location (Jonides, 1981). Reaction times are faster for validly
cued trials due to the allocation of visual attention to the target location. Our results demonstrate
Au

that males and females benefit from this shift of attention during validly cued trials across all SOA
conditions. Given the pervasive presence of this task in the experimental literature, future research
should consider whether individual differences such as gender are related to experimental findings.
An important consideration for future research will be to determine whether or not males and fe-
males adopt differential strategies for responding to symbolic cues in these tasks. For example,
males might pay less attention to the cues and focus on target detection but still demonstrate a
typical validity effect (see Decaix et al., 2002).
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 607

The predominant theoretical explanation of spatial orienting effects has been Posner’s atten-
tional networks (Posner & Peterson, 1990). This widely supported account holds that there are
three brain networks responsible for visual attention. The alerting system, orienting system and
executive control system contribute to different effects seen in selective attention. The alerting sys-
tem is a primitive system which serves to increase alerting to expect an incoming stimulus con-

py
trolled by a network of brain regions including the right frontal areas, right parietal lobe and
the locus coeruleus (Berger & Posner, 2000). Increases in phasic alerting are demonstrated by re-
duced RTs but often higher error rates. The orienting system is responsible for selecting a location
based on cues and then in the case of an invalid cue, disengaging from the cued location and then

co
directing attention towards the target location. Imaging studies demonstrate that shifting atten-
tion activates the parietal lobe and occulomotor areas (Corbetta, 1998). The executive control
center is thought to be involved in endogenous, but not exogenous cueing and is controlled by
midline frontal areas, the anterior cingulate and the basal ganglia (Posner & DiGirolamo, 1998).
A central concern for future research will be determining which brain systems are involved in

al
the gender differences shown here. For example, Festa-Martino, Ott, and Heindel (2004) found
that in Alzheimer’s disease patients, changes in cueing effects were attributable to a change in pha-
sic alerting. Given the pattern of results shown here, a difference in phasic alerting is unlikely. It is
on
possible however that males are faster at disengaging from an invalidly cued location and redirect-
ing towards the target location and there is evidence for gender differences in parietal lobe struc-
tures associated with shifts in attention (Frederikse, Lu, Aylward, Barta, & Pearlson, 1999).
rs

Finally, males and females may differ in using executive functions to direct attention. There is evi-
dence that the executive control center is affected by ADHD (Berger & Posner), a disorder which
is far more common in males than females (Pineda et al., 1999). Further research is needed to
pe

delineate how such networks may contribute to the gender differences described here.
In contrast, inhibitory accounts of spatial orienting argue that when participants are cued to
one location, they actively inhibit representation of the uncued locations (Rafal & Henik,
1994). If males suffer from a deficit in inhibition of uncued locations, they would show reduced
costs to an invalid cue because they do not have to recover as much from the inhibition of the
uncued locations. Thus, an inhibition deficit for males may result in an advantage for males in
r's

some tests of selective attention. While the results from our peripherally cued task lean away from
this explanation (see also Bayliss et al., 2005), further research is necessary to fully eliminate this
possibility.
o

In a larger context, the question arises as to whether other cognitive gender differences may be
in part mediated by selective attention mechanisms. Given the relatively large effect sizes shown
th

here, it is likely that gender differences in selective attention may be implicated in other cognitive
gender differences. For example, inhibition has been shown to play a role in episodic memory
tasks (Hasher et al., 1999) in which females traditionally demonstrate an advantage (Herlitz
Au

et al., 1997). Similarly, males might show advantages in a range of visual-spatial tasks because
uncued locations would not be inhibited, facilitating the processing of stimuli in these locations.
In the context of these provocative implications, several important caveats should be noted.
First, endogenous spatial orienting is thought to be a voluntary process as opposed to automatic
processes associated with exogenous cues. Further research will be necessary to determine whether
our findings are limited to voluntary shifts of attention. In any case, our results demonstrate an
important generate difference in the costs associated with spatial cuing.
608 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609

References

Bayliss, A., di Pellegrino, G., & Tipper, S. (2005). Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 631–650.
Berger, A., & Posner, M. (2000). Pathologies of brain attentional networks. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 24,
3–5.

py
Collins, D. W., & Kimura, D. (1997). A large sex difference on a two-dimensional mental rotation task. Behavioral
Neuroscience, 111(4), 845–849.
Corbetta, M. (1998). Fronto-parietal cortical networks for directing attention and eye to visual locations: Identical,
independent or overlapping neural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 831–838.

co
Decaix, C., Sieroff, E., & Bartolomeo, P. (2002). How voluntary is ‘voluntary’ orienting of attention? Cortex, 38,
841–845.
Festa-Martino, E., Ott, B. R., & Heindel, W. (2004). Interactions between phasic alerting and spatial orienting: Effects
of normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 18, 258–268.
Filoteo, J. V., Delis, D. C., Salmon, D. P., Demadura, T., Roman, M. J., & Shults, C. W. (1997). An examination of the
nature of attentional deficits in patients with Parkinson’s disease: Evidence from a spatial orienting task. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 337–347.

al
Frederikse, M. E., Lu, A., Aylward, E., Barta, P., & Pearlson, G. (1999). Sex differences in the inferior parietal lobule.
Cerebral Cortex, 9, 896–901.
Giambra, L. M., & Quilter, R. E. (1989). Sex differences in sustained attention across the adult life span. Journal of
on
Applied Psychology, 74, 91–95.
Goldsmith, M., & Yeari, M. (2003). Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and
exogenous orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 897–918.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
rs

Hasher, L., Zachs, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A.
Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and
application. Attention and performance (pp. 653–675). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
pe

Herlitz, A., Nilsson, L. G., & Bäckman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory. Memory and Cognition, 25,
801–811.
Jiang, Y., Costello, P., Fang, F., Huan, M., & He, S. (2006). A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial
attentional effect of invisible images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 17048–17052.
Jonides, J. (1980). Toward a model of the mind’s eye’s movement. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 103–112.
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention
and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
r's

Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29–44.
Koshino, H., Boese, G. A., & Ferraro, F. R. (2000). The relationship between cognitive ability and positive and
negative priming in identity and spatial priming tasks. The Journal of General Psychology, 127, 372–382.
Merritt, P., Hirshman, E., Wharton, W., Devlin, J., Stangl, B., Bennett, S., et al. (2005). Gender differences in selective
o

attention: Evidence from a spatial orienting task [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 5(8), 1000a.
Miller, J. (1988). A warning about median reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
th

Performance, 14, 539–543.

Pineda, D. A., Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., Arias, Beatriz E., Henao, G. C., Gomez, L. F., et al. (1999). Prevalence of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in 4- to 17-year-old children in the general population. Journal of
Au

Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 455–462.

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
Posner, M. I., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: Conflict, target detection and cognitive control. In R.
Parasuraman (Ed.), The attentional brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Posner, M. I., & Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13,
25–42.
Rafal, R. & Henik, A. (1994). The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and automatic processes. In D.
Dagenback & T.H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes.
 P. Merritt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 597–609 609

Robinson, D. L., & Kertzman, C. (1990). Visuospatial attention: Effects of age, gender and spatial reference.
Neuropsychologia, 28, 291–301.
Snodgrass, J. G., Levy-Berger, G., & Haydon, M. (1985). Human experimental psychology. London: Oxford University
Press.

py
co
al
on
rs
pe
o r's
th
Au

View publication stats