Evolution of sex differences in spatial cognition

Abstract

Psychological research has now clearly demonstrated that there is a significant difference between men and women in their performance on certain spatial tasks. Evidence further suggests that this difference has a neurological basis. This hypothesis is well enough established to have inspired several additional hypotheses concerning the evolutionary origin of the difference, including hypotheses emphasizing male hunting, female foraging, and male reproductive strategy. In this article we examine these hypotheses by placing them against the evidence for the neurological basis for the sex difference and the archaeological evidence for the evolution of spatial thinking in general. Given the probable source of the neurological difference in the timing of fetal testosterone, hypotheses that emphasize selection for female cognitive abilities are handicapped from the start. The hypotheses favoring male hunting and male reproductive strategy stumble when evaluated in light of the timing of the evolution of spatial cognition; archaeological evidence for the proposed selective behaviors and for the spatial abilities in question (e.g., mental rotation) do not correspond in a way that would permit a link between them. We conclude that none of the proposed adaptationist hypotheses fit the evidence as it currently exists, and that the modern sex difference in spatial cognition is almost certainly an evolutionary by-product of selection for optimal rates of fetal development. o

Sex differences in parietal lobe morphology: Relationship to mental rotation performance

“…Further evolutionary scenarios posit that selection occurs in females, where large ranges and energetic costs conflict with reproduction and maternal survival, thus the apparent, enhanced male performance in spatial ability may in part be due to a simultaneous selective decrease in female spatial ability necessary for long-range navigation to avoid the risks associated with a large territorial range, such as predation, and a selective increase in female spatial ability related to more detailed processing of immediate environments to maximize local resources (Ecuyer-Dab & Robert, 2004; Panter-Brick, 2002; Sherry & Hampson, 1997). Other theories have suggested that these sex differences may be due to male-male warfare (Buss & Shackelford, 1997), female-choice (Sherry & Hampson, 1997), or as by-products of selective pressures on the optimal rate of fetal development (Wynn, Tierson, & Palmer, 1996). …”

Sexual dimorphism using elliptical Fourier analysis: shape differences in the craniofacial complex

“…tissue components such as muscle and fat (Reynolds and Grote, 1948;Forbes, 1978; but see Davies, 1985), the corpus callosom (de Lacoste-Utamsing and Holloway, 1982; but see Ferrario et al, 1994Ferrario et al, , 1996a and even the soft tissue profile of the human face (Ferrario et al, 1995). Sex differences in the human brain and the nervous system, affecting cognition and temperament, may also be involved (Harris, 1985;Waber, 1985;Wynn et al, 1996). Sex differences may also be implicated in the endocrine response to emotional stimuli (Purifoy, 1981).…”

Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using “model artifacts”

“…Studies in psychology have shown that human males and females may differ (statistically) in their performance during tests of spatial perception and mental rotation tasks involving 2D objects (Halpern, 2000;Linn and Peterson, 1986;Voyer et al, 1995;Wynn et al, 1996) although it should be noted that such sex-related effects are also known to reduce substantially whenever 3D objects (rather than 2D representations) are used in such cognitive tests (Robert and Chevrier, 2003). For the purposes of precaution, however, we specifically controlled for sex differences by dividing participants between the alternate tool conditions such that there were equal numbers (i.e., 15 females and 15 males) in each condition.…”