Sex Differences in Simple Visual Reaction Time: A Historical Meta-Analysis

Abstract

To test the hypothesis that the magnitude of sex differences in simple visual reaction time (RT) has narrowed across time, a meta-analysis was conducted on 72 effect sizes derived from 21 studies (n = 15, 003) published over a 73-year period. The analysis provided strong evidence for the hypothesized change. In addition, the analysis indicated that the sex difference in RT was on average smaller with non-U.S. samples than with U.S. samples. No relation was found between the magnitude of the sex difference in RT and age or presence vs. absence of a warning signal. Two factors-participation in fast-action sports and driving-are proposed as having been responsible for the decrease in the magnitude of the sex differences in simple visual RT across time.Perusal of the records for timed sports events reveals two progressions over the course of the past century. One is that the winning times decreased for both men and women. The other is the rate of decrease was greater for women than men. Illustrative of these trends are the winning times for the 100-m run in the Olympic Games (World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2003). For women, this event was introduced into the Olympics in 1928; therefore, I will use this year as the base year to compare the two sexes. In that year, the winning time was 10.8 s for men and 12.2 s for women, a difference of 1.4 s. In 2000, the winning time for men was 9.84 and 10.75 s for women, a difference of .91 s. Thus, over this 72-year period, the winning times decreased by 8.9% for men and 18.9% for women, and the difference between the two sexes decreased by 64.5%. Of further note is that the winning time for women in 1928 was only .2 s slower than the winning time for men in 1896 and that the winning time for women in

An Exploratory Study on the Relationship between Creativity and Processing Speed for Gifted Children

“…In line with prior studies (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006;Feingold, 1992;Longman et al, 2007;Majeres, 2007;Reynolds et al, 1987;Sheppard & Vernon, 2008;Silverman, 2006;Wechsler, 1997), our findings indicated that gifted girls were significantly better than gifted boys in processing speed which was measured through WISC-R Coding subtest. Although the findings of this study together with those of previous research might confirm female superiority in processing speed, we have no theoretical explanations for these differences.…”

“…Although findings vary based on the type of tasks used, women are found to be faster on tests of processing speed including the digit and symbol coding task of the Wechsler tests (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006;Feingold, 1992;Longman, Saklofske, & Fung, 2007;Majeres, 2007;Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & MacLean, 1987;Sheppard & Vernon, 2008;Silverman, 2006;Wechsler, 1997). For example, Longman et al (2007) studied gender differences on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale -III index scores in the American (n= 2450) and Canadian (n= 1104) standardization samples.…”

How does a collision warning system shape driver's brake response time? The influence of expectancy and automation complacency on real-life emergency braking

“…Gender and age were not significant, which is in contrast with previous research on absolute RT that found faster movement time for male and young drivers (e.g., Schweitzer et al, 1995;Welford, 1977), but corroborate more recent hypotheses that it is the covariate of actual driving experience that impacts more on overall BRT in real-life driving, rather than the absolute value of being young/old, male/female drivers (Olson and Sivak, 1986;Silverman, 2006). Moreover, the visibility and driving condition used in this test were not critical, and so the eventual differences that can be generated by different exposure to driving usually related to gender and age, were probably not highlighted in this type of tests.…”

The visual reaction time distribution in the tasks with different demands on information processing

“…However, this reliability is similar or better as compared with reliability of other computerized RT tests involved in the neuropsychological test batteries as the ImPact with 1 week testretest reliability ICC = .78-.88 in young adults subjects (Resch et al, 2013), the ANAM battery with 1 week test-rest reliability r = .29-.46, and ICC = .24-.38 in the adolescents (Segalowitz et al, 2007), and the Cogsport tests with 2 weeks test-retest reliability ICC = .73 for SRTs, and ICC = .65 for CRTs in football players (Straume-Naesheim, Andersen & Bahr, 2005). The logical limitation of the study is that interpretation of the findings are valid for male adolescents only due to age and sex differences in RTs and their intra-individual variability (Dykiert et al, 2012a(Dykiert et al, , 2012Silverman, 2006).…”