Gender differences in spatial orientation: A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.08.006Get rights and content

Abstract

While significant gender differences in spatial abilities consistently emerge, results concerning gender differences in spatial orientation skills are mixed, ranging from “marked differences” to “no-differences”. In order to improve our understanding of this phenomenon, literature about gender differences in spatial orientation skills is reviewed from 1983 to 2003. The influence of biological and socio/cultural factors is discussed as well as the hypothesis that gender differences are due to different strategies used to solve orientation tasks. The role of personality factors and the influence of spatial anxiety in orientation performance are also discussed. An additional interpretative hypothesis is proposed highlighting the role of task-difficulty expressed in terms of Visuo-Spatial Working Memory involvement. This interpretation can explain the overall results, resolving some apparent contradictions.

Introduction

The aim of the present review is to provide hints for future research on gender differences in spatial orientation. We do not try to explain the causes of gender differences. We just try to explain the large variability of the results that emerged in the previous literature on gender differences in spatial orientation.

Two distinct concepts are often confounded: spatial ability and spatial orientation.

Spatial ability generally refers to the ability to generate, represent, transform, and recall spatial information (Linn & Petersen, 1985). Gender differences in spatial abilities are considered among the largest gender differences in all cognitive abilities (Lawton & Morrin, 1999). In traditional tests of basic spatial abilities, males perform better than females; however, the size of this effect changes depending on the type of the spatial ability measured (Halpern, 1992). Many results show that males perform better in some spatial tasks, especially in the Mental Rotation Task (Sanders, Soares, & D’Aquila, 1982; Harshman, Hampson, & Berenbaum, 1983; Linn & Petersen, 1985). The evidence is much less clear with respect to performance on more ecologically valid tasks (Montello, Lovelace, Golledge, & Self, 1999). On measures concerning spatial orientation (which is the complex of all the skills used for locating themselves with respect to a point of reference or an absolute system of coordinates) mixed results have been indeed obtained (Lawton & Morrin, 1999).

Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between spatial ability and orientation skills. Considering them as similar capacities can be misleading. There are some studies reporting a nonsignificant relationship between orientation tasks and spatial abilities (Lorenz & Neisser, 1986; Allen, Kirasic, Dobson, Long, & Beck, 1996). Orientation skills and spatial abilities have different characteristics. For instance, orientation skills always involve an environment and imply a movement (actual navigation or imagined map scanning) and the acquisition of information about the surroundings. When considering gender differences in orientation conflicting results often emerge, ranging from studies showing that males outperform females (Galea & Kimura, 1993; Schmitz, 1997; Malinowski & Gillespie, 2001; Waller, Knapp, & Hunt, 2001) to studies in which gender differences are totally absent (Sadalla & Montello, 1989; Taylor & Tversky, 1992a; Brown, Lahar, & Mosley, 1998). Currently, it is not possible to assert the existence of gender differences in spatial orientation. At the same time we must remember that spatial orientation is a complex process that depends on numerous basic cognitive functions. For these reasons, studies investigating spatial orientation use a wide variety of measures. In fact, different tasks have been adopted (landmark and/or route recall, landmark replacement, pointing, map drawing, straight-line and route distance estimation, verbal description of a route, route learning, route reversal, wayfinding, orienteering, maze learning) and different environments (maps, real outdoor environments, real indoor environments, virtual tours) and self-report questionnaires. This multiplicity of measures and environmental contexts contributed to produce different patterns of results and has generated some difficulties in reaching a satisfactory interpretation of the findings.

The aim of this work is not only to analyse the literature concerning gender differences in spatial orientation, but also to look for an interpretative hypothesis able to explain the phenomenon of the presence/absence of such differences.

With the aim of achieving a complete picture of the results so far obtained on gender differences in spatial orientation, we reviewed all the experimental studies (from 1983 to 2003) comparing male and female performance on spatial orientation tasks. For each study we report a short description of the tasks used. The measured dependent variables, the results concerning gender differences and the environment to which the tasks refer are also reported in the following table.

A simple inspection of Table 1 shows variations in performance on orientation tasks. If the self-report questionnaires are excluded (because they do not give us any information on performance), a male advantage in about half the cases (49.28%) is observed. At the same time, a consistent percentage of cases (40.58%), in which gender differences do not appear, emerges. It should be noted that a female superiority very seldom emerges.

In the attempt to find a factor able to explain the results concerning the presence or the absence of gender differences, we grouped each study, first on the basis of the environmental context and then on the basis of orientation task type.

It is possible to think, for instance, that males perform better than females in configurational tasks (pointing, distance estimation) because of their preference for Euclidean strategies (Lawton, 1994). Otherwise, a factor related to the presence/absence of gender differences could be identified in the environmental context. For instance, studies with ecological approaches usually do not show marked gender differences (Halpern, 1992; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Rossano & Moak, 1998). On this basis, we could suppose that, in a symbolic no-ecological environment (e.g. maps), males might perform better than females, whereas in a real environment their performance could be even.

The different sources of environmental learning can be categorized as follows:

Real environment: Spatial orientation in real environments was studied in a wood (Malinowski & Gillespie, 2001), in a building (Sadalla & Montello, 1989; Lawton, 1996; Lawton, Charleston, & Zieles, 1996), in a maze (Schmitz, 1997), and in a university campus (Kirasic, Allen, & Siegel, 1984; Montello & Pick, 1993; Saucier et al., 2002). In 58.82% of the conditions in which exploration took place in a real environment, males perform better than females. Yet there is a consistent percentage of cases (41.18%) in which gender differences do not emerge. Females never perform better than males.

Simulated environment: Some examples of spatial orientation in simulated environment are 3-D computer simulations (Moffat, Hampson, & Hatzipantelis, 1998; Lawton & Morrin, 1999; Sandstrom, Kaufman, & Huettel, 1998; Waller et al., 2001), video recording (O’Laughlin & Brubaker, 1998) and slide sequences (Holding & Holding, 1989). Here again, in a high percentage (57.14%) males perform better than females, but in the 42.86% of the cases differences between males and females do not emerge. Again, females never perform better than males. Within simulated environments, it is possible to distinguish between situations that allow interaction with the environment (3-D computer simulations) and others that do not (slides and video recordings). In the first one, participants can move themselves and actively decide where to go. In the second one, they are passively shown a static (slides sequence) or dynamic (video recordings) environment. In the “active situation” the number of cases in which males outperform females is 85.71%; in the remainder cases performance is even. When the “passive situation” is considered, males perform better than females in a lower percentage of cases (28.57%). There are no differences in 71.43% of the cases. This effect could be given by a higher familiarity of the males with the 3-D computer simulations, as they spend more time playing videogames (Barnett et al., 1997). It could be also reasonable to hypothesize that the active interaction with the environment increases the complexity of the task, as more elements have to be considered and elaborated. Such hypothesis will be exhaustively illustrated later.

Map: When the environment is represented by a map, (McGuinness & Sparks, 1983; Miller & Santoni, 1986; Ward, Newcombe, & Overton, 1986; O’Laughlin & Brubaker, 1998; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Dabbs, Chang, & Strong, 1998; Brown et al., 1998; Coluccia & Martello, 2004) the percentage of cases in which males perform better than females (42.11%) is only slightly superior to the number of cases (39.47%) in which gender differences do not emerge. In 18.42% of the cases females perform better than males.

In Table 2 we report results concerning gender differences as a function of the type of environmental context in which the task is carried out.

From the data summarized in Table 2, a significant relationship between the type of environmental context and the presence/absence of gender differences does not emerge (chi-square=3.96, p=.86). The pattern of results reveals a trend, favouring males. Such trend, however, is accompanied by a consistent percentage of cases in which differences between males and females are not present.

However, it is worthwhile noting that the percentage of cases favouring males is higher in Virtual and real environments than in maps. This could be related to the route perspective that both offer. In the maps—the only ones to offer a survey perspective—we find the lowest percentage of cases in which males outperform females. There are even some cases in which females perform better than males. It is possible that females take more advantage than males from a situation in which the survey perspective, which is more complete than the route one, is already offered. Females might not easily form the survey representation but, when the survey perspective is already offered, gender differences are levelled off. In line with this hypothesis, Montello et al. (1999) found that males outperform females on tests of spatial knowledge of places from direct experience rather than tests of map-derived knowledge.

In real and virtual environments, we can assume that males are successful in switching from a route perspective to a survey one, whereas females are more constrained by the kind of given perspective (Sandstrom et al., 1998).

Now we will proceed to consider how the kind of task used to measure spatial orientation abilities affects males and females performance.

As shown in Table 3, most frequently used tasks can be grouped as follows:

Pointing tasks (Kirasic et al., 1984; Sadalla & Montello, 1989; Holding & Holding, 1989; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Montello & Pick, 1993; Lawton, 1996; Lawton et al., 1996; Lawton & Morrin, 1999; Waller et al., 2001). In this category, it emerges that, in 64.29% of the cases, males perform better than females, both in time taken to solve the task and in response accuracy. However, there are some cases (35.71%) in which the performance of the two genders is similar. Then it is evident that female performance is never better than the male's. So we could assert that in pointing task, males are generally more able than females; but situations with males performing equal to females are also present. As the pointing task could differ in several ways, some additional categorizations are added. Some pointing tasks were performed in a paper and pencil version (Kirasic et al., 1984; Holding & Holding, 1989; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Lawton et al., 1996). Some other pointing tasks were performed using a circle-and-arrow device, for example, a circular piece of cardboard with a pointer attached to the centre of the circle. Such a device implies the use of motor components (Sadalla & Montello, 1989; Montello & Pick, 1993; Lawton, 1996; Lawton & Morrin, 1999; Waller et al., 2001) and it could differ from a paper and pencil version. In the “device version”, in 67% of cases males outperform females and in 33% of cases the performance of the two genders is similar. Same identical distributions are found in the “paper and pencil version”, suggesting that the way to perform the pointing task does not affect gender differences. A further difference in performing the pointing task could emerge between a situation in which the participants are asked to pointing from their own location (real test) and a situation in which the participant has to imagine being in a different place (simulated test). Differences between real and simulated test are exhaustively explained in Rossano and Moak (1998). In the “real test pointing”, in most cases (67%) males outperform females, while gender differences do not emerge in 33% of cases. In the “simulated test pointing”, in 62% of cases males outperform female, and in 38% of cases the performance is similar. Again, gender differences seem unaffected by the kind of pointing task.

Wayfinding: The performance in this task was measured in different ways: route learning (Schmitz, 1997; Saucier et al., 2002), arrival point-finding tasks (Devlin & Bernstein, 1995; Moffat et al., 1998; Sandstrom et al., 1998; Coluccia & Martello, 2004), route reversal (Lawton et al., 1996) and orienteering (Malinowski & Gillespie, 2001). In most cases (61.11%) males outperform females, while gender differences do not emerge in 38.89% of cases. In line with the pointing task, females never perform better than males.

Sketch map (McGuinness & Sparks, 1983; Taylor & Tversky, 1992b; O’Laughlin & Brubaker, 1998): This is the only task showing a percentage of cases (22.22%) in which females outperform males. It is interesting to note that in the sketch map tasks males are particularly aware of routes and connectors while females appear more sensitive to landmarks (McGuinness & Sparks, 1983). In fact, most of the 22% of cases where females outperform males concern tasks about landmarks and map elements. Moreover, in this task gender differences do not appear in more than half of the cases (55.56%), whilst only in 22.22% of cases males perform better than females.

Distance estimations (Holding & Holding, 1989; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Coluccia & Martello, 2004): Gender differences in this task are less marked than in all the other tasks considered so far. In fact, males outperform females only in the 28.57%, while in most cases, gender differences (71.43%) do not emerge. We can also note that the few cases in which males perform better than females are related to route distance estimation.

Grouping on the basis of the orientation task provides a rather intricate pattern: pointing, wayfinding and map drawing show a notable percentage of cases (respectively 64.29%, 61.11% and 54.55%) in which males outperform females and a considerable percentage of cases (respectively 35.71%, 38.89% and 27.27%) in which gender differences do not emerge. The map drawing task is the only task indicating that females (18.18% of cases) outperform males. This phenomenon could be related to the advantage that females have mentioned above when directly using a survey representation. In fact, every case in which females perform better than males occurs in a map study. Finally, the distance estimation task presents a peculiar trend, as in most cases (71.43%) there are no gender differences in performance. Particularly, gender differences never emerge in straight-line distance estimation.

Now we will analyse some other aspects reported by the literature; these aspects do not concern specifically the performance in orientation tasks but rather the kind of the strategies used and the self-evaluation of the orientation sense.

The strategies used in spatial orientation have been investigated in different situations; specifically:

Verbal description of a route (Miller & Santoni, 1986; Ward et al., 1986; Schmitz, 1997; Brown et al., 1998; Dabbs et al., 1998). These studies illustrate the different ways in which males and females give indications to reach a destination. In all the situations, males paid a greater attention to configurational aspects, using terms indicating cardinal points (i.e. “you must go towards the North”) and distances (i.e. “you must turn to the right after 300 meters”) in their verbal indications, Conversely, females showed to use more frequently terms indicating landmarks (i.e. “you must turn to the right near the restaurant”).

Self-report questionnaires for strategies (Lawton (1994), Lawton (1996); O’Laughlin & Brubaker, 1998; Pazzaglia, Cornoldi, & De Beni, 2000). Based on the given answers it emerges that males maintain a survey perspective when they imagine moving in the environment, preferentially relying on the visuo-spatial properties of the environment and on configurational, orientation strategies. On the other hand, females maintain a route perspective; rely on landmarks and on procedural “route “strategies involving route's knowledge.

Finally, with regard to self-evaluation questionnaires on orientation skills (Lawton (1994), Lawton (1996); Lawton et al., 1996; Schmitz, 1997; Pazzaglia et al., 2000), a homogeneous pattern emerges in the results: males estimate themselves to be more able in orientation and they show greater confidence in their own ability than females. On the contrary, females report a higher level of spatial anxiety than males, related to the fear of getting lost.

Whilst the results concerning gender differences in the strategies used and in self-reported orientation skills are consistent within the examined literature, the pattern of results concerning gender differences in performance is not so constant. The variability between studies in fact does not seem to depend strictly either on the type of environment or on the type of task. Because of the unsatisfying explanations that emerge with the grouping method, another attempt will be carried out. In order to clarify the complex pattern of gender differences, all the interpretative theories about gender differences in spatial orientation will be briefly reviewed. We will discuss firstly generic spatial abilities theories (biological, environmental and interactionist theories), and secondly specific spatial orientation interpretations (Evolutionistic theories, strategies and personality approaches).

Section snippets

Biological theories

Biological explanations were proposed which considered sex differences in rats in maze-learning tasks (Foreman, 1985; Margueles & Gallistel, 1988; Williams, Barnett, & Meck, 1990).

Biological hypotheses are based on the assumption that sexual hormones influence cognitive development. In fact, hormone manipulation affects not only sexual behaviour but also some aspects of cognition, in particular spatial memory (Williams et al., 1990).

Dawson, Cheung, and Lau (1975), for example, report that the

An interpretative hypothesis

All the previously reported hypotheses attempt to explain the presence of gender differences, ignoring the 40% of cases in which gender differences do not emerge. So far, there are no hypotheses that give a complete explanation of all emerged results. In an attempt to find a comprehensive explanation of the variability of the obtained results, we try to analyse literature from a different perspective, focusing on the cognitive demands of the orientation tasks, independently on the kind of tasks

Conclusion

It seems that marked gender differences in VSWM can account for some differences in the orientation abilities. In particular, gender differences in orientation emerge only when tasks require a high load of VSWM. Consequently the VSWM load could be a determinant factor, able to increase or level off individual differences in orientation abilities. Males would show better orientation performance, because of their larger VSWM span. When the orientation task does not involve a high load in VSWM,

Acknowledgements

We are especially grateful to Prof. Anna Maria Longoni for the helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also want to acknowledge the three anonymous referees for the useful comments.

References (69)

  • L.K. Miller et al.

    Sex differences in spatial abilitiesstrategic and experimental correlates

    Acta Psychologica

    (1986)
  • S.D. Moffat et al.

    Salivary testosterone levels in left- and right-handed adults

    Neuropsychologia

    (1996)
  • E.M. O’Laughlin et al.

    Use of landmarks in cognitive mappinggender differences in self report versus performance

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (1998)
  • N.J. Sandstrom et al.

    Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task

    Cognitive Brain Research

    (1998)
  • S. Schmitz

    Gender related strategies in environmental developmenteffect of anxiety on wayfinding in and representation of a three-dimensional maze

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (1997)
  • S. Suzuki et al.

    Stimulus control of spatial behavior on the eight-arm maze in rats

    Learning and Motivation

    (1980)
  • H.A. Taylor et al.

    Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions

    Journal of Memory and Language

    (1992)
  • P.W. Thorndyke et al.

    Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation

    Cognitive Psychology

    (1982)
  • S.H.M. Van Goozen et al.

    Gender differences in behaviouractivating effects of cross-sex hormones

    Psychoneuroendocrinology

    (1995)
  • P. Webley

    Sex differences in home range and cognitive maps in eight-year-old children

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (1981)
  • M. Annett

    Spatial ability in subgroups of left- and right-handers

    British Journal of Psychology

    (1992)
  • M. Baenninger et al.

    the role of experience in spatial test performancea meta-analysis

    Sex Roles

    (1989)
  • M.A. Barnett et al.

    Late adolescents’ experiences with hand attitudes toward videogames

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • Bosco, A., Longoni, A. M., & Vecchi, T. (2004). Gender effects in spatial orientation: Cognitive profiles and mental...
  • L.N. Brown et al.

    Age and gender related differences in strategy use for route information. A map present direction giving paradigm

    Environment and Behavior

    (1998)
  • K.J. Bryant

    Personality correlates of sense of direction and geographical orientation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1982)
  • K.J. Bryant

    Geographical/Spatial orientation ability within real word and simulated large scale environments

    Multivariate Behavioral Research

    (1991)
  • Coluccia, E., & Martello, A. (2004). Il Ruolo Della Memoria Di Lavoro Visuo-Spaziale Nell’Orientamento Geografico: Uno...
  • A. Conte et al.

    Lo sviluppo della memoria di lavoro visuospaziale e il suo ruolo nella memoria spaziale

    Ricerche Di Psicologia

    (1995)
  • N. Foreman

    Algorithmic responding on the radial maze in rats does not always imply absence of spatial encoding

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologyComparative and Physiological Psychology

    (1985)
  • S. Garden et al.

    Visuo-spatial working memory in navigation

    Applied Cognitive Psychology

    (2002)
  • S.J. Gaulin et al.

    Evolution and development of sex differences in spatial ability

  • S. Goldberg et al.

    Play behavior in the year-old infantearly sex differences

    Child Development

    (1969)
  • D.F. Halpern

    Sex differences in cognitive abilities

    (1992)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text