Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex Differences on the Go/No-Go Test of Inhibition

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Parental investment theory suggests that women, due to greater investment in child rearing, can be more choosy than men when considering a potential mate. A corollary to this is that women should possess greater inhibition abilities compared to men in contexts related to sex and reproduction. This notion has found support from the inhibition literature demonstrating that while women do indeed show greater inhibition on tasks that include a social aspect, no such effect is found on cognitive tasks that do not possess a social component. In the present experiment, participants (N = 66) performed a variant of a classic Go/No-Go task consisting of infrequent No-Go trials in which a response needed to be withheld. Importantly, the stimuli were geometric shapes possessing no social component. Results showed that women outperformed men on the No-Go trials, indicating greater inhibition. No significant difference was found in reaction time on Go trials. Thus, the results cannot be explained in terms of a speed/accuracy trade-off. We discuss the findings in the context of the female-evolved inhibition hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, G. M., Packard, M. G., & Peterson, B. S. (2002). Sex and spatial positioning effects on object location memory following intentional learning of object identities. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1516–1522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baranowski, A. M., & Hecht, H. (2015). Gender differences and similarities in receptivity to sexual invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2257–2265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bekker, E. B., Kenemans, J. L., Hoeksma, M. R., Talsma, D., & Verbaten, M. N. (2005). The pure electrophysiology of stopping. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 55, 191–198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K. (1995). The role of inhibition mechanisms in the evolution of human cognition. In F. M. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), New perspectives on interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 141–173). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Kipp, K. (1996). Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 163–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints, K., & Cirulli, F. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 411. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. L., Janssen, E., Graham, C. A., Vorst, H., & Wicherts, J. (2008). Women’s scores on the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales (SIS/SES): Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 36–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colzato, L. S., Hertsig, G., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Estrogen modulates inhibitory control in healthy human females: Evidence from the stop-signal paradigm. Neuroscience, 167, 709–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dorris, M. C., Klein, R. M., Everling, S., & Munoz, D. P. (2002). Contribution of the primate superior colliculus to inhibition of return. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1256–1263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eals, M., & Silveman, I. (1994). The hunter-gatherer theory of spatial sex differences: Proximate factors mediating the female advantage in recall of object arrays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, K., Drevets, W. C., Clark, L., Cannon, D. M., Bain, E. E., Zarate, C. A., … Sahakian, B. J. (2005). Mood-congruent bias in affective Go/No-Go performance of unmediated patients with major depressive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 2171–2173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, C. J. (1974). Sex differences in performance on the Stroop color and word test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 1067–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gueguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2014). Sexual disinhibition under sexual arousal: Evidence for domain specificity in men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1123–1136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janetos, A. C. (1980). Strategies of female mate choice: A theoretical analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 7, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Measuring sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 114–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lapping, J. S., & Eriksen, C. W. (1966). Use of a delayed signal to stop a visual reaction-time response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.-S. R., Huang, C., Constable, R. T., & Sinha, R. (2006). Gender differences in the neural correlates of response inhibition during a stop-signal task. NeuroImage, 32, 1918–1929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.-S. R., Zhang, S., Duann, J.-R., Yan, P., Sinha, R., & Mazure, C. M. (2009). Gender differences in cognitive control: An extended investigation of the stop-signal task. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 3, 262–276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lipszyc, J., & Schachar, R. (2010). Inhibitory control and psychopathology: A meta-analysis of studies using the Stop-Signal task. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 1064–1076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 189–239). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen mo¨glicher Erfahrung [The innate forms of potential experience]. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 5, 233–519.

  • Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macpagal, K. R., Janssen, E., Fridberg, D. J., Finn, P. R., & Heiman, J. R. (2011). The effects of impulsivity, sexual arousability, and abstract intellectual ability on men’s and women’s Go/No-Go task performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvihill, L. E., Skilling, T. A., & Vogel-Sprott, M. (1997). Alcohol and the ability to inhibit behavior in men and women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 58, 600–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New, J., Krasnow, M., Truxaw, D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2007). Spatial adaptations for plant foraging: Women excel and calories count. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2679–2684.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noreen, S., & MacLeod, M. D. (2015). What do we really know about cognitive inhibition? Task demands and inhibitory effects across a range of memory and behavioural tasks. PLoS ONE, 10, e0134951.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Paniak, C., Miller, H. B., Murphy, D., & Patterson, L. (1996). Canadian developmental norms for 9 to 14 year-olds on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9, 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretti, P. O. (1969). Cross-sex and cross-educational level performance in color-word interference task. Psychonomic Science, 16, 321–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramautar, J. R., Kok, A., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2004). Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm: The N2/P3 complex further validated. Brain and Cognition, 56, 234–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rassin, E. (2003). The White Bear Suppression Inventory (WBSI) focusing on failing suppression attempts. European Journal of Personality, 17, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. M. P., Newell, F., Simoes-Franklin, C., & Garavan, H. (2008). Menstrual cycle phase modulates cognitive control over male but not female stimuli. Brain Research, 1224, 79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmany, I. (1977). Different performance in Stroop’s interference test from the aspect of personality and sex. Studia Psychologia, 19, 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, I., & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 533–549). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G. (2010). Sex differences in the processing of flankers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 633–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakkar, K. N., Congdon, E., Poldrack, R. A., Sabb, F. W., London, E. D., Cannon, T. D., & Bilder, R. M. (2014). Women are more sensitive than men to prior trial events in the stop-signal task. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 254–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 418–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Meissner, P., & Wapner, S. (1954). Personality through perception. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L., Lipszyc, J., Dupuis, A., Thayapararajah, S. W., & Schachar, R. (2014). Response inhibition and psychopathology: A meta-analysis of Go/No-Go task performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 429–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. I., Martis, B., Schwartz, C. E., Shin, L. M., Fischer, H. H., McMullin, K., & Rauch, S. L. (2003). Novelty responses and differential effects of order in the amygdala, substantia innominata, and inferior temporal cortex. Neuroimage, 18, 660–669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yong-Liang, G., Robaey, P., Karayanidis, F., Bourassa, M., Pelletier, G., & Geoffroy, G. (2000). ERPs and behavioral inhibition in a Go/No-Go task in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Brain and Cognition, 43, 215–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate input and feedback from Raquel Wilner, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Roger Grace, Jonas Øgaard, and David Bjorklund.

Funding

This research was not funded by any Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioral Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College, St.Olavs Plass, P.O. Box 4, 0130, Oslo, Norway

    Espen A. Sjoberg

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO4 3SQ, UK

    Espen A. Sjoberg & Geoff G. Cole

Authors
  1. Espen A. Sjoberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoff G. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Espen A. Sjoberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Essex Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sjoberg, E.A., Cole, G.G. Sex Differences on the Go/No-Go Test of Inhibition. Arch Sex Behav 47, 537–542 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1010-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1010-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation