MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7117579603 · doi:10.1186/s13293-025-00813-5

Explicit gender stereotypes and sexually polymorphic cognition by gender identity

2025· article· en· W7117579603 sur OpenAlexafffund
Mina Guérin, Fanny Saulnier, Louis Cartier, Marco Hirnstein, Sébastien Hétu, Robert-Paul Juster

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiology of Sex Differences · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésCognitionStereotype (UML)Mental rotationStereotype threatConsistency (knowledge bases)Task (project management)Gender identitySocial cognition

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexually polymorphic cognition (SPC) is influenced by sex differences and gender diversity. These differences have long been studied from a biological approach, but more and more studies are pointing to the importance of considering socio-culturalzgender-related factors. Several studies have shown, for example, that explicit gender stereotypes can modulate performance on cognitive tasks that are sexually dimorphic. However, no study has examined the relationship between gender stereotypes and SPC in a population that includes transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people. METHODS: We recruited 488 adults who completed eight cognitive tasks measuring a range of cognitive functions during a 150-minute session. The three groups were cis women (n = 160), cis men (n = 172), and TNB people (n = 156). Participants were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: a control condition and two conditions in which participants were exposed to an explicit gender stereotype prior to each task. Psychosocial data were collected using self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: The cognitive performance of TNB people was similar to that of cis men in a judgment of line orientation task, similar to that of cis women in a fine motor skills task and superior to both cis men and cis women in a verbal learning task. Explicit gender stereotypes had no direct impact on cognitive performance. Interestingly, differences in performance between cis men, cis women and TNB people were not apparent under all experimental conditions, reflecting the inconsistency of results in the literature. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the inclusion of gender diverse people allows further exploration of SPC beyond "sexual dimorphisms" and that differences in cognition cannot be explained by birth-assigned sex alone. Moreover, sex/gender variations in cognition across different stereotype induction conditions highlight the lack of consistency in the literature on SPC. Future research should ascertain whether protocol features between studies can explain the variability in results and/or whether experimenters' stereotyped beliefs inadvertnantly influence the conclusions drawn from their studies. Many studies have shown that there are sex differences in cognition. Briefly, women perform better on verbal and fine motor tasks, while men perform better on spatial and mental rotation tasks. With regard to people with other gender identities and even sexual orientations other than heterosexual, the research points out that these sexual differences are reflected differently. However, more studies are needed. To understand sexual differences in cognition, several authors are interested in the role of gender stereotypes and have shown that verbalising a stereotype explicitly before a cognitive task can modify performance on this task. Our aim was therefore to determine how explicit stereotypes could influence sexual differences in cognition in a sexually and gender diverse sample. A total of 488 participants were recruited to represent different sexual orientations and gender identities. Participants completed eight cognitive tasks and several questionnaires over a period of about two hours. Participants were separated into three different experimental conditions; two in which the experimenter said before each task that it was usually better performed by men or by women, and a control condition with no stereotype induction. The results showed that gender diverse people appear to have a distinct cognitive profile from cis men and cis women. Also, explicit stereotypes did not directly affect cognitive performance in this diverse population. However, explarotory analysis reveald that gender differences in cognitive tasks varied from condition to condition, suggesting that these differences were not robust to different testing protocols.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,610

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiology of Sex DifferencesMême sujetLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyTravaux en français237 207