It is often said that women are better at multitasking than men. This claim appears everywhere, from casual conversation to mainstream media. However, scientific studies have struggled to find convincing evidence that women consistently outperform men when performing multiple tasks simultaneously.
The gap between common beliefs and experimental results has puzzled researchers for years. As it turns out, the answer may lie in a specific aspect of everyday life. It relates less to innate ability than to a single habit formed under pressure.
Andre and Diana Schameitat sought to address this gap. They suspected that earlier tests overlooked something important by requiring people to remain seated in front of a single computer screen. Andre Schameitat conducts his research at Brunel University London (BUL) in Uxbridge, studying how the brain handles situations involving multiple simultaneous demands. Diana Schameitat works at City St George’s, University of London. Together, they designed a task that more closely resembled a chaotic day at home than a laboratory experiment. Their findings were published in the journal Psychological Research.
In the experiment, five tasks were distributed across three tables, and participants had to move between them; sitting down was not permitted.
The primary task involved simulating the process of cooking a meal using a printed recipe and imaginary ingredients. A kitchen timer frequently interrupted the activity.
When the timer went off, participants rushed to a second table containing two paper-based puzzles: one required locating phone numbers in lists, while the other involved marking specific letters and numbers. Afterward, they returned to the recipe. Throughout the process, individual words flashed on a screen, and participants had to write down any that appeared against a red background. In addition, every 20 seconds a question was recorded—for instance, asking what a person would prefer to lose: all their money or every photograph they had ever taken.
Over the course of ten minutes, the timing grew increasingly tight, with the interval between prompts shrinking from 90 seconds to 30. A calm pace gradually gave way to a frantic scramble.
Men and women performed similarly in four out of the five tasks. Whether it was following a recipe, searching a phone, solving a letter puzzle, or playing a word game, the results were the same.
The conversation task, however, revealed a different picture. Men skipped verbal questions far more often, ignoring them at more than twice the rate of women. In simple terms, women left about 12% of the questions unanswered, whereas men left nearly 28% unanswered.
One might assume that a man who remained silent was simply less adept at speaking under pressure. Yet, the data suggested otherwise. When men did respond, their answers were just as comprehensive and delivered just as quickly as those of the women. The difference lay not in their manner of speaking, but in whether they spoke at all.
It wasn’t that the men were stumbling over their words; rather, most of them simply stopped talking altogether. This hints at a choice—or, at the very least, an attempt to manage their attention. Conversation was sacrificed in favor of the other tasks requiring focus.
The second part of the study introduced a new question: Did any observers notice this?
The team showed short videos of people multitasking to 160 viewers who were unaware of the study’s objective. These viewers then evaluated how well each person handled the entire process.
Women outperformed men on virtually every metric. They appeared more confident, capable, attentive, and satisfied with their work.
The pressure only widened the gap. As the videos became more intense, the men appeared increasingly agitated, whereas the women seemed just as calm as before.
Here is the key takeaway: the viewers’ opinions hinged on just one factor. Individuals who answered more of the verbal questions were perceived as calmer, more composed, and generally superior. Ratings on the other four tasks did not significantly influence how they were perceived.
In short, the observers were judging the words spoken. A person who fell silent for even a moment appeared to be struggling—regardless of whether that impression was fair. This aligns with a well-known cognitive bias known as the “horns effect,” where a single negative trait taints the entire impression; that one pause colored everything else.
Why would men cut their responses short? The study offers no definitive answer, and the authors remain cautious on this point.
One hypothesis is that women tend to speak more in informal settings, particularly when sharing personal opinions. Many of the questions asked called for precisely that kind of response. The authors link this to evolutionary explanations …reasons why women might be inclined toward social conversation. They view this as a possible explanation rather than an established fact.
None of this turns talkativeness into a female skill or silence into a male shortcoming. It describes a trend characteristic of the group as a whole, not a rule applying to any specific individual.
The findings extend far beyond the context of kitchen-based conversation. Many professions require the ability to speak even under mounting pressure. In an air traffic control tower or an operating room, a sudden interruption in conversation can have serious consequences. It might also be perceived as rudeness, when in reality, it is simply a case of information overload.
The authors suggest that training could help maintain speech capabilities during critical moments. This question awaits the next stage of research.
“Overall, our data confirm the absence of significant gender differences in cognitive tasks requiring visual-manual coordination, yet they highlight significant gender differences in the ability to hold a conversation while multitasking,” said André Schameitat. “This ability—crucial in everyday life—may explain the widespread social stereotype that women are better at multitasking than men.”
About the Author
