No, Women Can’t Multitask Either

Recent research finds zero support for the stereotype that they do so better than men

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


There are some recurring questions that I tend to get when I give public lectures on the neuroscience of magic and illusions. Examples include the explanations for the latest viral illusions making the rounds on social media, the effects of psychedelic drugs on the brain, and one of my personal favorites: whether there is any truth to the common belief that women are better multitaskers than men. My answer is sometimes facetious—I reply that, if it were true that women are better multitaskers than men, then there would be separate magic shows for men and women, which is not the case. The reason being that one of the main ways in which magicians misdirect spectators is by forcing them to multitask (not something the human brain can do), thereby dividing their attention between several different objects or locations. If women were able to split their attention without a concurring decrease in perceptual performance, it follows that they would see through the magic—and should find the secret methods behind it—better than men do. Because men and women enjoy the same magic shows, it must be that both genders are equally terrible at multitasking. Admittedly, this is a just so answer, so who knows, right?  

It turns out, though, according to a study published last month in the journal PLOS ONE, that my intuition has been correct and neither gender can multitask.

Psychologist Patricia Hirsch, and her collaborators at RWTH Aachen University and University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany, set out to find out if the stereotype that women are better multitaskers than men might be backed by empirical evidence. To find out, the team had experimental participants (48 women and 48 men) conduct either concurrent or sequential multitasking. Both tasks required participants to categorize letters as consonant versus vowel, and numbers as odd versus even. An important feature of the study was that, in addition to collecting performance measures (accuracy and reaction times) in the tasks above, the researchers also accounted for possible underlying gender differences in working memory, processing speed, spatial abilities, and fluid intelligence.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The results indicated that, whereas both concurrent and sequential multitasking imposed substantial costs on performance, the deterioration applied to both genders equally. Even when controlling for potential differences in cognitive abilities that might support multitasking, “differences in multitasking costs across men and women remained absent.”

Though the scientists are careful to point out the potential real-world limitations of their study, the available evidence implies that the popular belief that managing children, household and jobs gives women a multitasking edge is unwarranted.             

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe