The IKEA person may have stated the claim in a broad way, but as a thought experiment, is it possible that they&#x27;re correct despite this study?<p>&gt;  on average, men tend to outperform women on spatial skills, which you&#x27;d expect would be relevant to furniture construction.<p>Could it actually be irrelevant? There&#x27;s a case to be made there.<p>Is time of construction, <i>as measured in this study</i>, actually important to IKEA? If the reasons for faster male performance in this study are down to (possibly genetic) advantages in dealing with <i>new</i> spatial problems, or a cultural factor like males having on average more exposure to various kinds of construction, which manifest in them showing a (slight) edge in constructing a brand-new design, well ... due to the manufacturing effect, that advantage should disappear!<p>With practice, false starts and misunderstandings will go away. At that point, what matters to IKEA? Probably, &#x27;perfect&#x27; assembly. It&#x27;s possible that IKEA found that women showed lower defect rates than men. That would make sense given that they called out that women followed the assembly instructions more closely.<p>IKEA&#x27;s claim was simply that &#x27;women are better at assembling flat-pack furniture than men,&#x27; and this study wanted to see if the known male edge in understanding spatial problems extended to flat-pack furniture. It apparently does, but that doesn&#x27;t necessarily mean that women still might not be &#x27;better,&#x27; at least from IKEA&#x27;s point of view.