Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Disconnect Between Observers’ Male and Masculine Judgments from Sparse Gait Cues Conveying Gender: Perceiving Precarious Manhood

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although universal definitions are by no means agreed upon, the terms sex—male and female—and gender—femininity and/or masculinity—are semantically dissociable. The aim with the current study was to explore whether and to what extent they may be dissociable in perceptual terms. A comparison of sex judgments and gender judgments from point light walker (PLW) stimuli offered possibilities for obtaining a finer-grained picture of the basis or bases of these types of social judgments. In this study PLWs were used explicitly to examine the pattern of responses to questions of sex (male/female) and gender (masculine/feminine). Observers perceived targets to be feminine at the same rate as female, but perceived a subset of targets significantly more often to be male than masculine. Thus, a disconnect was demonstrated between male and masculine perceptions with no such uncoupling evident for perceptions of female and feminine. This pattern of responding accords with the idea—often described as Precarious Manhood—that manhood, or masculinity, may be a more difficult mantle to earn than mere ‘maleness’, with femininity considered closer to an essential aspect of being female.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sherif, M. (1948). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper & Bros.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Welsley.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balas, B., Kanwisher, N., & Saxe, R. (2012). Thin-slice perception develops slowly. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 257–264. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 201–271). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ambady, N., Krabbenhoft, M. A., & Hogan, D. (2006). The 30 S sale: Using thin-slice judgments to evaluate sales effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 4–13. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 1054–1072. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedman, J. N. W., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2007). Interpersonal perception and personality disorders: Utilization of a thin slice approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 667–688. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glas, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 207–218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Skrull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), A dual process model of impression formation: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 455–460. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 45–81. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., & Correll, J. (2010). Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 581–592. doi:10.1002/ejsp.739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender and Society, 23(2), 145–160. doi:10.1177/0891243208330313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bargh, J. A., & Williams, E. L. (2006). The automaticity of social life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(1), 1–4. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00395.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2005). The influence of processing objectives on the perception of faces: An ERP study of race and gender perception. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(1), 21–36. doi:10.3758/cabn.5.1.21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 616–626. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiese, H., Kloth, N., Güllmar, D., Reichenbach, J. R., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2012). Perceiving age and gender in unfamiliar faces: An fMRI study on face categorization. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 163–168. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M.-H., Bentin, S., Aguera, P.-E., & Pernier, J. (2000). Neurophysiological correlates of face gender processing in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 12(1), 303–310. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00888.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhao, L., & Bentin, S. (2008). Own- and other-race categorization of faces by race, gender, and age. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1093–1099. doi:10.3758/pbr.15.6.1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency and control in social cognition. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tomelleri, S., & Castelli, L. (2012). On the nature of gender categorization. Social Psychology, 43(1), 14–27. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Maccoby, E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 755–765. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Quinn, P., Yahr, J., Kuhn, A., Slater, A., & Pascalis, O. (2002). Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: A preference for female. Perception, 31(9), 1109–1121. doi:10.1068/p3331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson, K., Lurye, L., & Tassinary, L. (2010). Sex categorization among preschool children: increasing utilization of sexually dimorphic cues. Child Development, 81(5), 1346–1355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01476.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramsey-Rennels, J. L., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Infants’ differential processing of female and male faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 59–62. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00407.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113–127. doi:10.1348/014466600164363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Millar, J., & Accioly, J. (1996). Measurement of blood pressure may be affected by an interaction between subject and observer based on gender. Journal of Human Hypertension, 10(7), 449–453.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Muehlenhard, C., & Peterson, Z. (2011). Distinguishing between sex and gender: History, current conceptualizations, and implications. Sex Roles, 64(11), 791–803. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9932-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Money, J., Hampson, J. G., & Hampson, J. L. (1955). An examination of some basic sexual concepts: the evidence of human hermaphroditism. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 97(4), 301–319.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Springer, K. W., Mager Stellman, J., & Jordan-Young, R. M. (2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Social Science and Medicine, 74(11), 1817–1824. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Annandale, E., & Hunt, K. (1990). Masculinity, femininity and sex: an exploration of their relative contribution to explaining gender differences in health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 12(1), 24–46. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep10844865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), 279–292. doi:10.1080/01973530701503390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaiser, A. (2012). Re-conceptualizing ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the human brain. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(2), 130–136. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Westbrook, L., & Saperstein, A. (2015). New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender and Society, 29(4), 534–560. doi:10.1177/0891243215584758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(2), 87–96. doi:10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Frieze, I., & Chrisler, J. (2011). Editorial policy on the use of the terms “sex” and “gender”. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 789–790. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9988-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. APA. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. doi:10.1037/a0024659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14(2), 201–211. doi:10.3758/bf03212378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cutting, J., & Kozlowski, L. (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(5), 353–356. doi:10.3758/BF03337021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hill, H., & Pollick, F. (2000). Exaggerating temporal differences enhances recognition of individuals from point light displays. Psychological Science, 11(3), 223–228. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Troje, N., Westhoff, C., & Lavrov, M. (2005). Person identification from biological motion : Effects of structural and kinematic cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 67(4), 9. doi:10.3758/BF03193523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sumi, S. (2000). Perception of point-light walker produced by eight lights attached to the back of the walker. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 59(2), 126–132. doi:10.1024//1421-0185.59.2.126.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Alaerts, K., Nackaerts, E., Meyns, P., Swinnen, S. P., & Wenderoth, N. (2011). Action and emotion recognition from point light displays: An investigation of gender differences. [Research support, non-US govt]. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Atkinson, A. P., Tunstall, M. L., & Dittrich, W. H. (2007). Evidence for distinct contributions of form and motion information to the recognition of emotions from body gestures. Cognition, 104(1), 59–72. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Atkinson, A. P., Vuong, Q. C., & Smithson, H. E. (2012). Modulation of the face- and body-selective visual regions by the motion and emotion of point-light face and body stimuli [Research support, non US govt]. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1700–1712. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pollick, F. E., Lestou, V., Ryu, J., & Cho, S.-B. (2002). Estimating the efficiency of recognizing gender and affect from biological motion. Vision Research, 42(20), 2345–2355. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00196-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dittrich, W. H., Troscianko, T., Lea, S. E. G., & Morgan, D. (1996). Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception, 25(6), 727–738. doi:10.1068/p250727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kozlowski, L., & Cutting, J. (1977). Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display. Perception and Psychophysics, 21(6), 575–580. doi:10.3758/bf03198740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kozlowski, L., & Cutting, J. (1978). Recognizing the gender of walkers from point-lights mounted on ankles: Some second thoughts. Perception and Psychophysics, 23(5), 459. doi:10.3758/bf03204150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pollick, F. E., Kay, J. W., Heim, K., & Stringer, R. (2005). Gender recognition from point-light walkers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1247–1265. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1247.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mather, G., & Murdoch, L. (1994). Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 258(1353), 273–279. doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Barclay, C., Cutting, J., & Kozlowski, L. (1978). Temporal and spatial factors in gait perception that influence gender recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 23(2), 145–152. doi:10.3758/bf03208295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(4), 585–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Troje, N. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision,. doi:10.1167/2.5.2.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Troje, N. (2008). Retrieving information from human movement patterns. In T. F. Shipley & J. M. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding events: From perception to action (pp. 308–334). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. van der Zwan, R., MacHatch, C., Kozlowski, D., Troje, N. F., Blanke, O., & Brooks, A. (2009). Gender bending: Auditory cues affect visual judgements of gender in biological motion displays. Experimental Brain Research, 198(2–3), 373–382. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1800-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. O’Brien, R. G., & Kaiser, M. K. (1985). MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 316–333. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Troje, N., Sadr, J., Geyer, H., & Nakayama, K. (2006). Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of gender from biological motion. Journal of Vision,. doi:10.1167/6.8.7.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Armann, R., & Bülthoff, I. (2012). Male and female faces are only perceived categorically when linked to familiar identities—and when in doubt, he is a male. Vision Research, 63, 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Johnson, K., Iida, M., & Tassinary, L. (2012). Person (mis)perception: Functionally biased sex categorization of bodies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1749), 4982–4989. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Schouten, B., Troje, N., Brooks, A., van der Zwan, R., & Verfaillie, K. (2010). The facing bias in biological motion perception: Effects of stimulus gender and observer sex. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(5), 1256–1260. doi:10.3758/app.72.5.1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schouten, B., Davila, A., & Verfaillie, K. (2013). Further explorations of the facing bias in biological motion perception: Perspective cues, observer sex, and response times. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e56978. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Brooks, A., Schouten, B., Troje, N. F., Verfaillie, K., Blanke, O., & van der Zwan, R. (2008). Correlated changes in perceptions of the gender and orientation of ambiguous biological motion figures. Current Biology, 18(17), R728–R729. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vanrie, J., Dekeyser, M., & Verfaillie, K. (2004). Bistability and biasing effects in the perception of ambiguous point-light walkers. Perception, 33(5), 547–560. doi:10.1068/p5004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Johnson, K., & Tassinary, L. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(11), 890–897. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01633.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hill, A., Hunt, J., Welling, L., Cárdenas, R., Rotella, M., Wheatley, J., et al. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men’s traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(5), 334–341. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lefevre, C. E., & Lewis, G. J. (2013). Perceiving aggression from facial structure: Further evidence for a positive association with facial width-to-height ratio and masculinity, but not for moderation by self-reported dominance. European Journal of Personality,. doi:10.1002/per.1942.

    Google Scholar 

  68. McCarty, K., Hönekopp, J., Neave, N., Caplan, N., & Fink, B. (2013). Male body movements as possible cues to physical strength: A biomechanical analysis. American Journal of Human Biology, 25(3), 307–312. doi:10.1002/ajhb.22360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hundhammer, T., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). How sex puts you in gendered shoes: Sexuality-priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 176–193. doi:10.1037/a0028121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. doi:10.1037/a0012453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. doi:10.1037/a0029826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86. doi:10.1177/0963721411402669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Heesacker, M., & Snowden, S. J. (2013). Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain: The challenges, causes, and consequences of precarious manhood. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(2), 121–124. doi:10.1037/a0031369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Leszczynski, J. P., & Strough, J. (2008). The contextual specificity of masculinity and femininity in early adolescence. Social Development, 17(3), 719–736. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00443.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Bussey, K., & Perry, D. (1982). Same-sex imitation: The avoidance of cross-sex models or the acceptance of same-sex models? Sex Roles, 8(7), 773–784. doi:10.1007/BF00287572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Maccoby, E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lobel, T. E., Bempechat, J., Gewirtz, J. C., Shoken-Topaz, T., & Bashe, E. (1993). The role of gender-related information and self-endorsement of traits in preadolescents’ inferences and judgments. Child Development, 64(4), 1285–1294. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04201.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Johnson, K., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 321–334. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Smiler, A., & Gelman, S. (2008). Determinants of gender essentialism in college students. Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 864–874. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9402-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Psychology, School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Hogbin Drive, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 2450, Australia

    Desiree Kozlowski, Anna Brooks & Rick van der Zwan

Authors
  1. Desiree Kozlowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rick van der Zwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Desiree Kozlowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kozlowski, D., Brooks, A. & van der Zwan, R. The Disconnect Between Observers’ Male and Masculine Judgments from Sparse Gait Cues Conveying Gender: Perceiving Precarious Manhood. Gend. Issues 33, 285–298 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9151-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9151-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation