Gender Differences in Illusion Response: The Influence of Spatial Strategy and Sex Ratio
- R. J. Miller
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Two experiments explored factors related to gender differences in Ponzo illusion susceptibility. In Experiment 1, 54 male and 54 female (predominantly white, middle class) undergraduates were administered Witkin's Embedded Figures Test (EFT) and, on 2 separate occasions, a form of the Ponzo illusion. Results showed the Ponzo to be quite reliable over several days. Females were significantly more field dependent (as shown by slower responses to the EFT), and significantly more susceptible to the Ponzo illusion, than males. Furthermore, EFT performance correlated significantly with Ponzo susceptibility for females, but not for males, suggesting that the difference between males and females in Ponzo response may be due not to differences in field independence per se, but rather to differences in the strategies used to solve the illusion task. In Experiment 2, 111 male and 148 female (predominantly white, middle class) undergraduates were administered the Ponzo illusion twice, the 2 administrations separated by about 90 min. Again, the illusion task showed good reliability, and females were significantly more susceptible to the illusion. Furthermore, the magnitude of the difference between males and females was systematically related to the sex ratio (the ratio of the number of males to the number of females) of the particular session in which each subject happened to be participating. It is suggested that social factors such as sex ratio might affect the strategies participants use when doing illusion tasks, and perhaps other spatial skills tasks as well.
- Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L.,& Sutherland, R. J. (1998). Acharacterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
- Beatty, W.W.,& Duncan, D. (1990). Relationship between performance on the Everyday Spatial Activities Test and on objective measures of spatial behavior in men and women. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 228–230.
- Blough, P. M.,& Slavin, L. K. (1987). Reaction time assessments of differences in visual-spatial performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 276–281.
- Brislin, R. W., & Keating, C. F. (1976). Cultural differences in the perception of a threedimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 397–411.
- Bryden, M. P. (1980). Sex differences in brain organization: Different brains or different strategies? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 230–231.
- Caplan, P. J., MacPherson, G. M., & Tobin, P. (1985). Do gender-related differences in spatial abilities exist? American Psychologist, 40, 786–799.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Coren, S.,& Girgus, J. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.
- Geary, D. C. (1989). A model for representing gender differences in the pattern of cognitive abilities. American Psychologist, 44, 1155–1156.
- Gillam, B. (1980). Geometrical illusions. Scientific American, 242(1), 102–111.
- Ginsburg, A. P. (1984). Visual form perception based on biological filtering. In L. Spillmann & B. R. Wotten (Eds.), Sensory experience, adaptation, and perception: Festschrift for Ivo Kohler (pp. 53–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Gregory, R. L. (1967). Comments on the inappropriate constancy scaling theory of the illusions and its implications. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 219–223.
- Gron, G., Wunderlich, A. P., Spitzer, M., Tomczak, R., & Riepe, M.W. (2000). Brain activation during human navigation: Gender-different neural networks as substrate of performance. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 404–408.
- Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55–74.
- Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Halpern, D. F. (1989). The disappearance of cognitive gender differences:What you see depends on where you look. American Psychologist, 44, 1156–1158.
- Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
- Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, 267(3), 118–125.
- Kunnapas, T. M. (1955). Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 168–170.
- Leibowitz, H., Brislin, R., Perlmutter, L., & Hennessy, R. (1969). Ponzo perspective illusion as a manifestation of space perception. Science, 166, 1174–1176.
- Loring-Meier, S., & Halpern, D. F. (1999). Sex differences in visuospatial working memory: Components of cognitive processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 464–471.
- McGee, M.G. (1979). Humanspatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889–918.
- Miller, R. J. (1997). Pictorial depth cue orientation influences the magnitude of perceived depth. Visual Arts Research, 23, 97–124.
- Miller, R. J. (1998). Depth cue orientation and perceived depth in pictures. Visual Arts Research, 24, 80–90.
- Miller, R. J. (1999). The cumulative influence of depth and flatness information on the perception of size in pictorial representations. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 37–57.
- Moffat, S.D., Hampson, E.,& Hatzipantelis, M. (1998). Navigation in a “virtual” maze: Sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 73–87.
- Porac, C., Coren, S., Girgus, J. S., & Verde, M. (1979). Visual geometric illusions: Uni-sexed phenomena. Perception, 8, 401–412.
- Pressey, A. W., & Epp, D. (1992). Spatial attention in Ponzo-like patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 211–221.
- Prinzmetal, W., Shimamura, A. P., & Mikolinski, M. (2001). The Ponzo illusion and the perception of orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 99–114.
- Quina, K., & Pollack, R. H. (1972). Effects of test line position and age on the magnitude of the Ponzo illusion. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 253–256.
- Sandstrom, N. J., Kaufman, J., & Huettel, S. A. (1998). Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 351–360.
- Secord, P. F. (1982). The origin and maintenance of social roles: The case of sex roles. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 33–53). New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Secord, P. F. (1983). Imbalanced sex ratios: The social consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 525–543.
- Shor, R. D., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Tausch, R. (1954). Optische T¨auschungen als artifizielle Effekte der Gestaltungsprozesse von Grössen-und Formenkonstanz in der nat ¨ urlichen Raumwahrnehmung [Optical illusions as artifacts of the mechanisms of size and shape constancy in normal space perception]. Psychologische Forschung, 24, 299–348.
- Thiery, A. (1896). ¨ Über geometrische-optische Täuschungen [On geometrical-optical illusions]. Philosophische Studiern, 12, 67–126.
- Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities:A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. CrossRef
- Ward, L. M., Porac, C., Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1977). The case for misapplied constancy scaling: Depth associations elicited by illusion configurations. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 609–620.
- Witkin, H. A. (1971). The Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Gender Differences in Illusion Response: The Influence of Spatial Strategy and Sex Ratio
Volume 44, Issue 3-4 , pp 209-225
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- R. J. Miller (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Washington State University, USA;