Gender differences in illusion response: The influence of spatial strategy and sex ratio

Sex Roles

Volumn 44, Issue 3-4, 2001, Pages 209-225

  Miller, R J ^a,b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035242143     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010907204430     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185-190.
2. 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.
3. Blough, P. M., & Slavin, L. K. (1987). Reaction time assessments of differences in visual-spatial performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 276-281.
4. Brislin, R. W., & Keating, C. F. (1976). Cultural differences in the perception of a three-dimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 397-411.
5. Bryden, M. P. (1980). Sex differences in brain organization: Different brains or different strategies? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 230-231.
6. Caplan, P. J., MacPherson, G. M., & Tobin, P. (1985). Do gender-related differences in spatial abilities exist? American Psychologist, 40, 786-799.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49-81.
10. Geary, D. C. (1989). A model for representing gender differences in the pattern of cognitive abilities. American Psychologist, 44, 1155-1156.
11. Gillam, B. (1980). Geometrical illusions. Scientific American, 242(1), 102-111.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Grön, 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.
15. 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.
16. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Halpern, D. F. (1989). The disappearance of cognitive gender differences: What you see depends on where you look. American Psychologist, 44, 1156-1158.
18. Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
20. Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American, 267(3), 118-125.
21. Kunnapas, T. M. (1955). Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 168-170.
22. Leibowitz, H., Brislin, R., Perlmutter, L., & Hennessy, R. (1969). Ponzo perspective illusion as a manifestation of space perception. Science, 166, 1174-1176.
23. Loring-Meier, S., & Halpern, D. F. (1999). Sex differences in visuospatial working memory: Components of cognitive processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 464-471.
24. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889-918.
25. Miller, R. J. (1997). Pictorial depth cue orientation influences the magnitude of perceived depth. Visual Arts Research, 23, 97-124.
26. Miller, R. J. (1998). Depth cue orientation and perceived depth in pictures. Visual Arts Research, 24, 80-90.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Porac, C., Coren, S., Girgus, J. S., & Verde, M. (1979). Visual geometric illusions: Uni-sexed phenomena. Perception, 8, 401-412.
30. Pressey, A. W., & Epp, D. (1992). Spatial attention in Ponzo-like patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 211-221.
31. Prinzmetal, W., Shimamura, A. P., & Mikolinski, M. (2001). The Ponzo illusion and the perception of orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 99-114.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Secord, P. F. (1983). Imbalanced sex ratios: The social consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 525-543.
36. Shor, R. D., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
37. Tausch, R. (1954). Optische Täuschungen als artifizielle Effekte der Gestaltungsprozesse von Grössen- und Formenkonstanz in der natürlichen Raumwahrnehmung [Optical illusions as artifacts of the mechanisms of size and shape constancy in normal space perception]. Psychologische Forschung, 24, 299-348.
38. Thiery, A. (1896). Über geometrische-optische Täuschungen [On geometrical-optical illusions]. Philosophische Studiern, 12, 67-126.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Witkin, H. A. (1971). The Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
42. 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.