Person (Mis)Perception? On the Biased Representation of the Human Body

People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages

  Johnson, Kerri L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contextualized perception; Evaluation; Functional affordance; Gender perception; Motivation; Person perception; Safety concerns; Sex categorization; Social affordance bias; Social perception; Waist to hip ratio

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921259198     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393705.003.0012     Document Type: Chapter

References (65)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 361-382). New York: The Guilford Press.
3. Biernat, M., Collins, E. C., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Thompson, E. R. (2009). Race-based shifting standards and racial discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 16-28.
4. Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20.
5. Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she's great, she's benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66-77.
6. Brewer, M. C. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Brooks, A., Schouten, B., Troje, N. F., Verfaillie, K., Blanke, O., & van der Zwan, R. (2008). Correlated changes in perceptions of the gender and the orientation of ambiguous biological motion figures. Current Biology, 18, R728-R729.
8. Corneille, O., Huart, J., Becquart, E., & Brédart, S. (2004). When memory shifts toward more typical category exemplars: Accentuation effects in the recollection of ethnically ambiguous faces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 236-250.
9. Cutting, J. E. (1978). Generation of synthetic male and female walkers through manipulation of a biomechanical invariant. Perception, 7, 393-405.
10. Cutting, J. E., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 353-356.
11. Cutting, J. E., Proffitt, D. R., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1978). A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 357-372.
12. de Gelder, B. (2013). From body perception to action preparation: A distributed neural system for viewing bodily expressions of emotion. In K. L. Johnson & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), People watching: Social, perceptual, and neurophysiological studies of body perception (Chapter 20). New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
14. Dovidio, P. G., Evans, N., & Tyler, R. P. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The content of their cognitive representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 22-37.
15. Fazio, R. H., & Dunton, B. C. (1997). Categorization by race: The impact of automatic and controlled components of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 451-470.
16. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1-73.
17. Freeman, J. B., Ambady, N., Rule, N. O., & Johnson, K. L. (2008). Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 673-690.
18. Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1318-1331.
19. Gibson, J. J. (1979/1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
21. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
22. Hanson, H. M. (1959). Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 321-334.
23. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91.
24. Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 47-66.
25. Huart, J., Corneille, O., & Becquart, E. (2005). Face-based categorization, context-based categorization, and distortions in the recollection of gender ambiguous faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 598-608.
26. Hughes, E. C. (1945). Dilemmas and contradictions of status. The American Journal of Sociology, 50, 353-359.
27. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 201-211.
28. Johansson, G. (1977). Studies on visual perception of locomotion. Perception, 6, 365-376.
29. Johnson, K. L., & Freeman, J. B. (2010). A "new look" at person construal: Seeing beyond dominance and discreteness. In E. Balcetis & D. Lassiter (Eds.), The social psychology of visual perception (pp. 253-272). New York: Psychology Press.
30. Johnson, K. L., & Ghavami, N. (2011). At the crossroads of conspicuous and concealable: What race categories communicate about sexual orientation. PLoS One, 6, e18025.
31. Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 321-334.
32. Johnson, K. L., Iida, M., & Tassinary, L. G. (2012). Person (mis)perception: Functionally biased sex categorization of bodies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
33. Johnson, K. L., Lurye, L. E., & Tassinary, L. G. (2010). Sex categorization among preschool children: Increasing sensitivity to sexually dimorphic cues. Child Development, 81, 1346-1355.
34. Johnson, K. L., McKay, L., & Pollick, F. E. (2011). Why "He throws like a girl" (but only when he's sad): Emotion affects sex-decoding of biological motion displays. Cognition, 119, 265-280.
35. Johnson, K. L., Pollick, F. E., & McKay, L. (2010). Social constraints on the visual perception of biological motion. In R. B. Adams, N. Ambady, K. Nakayama, & S. Shimojo (Eds.), Social vision (pp. 264-277). New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890-897.
37. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 5246-5251.
38. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). The functional significance of the WHR in judgments of attractiveness. In V. Swami & A. Furnham (Eds.), Body beautiful: Evolutionary and socio-cultural perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
39. Johnston, L. (2013). It's the way you walk: Kinematic specification of vulnerability to attack. In K. L. Johnson & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), People watching: Social, perceptual, and neurophysiological studies of body perception (Chapter 13). New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2012a). Perceptual roots of anti-gay prejudice: Negative evaluations of targets perceived to be lesbian/gay arise early in person perception on the basis of gender atypical visual cues. Manuscript submitted for publication.
41. Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2012b). Fluency of visual processing explains prejudiced evaluations of minority targets. Manuscript submitted for publication.
42. Lick, D. J., Johnson, K. L., & Gill, S. V. (2012). Deliberate changes to gendered body motions influence basic social perceptions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. Mather, G., & Murdoch, L. (1994). Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 258, 273-279.
44. Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 333-352.
45. Medin, D., & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
46. Miller, S. L., Maner, J. K, & Becker, D. V. (2010). Self-protective biases in group categorization: What shapes the psychological boundary between "us" and "them"? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 62-77.
47. Pollick, F. E., Fidopiastis, C., & Braden, V. (2001). Recognising the style of spatially exaggerated tennis serves. Perception, 30, 323-338.
48. 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, 1247-1265.
49. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353-363.
50. Prasad, S., & Shiffrar, M. (2009). Viewpoint and the recognition of people from their movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 39-49.
51. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6-7, 15-51.
52. Rhodes, G., Brennan, S., & Carey, S. (1987). Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 473-497.
53. Runeson, S. (1994). Perception of biological motion: The KSD-principle. In G. Johansson, S. S. Bergstrom, & W. Epstein (Eds.), Perceiving events and objects (pp. 383-405). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Schindler, K., van Gool, L., & de Gelder, B. (2008). Recognizing emotions expressed by body pose: A biologically inspired neural model. Neural Networks, 21, 1238-1246.
55. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 276, 575-584.
56. Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Reactions to a black professional: Motivated inhibition and activation of conflicting stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 885-904.
57. Stern, S. E., Mullennix, J. W., Corneille, O., & Huart, J. (2007). Distortions in the memory of the pitch of speech. Experimental Psychology, 54, 148-160.
58. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-97.
59. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 14, 65-93.
60. Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision, 2, 371-387.
61. Troje, N. F., Sadr, J., Geyer, H., & Nakayama, K. (2006). Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of gender from biological motion. Journal of Vision, 6, 850-857.
62. Troje, N. F., Westhoff, C., & Lavrov, M. (2005). Person identification from biological motion: Effects of structural and kinematic cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 667-675.
63. Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. New York: Doubleday.
64. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc.
65. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799-806.