Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 247–254 | Cite as

People Automatically Extract Infants’ Sex from Faces

  • Konstantin O. Tskhay
  • Nicholas O. Rule
Original Paper

Abstract

People can reliably distinguish the sex of faces across age groups. Rates of accuracy are lower for infants, however, likely because they lack the pronounced sexually dimorphic features that develop during puberty. Given that previous research has shown that perceivers categorize adult sex automatically, we wondered whether this would extend to the faces of infants for whom sex is less legible. We tested this using a semantic priming paradigm in which infant faces preceded the categorization of stereotypically male and female names. Results showed that participants categorized the sex of male names significantly faster following perceptions of male versus female infant faces (though female faces did not significantly facilitate the processing of female names). The asymmetry in interference for male but not female faces supports evidence for a male default in conceptions of sex among infants previously found for adults. Individuals may therefore process sex automatically in the absence of overt cues (e.g., post-pubertal sexually dimorphic features or stereotypical clothing), providing additional evidence for the depth and flexibility of social categorization.

Keywords

Age Face Person perception Sex categorization Automaticity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express thanks to Rebecca Zhu, Daniel Glizer, and Elizabeth Page-Gould for their suggestions during the initial stages of this project. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to NOR.

References

  1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoszewska, A., & Wolański, N. (1991). Sexual dimorphism in newborns and adults. Studies in Human Ecology, 10, 23–38.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual-process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer Jr & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, E., & Perrett, D. I. (1993). What gives a face its gender? Perception, 22, 829–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral dispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng, Y. D., O’Toole, A. J., & Abdi, H. (2001). Classifying adults’ and children’s faces by sex: Computational investigations of subcategorical feature encoding. Cognitive Science, 25, 819–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cloutier, J., Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2014). Investigating the early stages of person perception: The asymmetry of social categorization by sex vs. age. PLoS ONE, 9, e84677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2011). A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118, 247–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, K. L., & Tassinary, L. G. (2005). Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science, 16, 890–897.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaminski, G., Meary, D., Mermillod, M., & Gentaz, E. (2011). Is it a he or a she? Behavioral and computational approaches to sex categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1344–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kozlowski, L. T., & Cutting, J. E. (1977). Recognizing the sex of the walker from a dynamic point-light display. Perception and Psychophysics, 21, 575–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Macrae, C. N., Alnwick, K. A., Milne, A. B., & Schloerscheidt, A. M. (2002). Person perception across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on social-cognitive functioning. Psychological Science, 13, 532–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Macrae, C. N., & Martin, D. (2007). A boy primed Sue: Feature-base processing and person construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macrae, C. N., & Quadflieg, S. (2010). Perceiving people. In S. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 428–463). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., Troje, N. F., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1997). Sex classification is better with three-dimensional head structure than with image intensity information. Perception, 26, 75–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Poisson, J. (2011, May 21). Parents keep child’s gender secret. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2011/05/21/parents_keep_childs_gender_secret.html.
  20. Porter, R. H., Cernoch, J. M., & Balogh, R. D. (1984). Recognition of neonates by facial-visual characteristics. Pediatrics, 74, 501–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rheingold, H. L., & Cook, K. V. (1975). The contents of boys’ and girls’ rooms as an index of parents’ behavior. Child Development, 46, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Round, J. E. C., & Deheragoda, M. (2002). Sex—can you get it right? British Medical Journal, 325, 1446–1447.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008). Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50 ms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1100–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2010). Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS ONE, 5, e8733.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B, Jr, & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Us and them: Memory advantages in perceptually ambiguous groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B, Jr, & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Accuracy and awareness in the perception and categorization of male sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1019–1028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rule, N. O., Garrett, J. V., & Ambady, N. (2010). On the perception of religious group membership from faces. PLoS ONE, 5, e14241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Rule, N. O., Krendl, A. C., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rule, N. O., Macrae, C. N., & Ambady, N. (2009). Ambiguous group membership is extracted automatically from faces. Psychological Science, 20, 441–443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Samochowiec, J., Wänke, M., & Fiedler, K. (2010). Political ideology at face value. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, M., & Karraker, K. H. (1989). Sex stereotyping of infants: A review of gender labeling studies. Sex Roles, 20, 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1996). The evolution of human sexuality. Trends in Ecological Evolution, 11, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Semantic information influences race categorization from faces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 769–778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wild, H. A., Barrett, S. E., Spence, M. J., O’Toole, A. J., Cheng, Y. D., & Brooke, J. (2000). Recognition and sex categorization of adults’ and children’s faces: Examining performance in the absence of sex-stereotyped cues. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 269–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaraté, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations