This study presents experimental results indicating that there are sex differences in the susceptibility to a geometric optical illusion. Participants (57 male and 39 female undergraduate students) performed 3 trials on a test involving the Poggendorff illusion. Analysis indicated that the magnitude of the illusion diminished significantly with each trial and that the percent perceived error was significantly larger for women than for men. This finding is consistent with the numerous studies which have indicated better visuospatial abilities for men than for women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckettP. A. (1990) Similar processing of real and subjective contour Poggendorff figures by men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 51–56.
2.
BlakemoreC.CarpenterR. H.GeorgesonM. A. (1970) Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature, 228, 37–39.
3.
CorenS. (1970) Lateral inhibition and geometric illusions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 274–278.
4.
CrawfordM.ChaffinR.FittonL. (1995) Cognition in social context. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 341–362.
5.
DayR. H.DickinsonR. G. (1976) The components of the Poggendorff illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 537–552.
6.
GeorgesonM. A.BlakemoreC. (1973) Apparent depth and the Müller-Lyer illusion. Perception, 2, 225–234.
7.
GillamB. (1971) A depth processing theory of the Poggendorff illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 211–216.
GrabowskaA.SzymanskaO.NowickaA.KwiecienM. (1992) The effect of unilateral brain lesions on perception of visual illusions. Behavioral Brain Research, 47, 191–197.
10.
GreeneE. (1988) The corner Poggendorff. Perception, 17, 65–70.
11.
GreeneE.FiserJ. (1995) Classical geometric illusion effects with nonclassical stimuli: Angular induction from decomposing lines into point arrays. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 575–589.
12.
HalpernD. E. (1992) Sex differences in cognitive abilities. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
HellerM. A.JoynerT. D.DanF. H. (1993) Laterality effects in the haptic horizontal-vertical illusion. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 440–442.
14.
HillA. L. (1971) Poggendorff illusion: Effects of intelligence, viewing distance, and space between the vertical lines. Psychonomic Science, 25, 71–72.
15.
HouckR. L.MefferdR. B. (1973) The Poggendorff illusion: A neurophysiologically based hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 86, 283–309.
16.
MasiniR.SciakyR.PascarellaA. (1992) The orientation of a parallel-line between the verticals can modify the strength of the Poggendorff illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 235–242.
17.
McGeeM. G. (1979) Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889–918.
18.
McGloneJ. (1980) Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: A critical survey. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 215–263.
19.
MorganM. (1996) Visual illusions. In BruceV. (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition. Hove, Eng.: Erlbaum. Pp. 29–58.
20.
PredebonI. (1986) The effect of line-figure information on the magnitude of the dot forms of the Poggendorff and Mueller-Lyer illusions. Perception, 15, 483–490.
21.
PrinzmetalW.BeckD. M. (2001) The tilt-consistency theory of visual illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 207–217.
22.
RasmjouS.HausmannM.GuentuerkuenO. (1999) Hemispheric dominance and gender perception in the perception of an illusion. Neuropsychology, 37, 1041–1047.
23.
RothwellB.ZaidelE. (1990) Visual field differences in the magnitude of the Oppel-Kundt illusion vary with processing time. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 180–190.
24.
SandersB.CohenM. R.SoaresM. P. (1986) The sex difference in spatial ability: A rejoinder. American Psychologist, 41, 1015–1016.
