Observers of Walking Figures See Men Advancing, Women in Retreat

When viewing figures walking, a curious illusion appears. People perceive male strollers as moving toward them, whereas the female walkers appear to be moving away, regardless of the figure's actual direction. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

One signature detail we use when we recognize people we know—one that is often overlooked—is their walk. Past studies show that we can discern gender, mood, personality traits by just watching animated simple point-figures…meaning, points of light marking joint positions on amblers, such as knees, elbows, hips, etc.

A group from the Southern Cross University in Australia published a fascinating result in the journal Current Biology, after they manipulated the light points of walkers, making figures appear more feminine or masculine.

If they made the point-form body appear male, subjects perceived that figure as walking toward them—regardless of its actual direction. If the walker seemed female, the subjects reported it was walking away from them.

Curiously, gender-neutral figures tended to appear to be moving toward the viewer. "It was only when walkers had characteristics consistent with being female did the observers begin to perceive them more often as facing away," the researchers reported.

Further, even when the researchers included perspective cues that enhance a stroller's directionality, they found subjects saw males as coming toward them more than half the time, and nearly always viewed females as in retreat.

The researchers speculate that these misperceptions may signal deeper evolutionary factors: "…a male figure that is otherwise ambiguous might best be perceived as approaching to allow the observer to prepare to flee or fight. Similarly…especially for infants, the departure of females might signal a need to act…"

Hm. Not sure, but that’s the thing in science… fascinating proven results are often left waiting for their counterpart explanations to catch up.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


- Christie Nicholson

 

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe