IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Action and Emotion Recognition from Point Light Displays: An Investigation of Gender Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Kaat Alaerts
  • Evelien Nackaerts
  • Pieter Meyns
  • Stephan P Swinnen
  • Nicole Wenderoth

Abstract

Folk psychology advocates the existence of gender differences in socio-cognitive functions such as ‘reading’ the mental states of others or discerning subtle differences in body-language. A female advantage has been demonstrated for emotion recognition from facial expressions, but virtually nothing is known about gender differences in recognizing bodily stimuli or body language. The aim of the present study was to investigate potential gender differences in a series of tasks, involving the recognition of distinct features from point light displays (PLDs) depicting bodily movements of a male and female actor. Although recognition scores were considerably high at the overall group level, female participants were more accurate than males in recognizing the depicted actions from PLDs. Response times were significantly higher for males compared to females on PLD recognition tasks involving (i) the general recognition of ‘biological motion’ versus ‘non-biological’ (or ‘scrambled’ motion); or (ii) the recognition of the ‘emotional state’ of the PLD-figures. No gender differences were revealed for a control test (involving the identification of a color change in one of the dots) and for recognizing the gender of the PLD-figure. In addition, previous findings of a female advantage on a facial emotion recognition test (the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test’ (Baron-Cohen, 2001)) were replicated in this study. Interestingly, a strong correlation was revealed between emotion recognition from bodily PLDs versus facial cues. This relationship indicates that inter-individual or gender-dependent differences in recognizing emotions are relatively generalized across facial and bodily emotion perception. Moreover, the tight correlation between a subject's ability to discern subtle emotional cues from PLDs and the subject's ability to basically discriminate biological from non-biological motion provides indications that differences in emotion recognition may - at least to some degree – be related to more basic differences in processing biological motion per se.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaat Alaerts & Evelien Nackaerts & Pieter Meyns & Stephan P Swinnen & Nicole Wenderoth, 2011. "Action and Emotion Recognition from Point Light Displays: An Investigation of Gender Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020989
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020989
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020989&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020989?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben Schouten & Alex Davila & Karl Verfaillie, 2013. "Further Explorations of the Facing Bias in Biological Motion Perception: Perspective Cues, Observer Sex, and Response Times," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-6, February.
    2. Evelien Nackaerts & Johan Wagemans & Werner Helsen & Stephan P Swinnen & Nicole Wenderoth & Kaat Alaerts, 2012. "Recognizing Biological Motion and Emotions from Point-Light Displays in Autism Spectrum Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-12, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.