Abstract
The perception of face gender was examined in the context of extending “face space” models of human face representations to include the perceptual categories defined by male and female faces. We collected data on the recognizability, gender classifiability (reaction time to classify a face as male/female), attractiveness, and masculinity/femininity of individual male and female faces. Factor analyses applied separately to the data for male and female faces yielded the following results. First, for both male and female faces, the recognizability and gender classifiability of faces were independent—a result inconsistent with the hypothesis that both recognizability and gender classifiability depend on a face’s “distance” from the subcategory gender prototype. Instead, caricatured aspects of gender (femininity/masculinity ratings) related to the gender classifiability of the faces. Second, facial attractiveness related inversely to face recognizability for male, but not for female, faces—a result that resolves inconsistencies in previous studies. Third, attractiveness and femininity for female faces were nearly equivalent, but attractiveness and masculinity for male faces were not equivalent. Finally, we applied principal component analysis to the pixel-coded face images with the aim of extracting measures related to the gender classifiability and recognizability of individual faces. We incorporated these model-derived measures into the factor analysis with the human rating and performance measures.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdi, H. (1994). A neural network primer.Journal of Biological Systems,2, 247–281.
Abdi, H., Valentin, D., Edelman, B., &O’Toole, A. J. (1995). More about the difference between men and women: Evidence from linear neural networks and the principal component approach.Perception,24, 539–562.
Alley, T. R., &Cunningham, M. R. (1991). Averaged faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not average.Psychological Science.2, 123–125.
Brown, E., &Perrett, D. I. (1993). What gives a face its gender?Perception,22, 829–840.
Bruce, V., Burton, A. M., Dench, N., Hanna, E., Healey, P., Mason, O., Coombes, A., Fright, R., &Linney, A. (1993). Sex discrimination: How do we tell the difference between male and female faces?Perception,22, 131–152.
Bruce, V., Ellis, H., Gibling, F., &Young, A. (1987). Parallel processing of the gender and familiarity of faces.Canadian Journal of Psychology,41, 510–520.
Bruce, V., &Langton, S. (1994). The use of pigmentation and shading information in recognising the sex and identities of faces.Perception,23, 803–822.
Bruce, V., &Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology,77, 305–327.
Burton, A. M., Bruce, V., &Dench, N. (1993). What’s the difference between men and women? Evidence from facial measurement.Perception,22, 153–176.
Chronicle, E. P., Chan, M., Hawkings, C., Mason, K., Smethurst, K., Stallybrass, K., Westrope, K., &Wright, K. (1995). You can tell by the nose—Judging sex from an isolated facial feature.Perception,24, 969–973.
Cottrell, G. W., &Fleming, M. K. (1990). Face recognition using unsupervised feature extraction. InProceedings of the International Conference on Neural Networks (pp 322–325). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Enlow, D. (1982).Handbook of facial growth. Philadelphia: W. H. Saunders.
Goldstein, A. G., &Chance, J. E. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory.Journal of Psychology,105, 47–59.
Golomb, B. A., Lawrence, D. T., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1991). SEXnet: A neural network identifies sex from human faces. In R. P. Lippmann, J. Moody, & D. S. Touretsky (Eds.),Advances in neural information processing systems 3 (pp 572–577). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Gray, M. S., Lawrence, D. T., Golomb, B. A., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1995). A perceptron reveals the face of gender.Neural Computation,7, 1160–1164.
Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., &Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: Human perception and principal components analysis.Memory & Cognition,24, 26–40.
Kshirsagar, A. M. (1972).Multivariate analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Langlois, J. H., &Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science,1, 115–121.
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., &Mussleman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?Psychological Science,5, 214–220.
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Mussleman, L., &Acton, S. (1991). A picture is worth a thousand words: A reply to “On the difficulty of averaging faces.”Psychological Science,2, 354–357.
Light, L. L., Hollander, S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember.Personality & Social Psychology,7, 269–276.
Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Memory & Learning,5, 212–228.
Morton, J., &Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition.Psychological Review,98, 164–181.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Valentin, D. (1993). Low-dimensional representation of faces in higher dimensions of the face space.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,10, 405–410.
O’Toole, A. J., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., &Valentin, D. (1995). A perceptual learning theory of the information in faces. In T. Valentine (Ed.),Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition (pp 159–182). London: Routledge.
O’Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D., &Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect.Memory & Cognition,22, 208–224.
O’Toole, A. J., Peterson, J., &Deffenbacher, K. A. (1996). An other-race effect for categorizing faces by sex.Perception,25, 669–676.
O’Toole, A. J., Vetter, T., Troje, N. F., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1997). Sex classification is better with three-dimensional structure than with image intensity information.Perception,26, 75–84.
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., &Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.Nature,368, 239–242.
Pittenger, J. B. (1991). On the difficulty of averaging faces.Psychological Science,2, 351–353.
Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First-order and second-order features as determinants of facial appearance.Perception,17, 43–63.
Roberts, T., &Bruce, V. (1988). Feature saliency in judging the sex and familiarity of faces.Perception,17, 475–481.
Rowland, D. A., &Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color.IEEE Transactions on Computer Graphics & Applications,15, 70–76.
Shepherd, J. W. (1981). Social factors in face recognition. In G. M. Davies, H. D. Ellis, & J. W. Shepherd (Eds.),Perceiving and remembering faces (pp 55–79). London: Academic Press.
Shepherd, J. W., &Ellis, H. D. (1973). The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces.American Journal of Psychology,86, 627–633.
Sirovich, L., &Kirby, M. (1987). Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,3, 519–524.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.
Turk, M., &Pentland, A. (1991). Eigenfaces for recognition.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 71–86.
Valentin, D., Abdi, H., & O’Toole, A. J. (in press). Principal component and neural network analysis of face images: Explorations into the nature of information available for classifying faces by gender.Journal of Mathematical Psychology.
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race on face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 161–204.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 300–305.
Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.
Yamaguchi, M. K., Hirukawa, T., &Kanazawa, S. (1995). Judgment of gender through facial parts.Perception,24, 563–575.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This combined analysis indicated that face recognizability is related to the distinctiveness of a face with respect to its gender subcategory prototype. Additionally, the gender classifiability of faces related to at least one caricatured aspect of face gender. This work was supported in part by NIMH Grant MH51765-02 to A.J.O. Thanks are due to June Chance and Al Goldstein for providing the faces used in the present experiments and simulations and to James C. Bartlett, Shimon Edelman, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, George Wolford, and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.
—Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Toole, A.J., Deffenbacher, K.A., Valentin, D. et al. The perception of face gender: The role of stimulus structure in recognition and classification. Memory & Cognition 26, 146–160 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211378
Received:
Accepted:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211378