Photographs of real human figures: Item types and persistent sex differences in mental rotation
Abstract
The goal of the current study was to provide a better understanding of the role of image familiarity, embodied cognition, and cognitive strategies on sex differences in performance when rotating blocks and photographs of real human bodies. Two new Mental Rotation Tests (MRTs) were created: one using photographs of real human models positioned as closely as possible to computer drawn figures from the human figures MRT used in Doyle and Voyer's 2013 study, and one using analogous block figures. It was hypothesised that, when compared to the analogous block figures, the real human figures would lead to improved accuracy among both men and women, a reduced magnitude of sex differences in accuracy, and a reduced effect of occlusion on women's performance when compared to analogous block figures. The three-way interaction between test, sex, and occlusion reported in Doyle and Voyer's 2013 study was not replicated in the current study. However, women's scores on the real human figures improved significantly more than men's scores on the real human figures test compared to gender differences in improvement on the block figures test. This finding points to a greater strategy shift among women than men when rotating human figures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multiple studies found using human figures as item content reduced the gender gap in mental rotation performance.
“Multiple studies found using human figures as item content reduced the gender gap in mental rotation performance (e.g., Alexander & Evardone, 2008;Doyle & Voyer, 2018;Jansen & Lehmann, 2013)”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Doyle & Voyer, 2018
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Doyle, R. A., & Voyer, D.
- Affiliations
- School of Social Sciences, Minerva Schools at KGI, San Francisco, CA, USA
- University of New Brunswick (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Doyle, Randi A
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01-01
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2411-2420
- ISSN
- 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
- 1747-0218
- 1747-0226
- OpenAlex
- W2781517390
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- mental rotation, sex differences, embodied cognition, cognitive strategies, occlusion, strategy switching
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Rotation, Sex Characteristics, Space Perception, Human Body, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review