{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

E there is a sometimes subtle emphasis on mens faces

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: emerge as influential use prototypical utterances utterances Ratio of head to body in images is larger for men: i.e., there is a (sometimes) subtle emphasis on men’s faces and on women’s bodies. Face-ism: systematic bias, to overrep (for men) their faces relative to bodies in pix as compared to women Brooke & Ng, mixed sex - after discussions ppl ranked self and others on hierarchy. Generally speaking very close to complete consensus. Coded for speaking turns and language. powerful & powerless lang didn't matter, the predictor = number of turns Reid&Ng, ppl who spoke more were more influential. Content did actually matter. More prototypical -- more turns. 2 Archer, Iritani, Kimes, & Barrios (1983): (1) 1750 photos in Time, Newsweek, Ms. . . (2) (2) 3500 pictures from 13 other publications in 11 other countries in 11 other countries (3) 920 portraits 15th to 20th century (4) Student drawings of men and women Wanted to find out if it was a systematic bias (face-ism) They found the bias was present in American media, tested publications in other countries again bias present across cultures. Contemporary culture? Bias prevalent in portraits from 15-20th centuries "Draw a man" vs "Draw a woman" ppl tend to draw pix where ratio face to body larger for men than for women Most of us probably don't notice face-ism bias. Arguably this bias is contributing to stereotypes. Sexual strategies going on, men interested in bodies (fertility cues?). Character no longer nearly as important in females ("ooh nice dress" vs "he looks competent, powerful, etc") Men are to be feared, paid attn to, competent. Women don't have these attributes. Passive voice: 5. 5. Labor Depa...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}