Comprensión de textos:

The present study is less concerned with the objective relationship between physique and psychology, as the

perceived relationship. It concerns the way in which a stereotypic body-build might affect the judgment of an action. To this end, it is necessary to review here the state of the literature on whole-body stereotypes.

Whole-Body Stereotypes: To the extent that everyone

is a "lay psychologist", everyday perceptions of character are likely to be influenced by what is seen - in this case, whole-body information. To what extent then are social judgments mediated by whole- body stereotypes?

Much of the work on this question has its basis in the research of Sheldon (1927). Sheldon developed the idea that the human physique was determined by three independent variables, which he termed endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy (although this idea was not strictly original to him, being similar to work that had been carried out by psychologists and medics from Hippocrates to Kretschmer - see Sheldon et al, 1940 pp 11 - 15, and Eysenck, 1947). Endomorphy referred to the relative predominance of "soft roundness" in the body; this occurred when the digestive viscera had greatest dominance of the bodily economy. Mesomorphy referred to the relative predominance of muscle, bone and connective tissue, giving the body a generally more rectangular appearance. Ectomorphy referred to the relative predominance of "linearity and fragility"

Sheldon's system was a means of classifying any human physique on an index of three digits, ranging in value from 1 to 7. The first digit referred to the relative contribution of endomorphy to that body; the second to the relative contribution of mesomorphy; the third to the relative contribution of ectomorphy. In each case, the digit 1 referred to the smallest possible contribution, the the digit 7 to the largest. For instance, a 7 1 1 physique would be characterized by extreme endomorphy and minimal mesomorphy and ectomorphy. A 1 1 7 would be characterized by extreme ectomorphy and minimal endomorphy and mesomorphy. A 4 4 4 would lie at the mid-point of all these scales.

Sheldon's classification system is unfortunately of limited use to the researcher into eyewitness memory. It takes little account of the factors which might be thought most salient when viewing another person; factors such as height and weight, and the relative length of the limbs. And while a witness to a crime might be able to make a fairly accurate judgment of the perpetrator's relative endomorphy or mesomorphy, say, there is little reason to believe that s/he would be able to place the perpetrator's physique with any degree of accuracy on Sheldon's scales. Additionally, Sheldon's work has more recently come under fire for being insensitive to subtle variations in physique (see, e.g., Powell et al, 1974). It fails to provide any really useful system for the generation of body- shapes in the way that Photo-fit, say, provides a system for the generation of facial stimuli.

Nevertheless, Sheldon's system has provided the basis for a number of studies in the psychological literature. Many of these imply that different social stereotypes may exist for different body-builds. Some of the most important are mentioned here.

Lerner and Korn (1972) studied the development of body-build stereotypes in males from different age- groups between five and twenty years. They found that, at all ages, the mesomorph was the most positively regarded somatotype; and that there was a generally negative view of the endomorph and a slightly less negative view of the ectomorph: in other words, value judgments varied with physique presented. Yates and Taylor (1978) had thirty subjects attribute sixty personality traits to outline drawings based on Sheldon's three primary somatotypes. Somatotypes were not only found to be strongly stereotyped, but stereotyped in accordance with Sheldon's predictions: a rare finding in support of his theory. Hiller

(1982) had college students write stories concerning either normal or overweight targets, and found that more overweight targets were associated with more negative personality characteristics. Iwawaki and Lerner (1974) had subjects of each sex attribute thirty behavioural descriptions to pictures of male endomorphs, ectomorphs, and mesomorphs. Each sex was found to give mostly positive evaluations of mesomorphs, and mostly negative evaluations of others. Strongman and Hart (1968) found that subjects considered the mesomorphic somatotype to be associated

with "competitive aggressiveness" and "assertiveness of posture and movement", while the endomorphic somatotype was associated with neither of these characteristics, and the ectomorph was seen as an

introvert. Gacsaly and Borges (1979) had subjects attribute twenty-four personality traits to one of six body-types, varying by height and somatotype. The tall mesomorph was attributed the most socially desirable personality traits, and the endomorphs the least socially desirable personality traits. A positive image was found for ectomorphs in this study. This finding was mirrored by Ryckman, Robbins, Kaezor and Gold (1989), who had subjects attribute a variety of traits to male and female target mesomorphs, ectomorphs, and endomorphs. They found a positive stereotype of mesomorphs, and a negative stereotype of endomorphs. They also found ectomorphs to be viewed in a generally favourable light; an unusual finding in the area, and one which might conceivably reflect changing societal views about the kind of body-shape that is desirable: a phenomenon which may also be seen in the growing emphasis on slimming and increasing prominence of the "super-model".

Rappoport (1975), in a slight break from traditional research in this area, considered male body-height stereotyping. She found that stereotyping existed for all subjects, although field-dependent subjects attributed more positive traits to a tall target than did field-independent subjects. This was true for

both tall and short subjects. Women on the whole were found to stereotype less than men.

Biases in Body-Perception: On the basis of the

studies mentioned above, it seems likely that everyday social perceptions are mediated to some extent by stereotypic judgments made on the basis of physique. The picture is further complicated by the systematic egocentric biases which also appear to be involved in body-perception. Estimates of others' heights and weights are notoriously inaccurate. In the US criminal case People vs Thomas. a witness had described two perpetrators as being each about 5 foot 8 inches tall, and then went on to pick defendants of 6 foot 5 inches and 6 foot 4 inches from identification parades (Parker, 1973, p 256). Errors are made even by trained observers (Clifford and Richards, 1977).

Subjects tend to use their own height and weight when estimating the height and weight of others (see, e.g., Bailey, Shinedling and Payne, 1970; Dunaway, 1973; Gorchinski, 1973; Williams, 1975). Flin and Shepherd (1986) extended the findings of earlier studies by using a range of targets rather than just one individual. They had targets ask members of the public for directions in a busy city centre. Once the target had disappeared from view, subjects were asked to estimate his height and weight. Both estimates varied systematically according to the height and weight of the target and, to a lesser extent.

subjects' own height and weight. Importantly, Flin and Shepherd also concluded from their study that eyewitness errors were related to initial misperceptions of the target's physical characteristics, rather than to any subsequent memory distortions caused by the body-build of the interviewer. Unfortunately, it is unclear which is more important: the subject's actual or perceived

height and weight.

This is important because of the general inaccuracy of people's perceptions of their own height and weight. This effect is especially pronounced for overweight people and those who suffer from eating disorders, but is by no means restricted to them (see, e.g., Glucksman and Hirsch, 1969; Bailey, Shinedling and Payne, 1970; Gardner, Martinez and Sandoval, 1987; Collina, McCabe, Jupp and Sutton, 1983 - who found obese subjects to overestimate their own body-size by a mean of 19%; and Collins, 1987, who found obese subjects to overestimate their own body-size by amean of 12%, as against a mean of just 0.88% for normal- weight control subjects). Schonbruch and Schell (1967, cited in Collins, 1987) summarised this literature in concluding that persons with deviant physiques made more errors in judging body shape than persons with more normal physiques.

Not that these effects are limited to those with "deviant" body-builds. Systematic distortions are to be found throughout the population. Singer and Lamb (1966 - cited in Collins and Plahn, 1988, p 320) found

that most female adolescents systematically distorted self-estimated physique toward their estimate of their ideal physique; and Collins and Plahn (1988) found that females tended to underestimate their own body dimensions, while males tended to overestimate them. Minahan (1971) found that teenage girls tended to perceive their figures as more attractive than they in fact were. Given that anorexia is most likely to develop during the teenage years, it is obvious that prediction of the direction of any distortion of self- body-image during this period will be extremely difficult.

Despite studies such as those reviewed above, the issue of whole-body perception and stereotyping has consistently failed to receive the attention that its social psychological importance warrants. A pair of papers by Powell, Stewart and their colleagues highlight the basic work that still remains to be done.

Powell, Stewart and Colleagues: Powell, Tutton and

Stewart (1974) investigated how different two physiques needed to be in order to be stereotyped differently. They had fifty subjects rank six physiques (two examples of each of Sheldon's somatotypes) from "most suiting" to "least suiting" each of fifteen concepts. It was discovered that "superficially similar physiques, members of the same overall somatotype, are clearly differentiated in terms of stereotype" (Powell et al, 1974, p 422).

À follow-up paper by Litman, Powell and Stewart (1983) made a more controversial claim. They argued that the original results may have been an artifact of the ranking procedure employed in the experiment. Therefore they ran a conceptual replication of the experiment, this time not using the ranking procedure, but simply having subjects rate targets, one at a time, against their own internal standards. Subjects were presented with a target, plus six seven-point bipolar scales on which to rate it. Again, clear evidence was found for systematic differential stereotyping of similar physiques. Twenty-three of the twenty-four differences found favoured the less extreme target.

Litman et al claim that the categorical view of whole-body stereotyping (as adopted in the papers discussed above) is jeapordised by these findings. It would, they claim, require a huge number of stereotype categories to account for all possible whole-body types. Furthermore, person-perception and stereotyping may not necessarily be independent processes. They may be two sides of the same coin; the particular process employed in a given experiment depending on the stimuli employed. Where stimuli are emotive and logically indefensible, the process will be called "stereotyping"; where they are realistic and reasonable, it will be called "person perception".

The potential ramifications of this paper for whole- body stereotyping research are evident. It is possible that while many researchers have believed

themselves to be investigating the widespread influence of whole-body stereotypes, they have really been investigating the implications of their own target stimuli: hence their conclusions may have less external validity than has been claimed for them. Within the present field the ramifications are no smaller: the eyewitness situation is after all a real world situation, involving complex, subtle, and meaningful stimuli. Rigorous experimentation on eyewitness memory for whole-body information would provide a possible means of testing the claims of Powell, Stewart, and colleagues.

However, it is possible to argue that the results achieved in these papers do not justify the conclusions reached. From the finding that whole-body stereotypes do not map onto somatotypes in a one-to- one fashion, Powell, Stewart and colleagues argue that such stereotypes may not exist. Certainly, their results may justify the claim that whole-body stereotypes are more fine-grained than earlier studies would lead one to believe; but it is a big step from there to the claim that there is no qualitative difference between body-stereotyping and perception. It is possible to claim that the attribution of stereotyped characteristics correlates with body-build without claiming a direct one-to-one relationship between classes of somatotype and stereotype categories. Indeed, such a model would fit the results both of Powell, Stewart and their colleagues, and of Lerner and Korn, Yates and Taylor, etc..

discussed above. If one were to hypothesize, say, the trait of introversion to be stereotypically linked with the ectomorphic somatotype in such a way that the more ectomorphic a target appears, the more introverted he is likely to be judged, this would account for both types of result. Where a study uses just one example of each body-type, evidently the ectomorph is likely to be judged more introverted than the endomorph or the mesomorph. Where two or more examples from each category are given, then more ectomorphic targets will be judged more introverted; a result analagous to that achieved by Litman, Powell and Stewart. This seems an intuitively appealing conclusion regarding the everyday use of whole-body stereotypes.

Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between perceived size of a male target's body, and his perceived aggressiveness. Everyday experience, not only of real-world interactions but also of, e.g., Hollywood movies, implied a stereotypical positive relationship between these variables. It was hypothesized that a significant positive correlation would be established between perceived body-size and perceived aggressiveness.

MATERIALS Ninety-six still photographs were taken of male targets using a Pentax Asahi SPIOOO camera loaded with Kodachrome Gold 400 film. All targets were

photographed against a plain white wall, with heads and facial features occluded.

SUBJECTS Ninety-six volunteer subjects were used in this experiment. Forty-six subjects were male and fifty were female. All subjects were aged between 18 and 27 years. Each experimental session took a maximum of five minutes. None of the subjects was paid for participation.

PROCEDURE Each subject rated five photographs on nine- point scales on a number of variables: honesty, intelligence, attractiveness, friendliness, co­ operativeness, and aggressiveness. Correlations were calculated between these character traits and the perceived body-size of the targets in the photographs. Each photograph therefore received five ratings on each scale. The exact definition of "body-size" was left to each individual subject to determine; if they enquired, however, they were told both height and weight should be considered.

RESULT A correlation of r - +0.309 was established between rated aggressiveness and body-size across the targets, p < 0.001 on a one-tailed test. No other correlation was significant.

CONCLUSION This provides support for the theory that judgments about aggressiveness correlate with judgments about body-size. The result also indirectly supports the theory proposed above, that whole-body stereotyping is unlikely to be a categorical process, but that the attribution of stereotyped characteristics correlates with body-build. All other

things being equal, targets of larger perceived body- size are likely to be stereotyped as more aggressive than those of smaller perceived body-size. This implies that whole-body stimuli might be utilised in a study in which the variable of aggressiveness was studied. This variable has particular relevance to the crime situation. The body-size variable might be used in the same way that the race variable was used in an experiment by Duncan (1976), discussed below.

Heider and Simmel (1944)

This important paper provides an early investigation into factors which can affect subjects' judgments of ambiguous events. In this case, the factor in question was the size of geometric shapes. Heider and Simmel had subjects watch a complex sequence of actions involving numbers of geometrical shapes, including a large triangle (T) , and a small triangle (t). Subjects' interpretations of the behaviours being performed by the geometrical shapes varied partially with the size of the shape - e.g., when t moved behind T, t was said to be "following" the larger triangle; but when T moved behind t, it was said to be "chasing" the smaller triangle. Subjects also attributed human characteristics to the shapes in trying to explain their behaviour: e.g., T was troublesome; t was heroic. If such an effect could

hold for artificial stimuli, it seemed reasonable to suppose that it might also hold for human actors.

Duncan (1976)

In a sense, this experiment constituted an application of the conclusions reached by Heider and Simmel to a more realistic setting: i.e., one in which human targets were involved. Obviously, the aggressiveness of a target person is an important factor in the present field of study. A paradigm allowing investigation of the effect of body-size (and the correlated stereotype of aggressiveness) on the interpretation of an ambiguous incident would therefore have great interest.

Duncan presented subjects with brief video­ recordings ("video-clips") of target persons discussing "risky-shift" dilemmas (Wallach, Kogan and Bem, 1962). The discussion featured in each clip became more and more heated, until one discussant gave the other what Duncan describes as an "ambiguous shove", i.e., one that was neither obviously violent nor obviously playful. The race of target persons was varied across conditions: both "shover" (or "protagonist") and "shovee" (or "victim") could be either black or white: giving a total of four basic experimental conditions. Each video-clip was interrupted four times. Subjects were given a ratings form based on the Interaction Process Analysis form devised by Bales (1979), and asked to use this to rate the behaviour of the target who was acting immediately

prior to each interruption. The rating of interest was the final one, i.e., the one immediately following the "ambiguous shove".

Duncan found that the shove was more likely to be perceived as "violent" when perpetrated by a black actor than when perpetrated by a white actor, likely to be rated as "more intense", and also that subjects were more likely to attribute the cause of the behaviour to situational variables in the case of a white protagonist and to person variables in the case of a black protagonist. Strangely, although he gave subjects the opportunity to rate the behaviour as "aggressive", Duncan failed to test the effect of race on the incidence of use of this category.

Whites, therefore, were thought to have committed the act because of the situation in which they found themselves; whereas blacks were thought to have committed the act because of the type of people they