Abstract
The toilet of Venus is the subject of many paintings. Typically, Venus appears with a small mirror in which her face is visible. Observers tend to say that Venus is admiring herself in a mirror, even when the location of the mirror makes this impossible. We demonstrate that the Venus effect is not specific to paintings by showing that it occurs in real life (Experiment 1) and in photographs (Experiments 1-4). The original description of the effect implied that observers describe Venus as seeing in a mirror what they (the observers) see. We used different photographs to compare the responses when the person in front of the mirror could or could not see him or herself and when the image of his or her face was or was not visible to the observer. Observers tend to state that a person can see his or her own reflection when he or she appears near a mirror, whether or not his or her face is visible in the mirror. A task based on a top-down view of a room confirmed that people lack sensitivity to the role of the viewpoint (Experiment 5). We discuss these findings in relation to other evidence of difficulty in understanding what is visible in a mirror.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, C., & Henry, T. L. (Eds.) (2001). The National Gallery complete illustrated catalogue. London: National Gallery.
Bertamini, M., Latto, R., & Spooner, A. (2003). The Venus effect: People’s understanding of mirror reflections in paintings. Perception, 32, 593–599. doi:10.1068/p3418
Bertamini, M., & Parks, T. E. (2005). On what people know about images on mirrors. Cognition, 98, 85–104. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.002
Bertamini, M., Spooner, A., & Hecht, H. (2003). Naive optics: Predicting and perceiving reflections in mirrors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 982–1002. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.982
Croucher, C. J., Bertamini, M., & Hecht, H. (2002). Naive optics: Understanding the geometry of mirror reflections. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 546–562. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.3.546
Field, J., & Hogg, V. (1992). Young children’s ability to find objects reflected in mirrors. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 9–11. doi:10.1080/00049539208260156
Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., Green, F. L., & Wilcox, S. A. (1981). The development of three spatial perspective-taking rules. Child Development, 52, 356–358.
Freeman, G. H., & Halton, J. H. (1951). Note on exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance. Biometrika., 38, 141–149.
Gombrich, E. H. (1960). Art and illusion.. Oxford: Phaidon.
Jones, L., Bertamini, M., & Spooner, A. (2010). The eyes have it: Naive beliefs about reflections. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lawson, R., & Bertamini, M. (2006). Errors in judging information about reflections in mirrors. Perception., 35, 1265–1288. doi:10.1068/ p5498
Lawson, R., Bertamini, M., & Liu, D. (2007). Overestimation of the projected size of objects on the surface of mirrors and windows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1027–1044. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1027
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). In the child’s conception of space: The coordination of perspectives. New York: Norton.
Poglayen-Neuwall, S. (1934). Titian’s pictures of the toilet of Venus and their copies. Art Bulletin, 16 (4), 358–384.
Winer, G. A., Cottrell, J. E., Gregg, V. R., Fournier, J. S., & Bica, L. A. (2002). Fundamentally misunderstanding visual perception. American Psychologist, 57, 417–424. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.6-7.417
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bertamini, M., Lawson, R., Jones, L. et al. The Venus effect in real life and in photographs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 1948–1964 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1948
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1948