[en] Recently, Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, and Klein (2012) reported that individuals were less able to recognize inverted vs. upright pictures of sexualized men as compared to women. Based on their formulation of the sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis (SBIH) it was concluded that sexualized women as compared to men are perceived in a more object-like manner supporting sexual objectification (SO) of females – independent from observer gender. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the originally reported effect is the result of a methodological artifact due to gender-symmetry and stimuli setup-symmetry confounds in the original stimulus set. We tested this theoretically more parsimonious account in a methodologically stricter and extended conceptual replication of the putative SO-effect. Results from two studies showed that the original stimulus set indeed suffered from symmetry confounds and that these are necessary boundary-conditions in order for the hypothetical SO-effect to occur. It is concluded that the SBIH as postulated by Bernard et al. (2012) is based on a methodological artifact and cannot be related to SO but symmetry detection.
Disciplines :
Theoretical & cognitive psychology
Author, co-author :
Schmidt, Alexander F. ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education (FLSHASE) > Integrative Research Unit: Social and Individual Development (INSIDE)
Kistemaker, Lisa M.
Language :
English
Title :
The Sexualized-Body-Inversion-Hypothesis Revisited: Valid Indicator of Sexual Objectification or Methodological Artifact?
