The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?

Cognition

Volumn 134, Issue , 2015, Pages 77-84

  Schmidt, Alexander F ^a,b   Kistemaker, Lisa M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

Artifact; Body inversion effect; Object perception; Person perception; Sexual objectification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BODY POSTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; GENDER SYMMETRY; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; OBJECT MANIPULATION; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXISM; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION; SEXUALIZED BODY INVERSION HYPOTHESIS; STIMULUS; ART; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ADULT; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMAN BODY; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84908350952     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bartky S.L. Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression 1990, Routledge, New York, NY.
2. Bernard P., Gervais S.J., Allen J., Campomizzi S., Klein O. Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science 2012, 23:469-471. 10.1177/0956797611434748.
3. Bernard P., Gervais S.J., Allen J., Klein O. Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don't explain everything: A response to Tarr (2013). Psychological Science 2013, 24:1071-1073. 10.1177/0956797612474672.
4. Fredrickson B.L., Roberts T.-A. Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly 1997, 21:173-206. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.
5. Gervais S.J., Vescio T.K., Allen J. When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2011, 35:5-17. 10.1177/0361684310386121.
6. Gervais S.J., Vescio T.K., Förster J., Maass A., Suitner C. Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology 2012, 42:743-753. 10.1002/ejsp.1890.
7. Hayward W.G., Tarr M.J. Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1997, 23:1511-1521. 10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1511.
8. Heflick N.A., Goldenberg J.A. Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2014, 23:225-229. 10.1177/0963721414531599.
9. Maurer D., Le Grand R., Mondloch C.J. The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:255-260. 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.
10. Moradi B., Huang Y.-P. Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2008, 32:377-398. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.
11. Reed C.L., Stone V.E., Bozova S., Tanaka J. The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science 2003, 14:302-308. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73.
12. Reed C.L., Stone V.E., Grubb J.D., McGoldrick J.E. Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:73-87. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73.
13. Rohlinger D.A. Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles 2002, 46:61-74. 10.1023/A:1016575909173.
14. Swim J.K., Hyers L.L., Cohen L.L., Ferguson M.J. Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues 2001, 57:31-53. 10.1111/0022-4537.00200.
15. Tarr M.J. Perception isn't so simple. Commentary on Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, and Klein (2012). Psychological Science 2013, 24:1069-1070. 10.1177/0956797612474669.
16. Tarr M.J., Bülthoff H.H., Zabinski M., Blanz V. To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint?. Psychological Science 1997, 8:282-289. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00439.x.
17. Tarr M.J., Pinker S. Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology 1989, 21:233-282. 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90009-1.
18. Yin R.K. Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1969, 81:141-145. 10.1037/h002747.