Decades of research have shown that androcentric bias (i.e., assuming that men represent the default) is prevalent across text, images, and social interactions. Despite this evidence, recent research on the mental imagery of faces shows an opposite of the expected androcentric bias: Mental representations of “typical” faces appear more like women than men. In the present research, we first aim to reconcile this apparent discrepancy by examining the mental imagery associated with typical persons using generative reverse correlation—a data-driven method that leverages artificial intelligence to construct photo-realistic imagery of visual stereotypes for both groups and individuals. Second, we explore potential reasons for the observed reversal in mental imagery by examining individual differences in typicality judgments. Across two studies, our results show (1) individuals tend to equate “typical persons” with “men” in their mental representations at the group-level; but (2) there is large individual-level variability in both “typical person” mental imagery and explicit “typicality” judgments that complicates conclusions drawn from aggregate-level data.
AlbohnD. N.AdamsR. B. (2020). Everyday beliefs about emotion perceptually derived from neutral facial appearance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00264
2.
AlbohnD. N.MartinezJ. E.TodorovA. (2024). Determinants of shared and idiosyncratic contributions to judgments of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(11), 1117–1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001239
BaileyA. H.LaFranceM.DovidioJ. F. (2019). Is man the measure of all things? A social cognitive account of androcentrism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318782848
8.
BaileyA. H.LaFranceM.DovidioJ. F. (2020). Implicit androcentrism: Men are human, women are gendered. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, 103980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103980
9.
BaileyA. H.WilliamsA.CimpianA. (2022). Based on billions of words on the internet, people = men. Science Advances, 8(13), eabm2463. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm2463
10.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
11.
BeauvoirS.de Capisto-BordeC.Malovany-ChevallierS. (2011). The second sex (1st Vintage Books ed.). Vintage Books.
12.
BrinkmanL.TodorovA.DotschR. (2017). Visualising mental representations: A primer on noise-based reverse correlation in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1381469
13.
ConeJ.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LeiR.DotschR. (2020). Type I error is inflated in the two-phase reverse correlation procedure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620938616
14.
DegnerJ.MangelsJ.ZanderL. (2019). Visualizing gendered representations of male and female teachers using a reverse correlation paradigm. Social Psychology, 50(4), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000382
GundersenA. B.KunstJ. R. (2019). Feminist ≠ Feminine? Feminist women are visually masculinized whereas feminist men are feminized. Sex Roles, 80(5), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0931-7
17.
HamiltonM. C. (1988). Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user’s imagery?Sex Roles, 19(11–12), 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288993
18.
HehmanE.SutherlandC. A. M.FlakeJ. K.SlepianM. L. (2017). The unique contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000090
19.
HönekoppJ. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199
20.
KarrasT.LaineS.AittalaM.HellstenJ.LehtinenJ.AilaT. (2020). Analyzing and improving the image quality of StyleGAN. arXiv:1912.04958 [Cs, Eess, Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04958
21.
KhanM.DanemanM. (2011). How readers spontaneously interpret man-suffix words: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40(5–6), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9173-3
22.
KunstJ. R.JuettemeierM.BaileyA. H.AnjumG.EnglishA. S.ObaidiM.SamD. L.Yaşın-TekizoğluF.AgyemangC. B. (2023). Investigation of gender bias in the mental imagery of faces. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(6), 1376–1402. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231200168
MartinA. E. (2023). Gender relativism: How context shapes what is seen as male and female. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001264
25.
MartinezJ. E.FunkF.TodorovA. (2020). Quantifying idiosyncratic and shared contributions to judgment. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 1428–1444. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01323-0
26.
MartinezJ. E.TodorovA. (2023). Mapping varied mental representations: The case of representing illegalized immigrants. Social Cognition, 41(6), 507–536. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2023.41.6.507
27.
MillerD. T.TaylorB.BuckM. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.1.5
28.
MillerM.JamesL. (2009). Is the generic pronoun he still comprehended as excluding women?The American Journal of Psychology, 122(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/27784423
29.
MillerE. J.StewardB. A.WitkowerZ.SutherlandC. A. M.KrumhuberE. G.DawelA. (2023). AI Hyperrealism: Why AI Faces Are Perceived as More Real Than Human Ones. Psychological Science, 34(12), 1390–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231207095
30.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
31.
PetersonJ. C.UddenbergS.GriffithsT. L.TodorovA.SuchowJ. W. (2022). Deep models of superficial face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(17), e2115228119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115228119
32.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Manual]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
33.
ThorneS.HegartyP.CatmurC. (2015). Is the left hemisphere androcentric? Evidence of the learned categorical perception of gender. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 20(5), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2015.1016529
34.
TodorovA.DotschR.WigboldusD.SaidC. P. (2011). Data-driven methods for modeling social perception. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(10), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00389.x
WardleS. G.EwingL.MalcolmG. L.ParanjapeS.BakerC. I. (2023). Children perceive illusory faces in objects as male more often than female. Cognition, 235, 105398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105398
37.
WardleS. G.ParanjapeS.TaubertJ.BakerC. I. (2022). Illusory faces are more likely to be perceived as male than female. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(5), e2117413119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117413119
38.
WilkieJ. E. B.BodenhausenG. V. (2012). Are numbers gendered?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024875
39.
ZhuL.BrescollV. L.NewmanG. E.UhlmannE. L. (2015). Macho nachos: The implicit effects of gendered food packaging on preferences for healthy and unhealthy foods. Social Psychology, 46(4), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000226
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
