At an early stage of visual processing, human faces and bodies are typically associated with larger N170s when presented in an inverted (vs. upright) position, indexing the involvement of configural processing. We challenged this view and hypothesized that sexualized bodies would not be sensitive to inversion, thereby suggesting that they would be processed similarly to objects. Participants saw sexualized male and female bodies, nonsexualized male and female bodies, as well as objects in both upright and inverted positions while we recorded the N170. Results indicated that inverted (vs. upright) nonsexualized male and female bodies were associated with larger N170 amplitudes. In contrast, no N170 amplitude inversion effect emerged for sexualized male and female bodies or objects. These results suggest that sexualized bodies are processed similarly to objects and quite differently than nonsexualized bodies. We discuss the results and their implications in the light of the literatures in person perception and objectification.
AlhoJ.SalminenN.SamsM.HietanenJ. K.NummenmaaL. (2015). Facilitated early cortical processing of nude human bodies. Biological Psychology, 109, 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.04.010
2.
BauserD. A. S.SuchanB. (2013). Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of intact and scrambled body perception. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 686–696. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.09.030
3.
BelouchraniA.Abed-MeraimK.CardosoJ. F.MoulinesE. (1997). A blind source separation technique using second-order statistics. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 45, 434–444. doi:10.1109/78.554307
4.
BentinS.AllisonT.PuceA.PerezE.McCarthyG. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 551–565. doi:10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.551
5.
BentinS.TaylorM. J.RousseletG. A.ItierR. J.CaldaraR.SchynsP. G.…RossionB. (2007). Controlling interstimulus perceptual variance does not abolish N170 face sensitivity. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 801–802. doi:10.1038/nn0707-801
6.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469–471. doi:10.1177/0956797611434748
7.
BernardP.GervaisS.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2015). Body parts reduction and self-objectification in the objectification of sexualized bodies. International Review of Social Psychology, 28, 39–61.
8.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.DelméeA.KleinO. (2015). From sex objects to human beings: Masked sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 432–446. doi:10.1177/0361684315580125
9.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.KleinO. (2013). Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don’t explain everything: A response to Tarr. Psychological Science, 24, 1071–1073. doi:10.1177/0956797612474672
10.
BernardP.GervaisS.AllenJ.KleinO. (2015). Commentary on “The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact.”Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 845. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00845
11.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.HollandA. M.DoddM. D. (in press). When do people “check out” male bodies? Appearance-focus increases the objectifying gaze toward men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity. doi:10.1037/men0000122
12.
BernardP.LoughnanS.GodartA.MarchalC.KleinO. (2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72, 499–508. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0
13.
BrandmanT.YovelG. (2010). The body inversion effect is mediated by face-selective, not body-selective, mechanisms. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 10534–10540. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0911-10.2010
14.
BuseyT. A.VanderkolkJ. R. (2005). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45, 431–448. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.08.021
15.
CivileC.ObhiS. S. (2016). Power, objectification, and recognition of sexualized women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 199–212. doi:10.1177/0361684315604820
16.
CivileC.ZhaoD.KuY.ElchleppH.LavricA.McLarenI. P. (2014). Perceptual learning and inversion effects: Recognition of prototype-defined familiar checkerboards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 144–161. doi:10.1037/xan0000013
17.
de GelderB.Van den StockJ.MeerenH. K. M.SinkeC. B. A.KretM. E.TamiettoM. (2010). Standing up for the body. Recent progress in uncovering the networks involved in processing bodies and bodily expressions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 513–527. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.008
18.
DiamondR.CareyS. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
19.
DienesZ. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274–290. doi:10.1177/1745691611406920
20.
FengC.WangL.WangN.GuR.LuoY. J. (2012). The time course of implicit processing of erotic pictures: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1489, 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.019
21.
FincherK. M.TetlockP. E. (2016). Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 131–146. doi:10.1037/xge0000132
22.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
23.
GervaisS. J.HollandA.DoddM. (2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69, 557–570. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x
24.
GervaisS. J.VescioT. K.MaassA.FörsterJ.SuitnerC. (2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743–753. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1890
25.
GruenfeldD. H.InesiM. E.MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 111–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
26.
HastingA. S.KotzS. A. (2008). Speeding up syntax: On the relative timing and automaticity of local phrase structure and morphosyntactic processing as reflected in event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1207–1219. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20083
27.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598–601. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008
28.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2014). Seeing eye to body: The literal objectification of women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 225–229. doi:10.1177/0963721414531599
29.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L.CooperD. P.PuviaE. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572–581. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020
30.
HietanenJ. K.KirjavainenI.NummenmaaL. (2014). Additive effects of affective arousal and top-down attention on the event-related brain responses to human bodies. Biological Psychology, 103, 167–175. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.09.003
31.
HietanenJ. K.NummenmaaL. (2011). The naked truth: The face and body sensitive N170 response is larger for nude bodies. PLoS One, 6, e24408. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024408
32.
HugenbergK.YoungS.RydellR. J.AlmarazS.StankoK. A.SeeP. E.WilsonJ. P. (2016). The face of humanity: Configural face processing influences ascriptions of humanness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 167–175. doi:10.1177/1948550615609734
33.
JeffreysH. (1961). The theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
KubotaJ. T.ItoT. A. (2007). Multiple cues in social perception: The time course of processing race and facial expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 738–752. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.023
35.
KunstmanJ. W.ManerJ. K. (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 282–294. doi:10.1037/a0021135
36.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.MurnaneT.VaesJ.ReynoldsC.SuitnerC. (2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709–717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755
37.
LoughnanS.PinaA.VasquezE. A.PuviaE. (2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455–461. doi:10.1177/0361684313485718
38.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
39.
McKoneE.KanwisherN.DuchaineB. C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 8–15. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.002
40.
MinnebuschD. A.KeuneP. M.SuchanB.DaumI. (2010). Gradual inversion affects the processing of human body shapes. Neuroimage, 49, 2746–2755. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.046
41.
MinnebuschD. A.SuchanB.DaumI. (2009). Losing your head: Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of body inversion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 865–874. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21074
42.
NummenmaaL.HietanenJ. K.SanttilaP.HyönäJ. (2012). Gender and visibility of sexual cues influence eye movements while viewing faces and bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1439–1451. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9911-0
43.
OfanR. H.RubinN.AmodioD. M. (2011). Seeing race: N170 responses to race and their relation to automatic racial attitudes and controlled processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3153–3161. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00014
44.
PeelenM. V.DowningP. E. (2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 636–648. doi:10.1038/nrn2195
45.
ReedC. L.StoneV. E.BozovaS.TanakaJ. (2003). The body inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14, 302–308. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73
46.
ReichertT.CarpenterC. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823–837. doi:10.1177/ 107769900408100407
47.
RelleckeJ.PalazovaM.SommerW.SchachtA. (2011). On the automaticity of emotion processing in words and faces: Event-related brain potentials evidence from a superficial task. Brain and Cognition, 77, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.001
48.
RosburgT.LudowigE.DümpelmannM.Alba-FerraraL.UrbachH.ElgerC. E. (2010). The effect of face inversion on intracranial and scalp recordings of event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 47, 147–157. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.11.006
49.
RossionB.GauthierI.GoffauxV.TarrM. J.CrommelinckM. (2002). Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized facelike electrophysiological responses. Psychological Science, 13, 250–257. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00446
50.
RossionB.GauthierI.TarrM. J.DesplandP.BruyerR.LinotteS.CrommelinckM. (2000). The N170 occipito-temporal component is delayed and larger to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: An electrophysiological account of face-specific processes in the human brain. Neuroreport, 11, 69–72. doi:10.1097/00001756-200001170-00014
51.
RossionB.JacquesC. (2008). Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? Ten lessons on the N170. Neuroimage, 39, 1959–1979. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.011
52.
SchmidtA. F.KistemakerL. M. (2015). The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis revisited: Valid indicator of sexual objectification or methodological artifact?Cognition, 134, 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.003
53.
StekelenburgJ. J.de GelderB. (2004). The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: An ERP study on the body-inversion effect. Neuroreport, 15, 777–780. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000119730.93564.e8
54.
TarrM. (2013). Perception isn’t so simple. Commentary on ‘Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis (Bernard et al., 2012).’Psychological Science, 24, 1069–1070. doi:10.1177/0956797612474669
55.
TylerJ. M.CalogeroR. M.AdamsK. E. (2016). Perpetuation of sexual objectification: The role of resource depletion. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12157
56.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
57.
WardL. M. (2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496
58.
YovelG.PelcT.LubetskyI. (2010). It’s all in your head: Why is the body inversion effect abolished for headless bodies?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 36, 759–767. doi:10.1037/a0017451
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.
