A multilevel Bayesian meta-analysis of the body inversion effect: Evaluating controversies over headless and sexualized bodies.
Psychon Bull Rev 2022;
29:1558-1593. [PMID:
35230674 DOI:
10.3758/s13423-022-02067-3]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Face and body perception rely on specialized processing mechanisms to interpret social information efficiently. The body inversion effect (BIE), refers to an inversion effect for bodies, such that recognition of bodies is impaired by inversion. The BIE, like the face inversion effect (FIE), is particularly important because a disproportionate BIE relative to inversion effects for objects could be interpreted in much the same way as the disproportionate FIE has often been characterized; that is, as evidence of specialized, configural processing. However, research supporting the BIE is marked by methodological heterogeneity and mixed findings. Our multilevel Bayesian meta-analysis addresses inconsistencies in the literature by pooling data from numerous studies to estimate the magnitude of the BIE across various methodological and stimulus properties. We included 180 effect sizes from 41 empirical articles representing data from 2,274 participants. Overall, we found that the BIE was moderate-large in magnitude (Hedges' g = 0.75). Importantly, the inversion effect was larger for bodies than objects (b = 0.42); however, the inversion effect for faces was larger than for bodies (b = 0.34). We tested the role of discrimination dimension, stimulus type, face/head inclusion, stimulus sexualization, and sexualized stimulus sex as moderators of the BIE. We found that the BIE was moderated by discrimination dimension, stimulus type, stimulus sexualization, and sexualized stimulus sex. By synthesizing the existing literature, we provide a better theoretical understanding of how underlying visual processing mechanisms may differ for different types of social information (i.e., bodies vs. faces).
Collapse