Recent research found that sexualized bodies are visually processed similarly to objects. This article examines the effects of skin-to-clothing ratio and posture suggestiveness on cognitive objectification. Participants were presented images of upright versus inverted bodies while we recorded the N170. We used the N170 amplitude inversion effect (larger N170 amplitudes for inverted vs. upright stimuli) to assess cognitive objectification, with no N170 inversion effect indicating less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, skin-to-clothing ratio was not associated with cognitive objectification (Experiments 1-3). However, consistent with Hypothesis 2, we found that posture suggestiveness was the key driver of cognitive objectification (Experiment 2), even after controlling for body asymmetry (Experiment 3). This article showed that high (vs. low) posture suggestiveness caused cognitive objectification (regardless of body asymmetry), whereas high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratio did not. The implications for objectification and body perception literatures are discussed.

Sexual objectification occurs when someone is seen as a sexual object or seen primarily as a body, sexual body parts, or sexual functions for the use of others (Bartky, 1990; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Langton, 2009). Many studies inspired by theorizing on sexual objectification have found that the degree to which one is sexualized causes people to be perceived in object-like ways (see Heflick & Goldenberg, 2014; Ward, 2016, for reviews). For instance, sexualized people are perceived in the same way as ordinary objects at a neural level (Bernard, Content, Deltenre, & Colin, 2018; Bernard, Rizzo, Hoonhorst, Deliens, Gervais et al., 2017). Yet, sexualization appears to have different meanings depending on the researcher and specific investigation: Sexualization has been introduced through revealing clothing (Cikara, Eberhardt, & Fiske, 2010; Gray, Knobe, Sheskin, Bloom, & Barrett, 2011; Holland & Haslam, 2016; Loughnan, Pina, Vasquez, & Puvia, 2013), greater body-to-face ratio (Bernard, Loughnan, Godart, Marchal, & Klein, 2015; Loughnan et al., 2010; Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011), and posture suggestiveness (Bernard et al., 2018; Vaes et al., 2011) sometimes in separate studies and sometimes within the same investigation (e.g., Bernard et al., 2018; Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2012, 2015; Bernard, Rizzo et al., 2017; Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Delmée, & Klein, 2015; Civile & Obhi, 2016; Gray et al., 2011; Loughnan et al., 2010; Loughnan et al., 2013; Vaes et al., 2011). This initial work has been informative, but the use of sexualization as an umbrella term leaves questions of which aspects of sexualization cause people to be perceived in object-like ways less clear.

Although research has shown that sexualization causes objectification, we do not know why this is the case. This is concerning because sexualization does not occur in a vacuum. It is a culturally situated phenomenon in which a form of sexuality is hoisted on girls and women to a greater degree than boys and men through media and interpersonal interactions in Western cultures (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). People are persistently exposed to images of sexualized bodies in revealing clothing and suggestive postures across various entertainment platforms (e.g., movies, TV series, music videos, magazines, video games) and through advertisements (Ward, 2016). There is also mounting evidence that girls and women sometimes present themselves in ways that correspond with this narrow view of sexuality (Smolak, Murnen, & Myers, 2014). Understanding the specific aspects of when sexualization causes objectification would have both scientific and practical utility. Researchers could pinpoint the specific aspects of sexualization that cause objectification. For example, if some aspects of sexualization promote objectification while others do not, this could shed light on when sexualization causes objectification and perhaps just as importantly when it does not. Objectification may not be an inevitable outcome of sexualization—for example, people may have sex with relationship partners in which their partner is sexualized without inevitably thinking of their partner as a sexual object.

In this article, we examined cognitive objectification because such indicators of objectification (e.g., event-related potentials [ERPs]) associated with visual processing, Bernard et al., 2018; Bernard, Rizzo, et al., 2017) are less influenced by demand and social desirability concerns than self-reports that are often used in objectification research (for a review, see Heflick & Goldenberg, 2014). Cognitive objectification can be defined as a reduction of a human figure to his or her constitutive parts. We will review evidence showing that human bodies are perceived more configurally (as Gestalts) while objects are perceived less configurally and more analytically (as an assemblage of parts). We will then introduce the inversion effect as an indicator of configural (vs. analytic) processing of bodies versus objects. Relying on this indicator, we will test whether revealing clothing, posture suggestiveness, or both cause cognitive objectification.

Experiment 2: Skin-to-Clothing Ratio, Posture Suggestiveness, and Cognitive Objectification Experiment 1 provided preliminary evidence that skin-to-clothing does not predict cognitive objectification. At first blush, this finding is inconsistent with recent research showing that target sexualization causes less configural processing and more cognitive objectification (Bernard et al., 2018; Bernard, Rizzo et al., 2017). Yet, in these prior studies, sexualized targets differed from nonsexualized targets in terms of both skin-to-clothing and posture suggestiveness. In this second experiment, we manipulated skin-to-clothing ratio as well as posture suggestiveness and examined their respective effects on cognitive objectification. Thus, we tested Hypothesis 1 again, but based on the results from Experiment 1, we explored whether skin-to-clothing ratio did (or did not) cause less configural processing and cognitive objectification. The second objective of Experiment 2 was to examine whether posture suggestiveness causes cognitive objectification. Toward this end, we tested two competing hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that cognitive objectification only occurs for highly sexualized targets (Hypothesis 2a), which would be evidenced by similar N170 amplitudes for upright and inverted bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios and suggestive postures at the same time. The second hypothesis is that posture suggestiveness is sufficient to trigger cognitive objectification (Hypothesis 2b), which would be evidenced by similar N170 amplitudes for inverted and upright bodies displaying suggestive postures (regardless skin-to-clothing ratio). Finally, as in Experiment 1, we examined whether skin-to-clothing ratio is encoded at an early stage of visual processing, as indexed by larger N170 amplitudes for bodies with high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratios consistent with prior research (Hietanen & Nummenmaa, 2011). We extended prior research and Experiment 1 beyond skin-to-clothing ratio and examined whether similar effects emerged for posture suggestiveness. Based on the notion that enhanced N170s reflect arousal (Alho et al., 2015), we thus expected that suggestive postures would be associated with larger N170 amplitudes. Method Given that the new posture suggestiveness condition is a within-participants condition variable, we followed the a priori power analysis made from Experiment 1 and thus tested 20 participants (10 women; M age = 23.21; SD = 3.17). The MAD analysis (Leys et al., 2013) conducted prior to analysis revealed the absence of any outlier while relying on a conservative outlier detection criterion (±3 MAD). The method was the same as in Experiment 1, except the stimuli were comprised of pictures of the same persons having high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying suggestive (vs. nonsuggestive) postures. Among these pictures, half of them have already been used by Bernard et al. (2018) in a recent ERP investigation (i.e., bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying nonsuggestive postures and bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying suggestive postures). Miniaturized versions of all pictures appear below (Figure 3). Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint Pretest of the images We conducted a pretest of the images with 43 participants (22 women, M age = 28.60, SD = 4.07) who did not take part in the main study. They were asked to rate a series of four pictures of people having either a low (n = 21) or high (n = 22) skin-to-clothing ratio. The four pictures were the same man and woman displaying either a nonsuggestive posture or a suggestive posture (Figure 3). Participants were asked to indicate, on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very much), their level of agreement regarding skin-to-clothing ratio (i.e., this man/woman wears clothes that reveal her or his body), posture suggestiveness (i.e., this man/woman displays a sexually suggestive body posture), and sexualization (i.e., this man/woman is depicted in a sexualized way). For posture suggestiveness, targets displaying suggestive postures were indeed rated as displaying a more suggestive posture (M = 5.14, SE = .19) than targets displaying nonsuggestive postures (M = 1.42, SE = .16), F(1, 41) = 294.82, p < .001, η p 2 = .88. For revealing clothing, targets with high skin-to-clothing ratios (M = 5.32, SE = .38) were rated as wearing clothes that reveal their bodies to a greater extent than targets with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = 2.17, SE = .39), F(1, 41) = 33.67, p < .001, η p 2 = .45. Regarding target sexualization, the main effects of posture suggestiveness, F(1, 41) = 193.63, p < .001, η p 2 = .83, and skin-to-clothing ratio, F(1, 41) = 13.79, p = .001, η p 2 = .25, were associated with higher target sexualization. The former effect reflects that bodies with suggestive postures were rated as being more sexualized (M = 4.73, SE = .20) than bodies with nonsuggestive postures (M = 1.78, SE = .16). The latter effect revealed that bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios (M = 3.82, SE = .21) were rated as being more sexualized than bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = 2.69, SE = .22). Interestingly, however, the interaction between posture and skin-to-clothing ratio was not significant, F(1, 41) = 1.75, p = .19, η p 2 = .04, indicating that posture suggestiveness or skin-to-clothing ratio alone was sufficient to trigger sexualized self-reports. Results We submitted N170 amplitudes to a 2 (skin-to-clothing ratio: high, low) × 2 (posture suggestiveness: nonsuggestive, suggestive) × 2 (target gender: female, male) × 2 (picture position: upright, inverted) × 2 (hemispheric lateralization: left, right) repeated-measures ANOVA. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 2a positing that cognitive objectification only occurs for highly sexualized targets (i.e., bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying suggestive postures at the same time), the interaction between skin-to-clothing ratio, posture suggestiveness, and picture position was not significant, F(1, 19) = 0.047, p = .83, η p 2 < .01. As in Experiment 1, bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying nonsuggestive postures were associated with larger N170 amplitudes when presented inverted than when presented upright and, surprisingly, this pattern was more pronounced for bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying nonsuggestive postures than for bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios and displaying nonsuggestive postures, F(1, 19) = 10.05, p = .005, η p 2 = .35. Supporting Hypothesis 2b positing that posture suggestiveness is the key driver of cognitive objectification, we found an interaction between posture suggestiveness and picture position, F(1, 19) = 14.18, p = .001, η p 2 = .43 (Figure 4). For bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures, inverted bodies were associated with larger N170 amplitudes (M = −4.96 µV, SE = .54) compared with their upright counterparts (M = −4.15 µV, SE = .49), F(1, 19) = 5.49, p = .03, 95% CI = [–1.52, –0.09], η p 2 = .22, evidencing configural processing and no cognitive objectification. In contrast, we did not find such a N170 inversion effect for bodies displaying suggestive postures, with inverted (M = −4.97 µV, SE = .53) and upright bodies (M = −4.81 µV, SE = .49) triggering similar N170 amplitudes, F(1, 19) = 0.27, p = .61, 95% CI = [–0.78, 0.47], η p 2 = .01, indicating less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint We also found additional support for Hypothesis 2b using one-sample t tests to assess whether inversion effects were significantly different from zero. Higher scores indicate a larger inversion effect and more configural processing, whereas inversion effects that do not differ from zero indicate less configural processing and more objectification. The N170 amplitude inversion effect was significantly different from zero for targets displaying nonsuggestive postures, t(19) = 2.34, p = .03, indicating configural processing and no cognitive objectification. In contrast, the N170 inversion effects for bodies displaying suggestive postures, t(19) = 0.52, p = .61, and objects, t(19) = 0.82, p = .42, were not different from zero, indicating less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. As in Experiment 1, and consistent with the hypothesis that skin-to-clothing is encoded at an early stage of visual processing, we found a main effect of skin-to-clothing ratio, F(1, 19) = 27.46, p < .001, η p 2 = .59: Bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios were associated with larger N170s (M = −5.91 µV, SE = .63) than bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −3.54 μV, SE = .42). This is consistent with prior research suggesting that higher skin-to-clothing ratio causes enhanced N170s due to the arousing nature of this type of stimuli (Alho et al., 2015). Extending prior work in this area to postural suggestiveness, the ANOVA also revealed a main effect of posture suggestiveness, F(1, 19) = 12.94, p = .002, η p 2 = .41: Bodies displaying suggestive postures were associated with larger N170 amplitudes (M = −4.89 µV, SE = .49) than bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures (M = −4.55 µV, SE = .49). These results suggest that posture suggestiveness is encoded at an early stage of visual processing (as indexed by larger N170s for suggestive postures), which might reflect that suggestive postures are more arousing than nonsuggestive postures. Finally, the ANOVA revealed a main effect of target gender, F(1, 19) = 25.31, p < .001, η p 2 = .57, with female bodies (M = −5.04, SE = .51) associated with larger N170 amplitudes than male bodies (M = −4.40, SE = .47). Additional secondary results can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials document. Discussion The results from Experiments 1 and 2 corroborated the notion that skin-to-clothing ratio alone does not cause cognitive objectification of bodies. People with high and low skin-to-clothing ratios were processed configurally (larger N170s for inverted bodies in comparison with upright bodies) and not cognitively objectified. Instead, posture suggestiveness was the key driver of cognitive objectification. Bodies with nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally and not objectified. In contrast, inverted and upright bodies with suggestive postures triggered similar N170s, evidencing less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. This pattern was the same for male and female targets. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence that suggestive postures cause objectification in general and cognitive objectification specifically. Moreover, replicating Experiment 1’s findings, bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios were associated with enhanced N170 amplitudes. Likewise, suggestive postures were also associated with enhanced neural responses. In line with Alho et al. (2015), we interpret these findings as reflecting arousal. Taken together, our findings suggest that skin-to-clothing and posture suggestiveness induced enhanced N170s, but cognitive objectification appears to be specifically driven by posture suggestiveness.

Experiment 3: Replication While Controlling for Body Asymmetry Taken together, Experiments 1 and 2 suggested that cognitive objectification of bodies is driven by posture suggestiveness, not by skin-to-clothing ratio. However, even though we used the same targets displaying suggestive and nonsuggestive postures, reflecting natural variability between these postures, it might be that cognitive objectification is influenced by body asymmetry (e.g., it may be easier to mentally rotate asymmetric stimuli−and therefore visually process inverted vs. upright stimuli similarly−relative to symmetric stimuli). Indeed, suggestive postures were more asymmetric than nonsuggestive postures. One may argue that the cognitive objectification that emerged in Experiment 2 could be related to body asymmetry rather than posture suggestiveness. Stated differently, it might be that bodies with suggestive postures caused larger N170 amplitudes because asymmetrical bodies require more cognitive resources to visually process them (i.e., ceiling effect in N170 amplitudes for both inverted and upright bodies with suggestive postures) as compared with bodies displaying symmetrical nonsuggestive postures. To rule out this possibility and examine the robustness of the effect of posture suggestiveness, we designed a third experiment that aimed to investigate whether posture suggestiveness, rather than body asymmetry is the key factor that causes the cognitive objectification of bodies. Because postures that are sexually suggestive are often asymmetric, we created in Experiment 3 suggestive versus nonsuggestive postures that were similarly asymmetric. We expected to replicate results found in Experiment 2 while using pictures differing in terms of posture suggestiveness but matched in terms of asymmetry. That is, consistent with Hypothesis 2, we expected that the newly created images of asymmetrical bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures would be processed configurally (larger N170s for inverted vs. upright bodies), whereas the asymmetry-matched bodies displaying suggestive postures would be processed less configurally (similar N170s for inverted and upright bodies) and more cognitively objectified. Method As in Experiment 2, we tested 20 participants. Based on a MAD analysis (Leys et al., 2013) with a conservative outlier detection criterion (±3 MAD), one participant was excluded from the sample prior to analysis given extremely high N170 amplitudes (>3 MAD). The final sample thus included 19 participants (10 women; M age = 22.26, SD = 1.66). However, note that the data file of one participant for one block (objects) was corrupted and we were not able to analyze it, which resulted in 18 participants for this specific block. The method was the same as in Experiment 2, except that the targets displaying nonsuggestive postures were matched (via an image editing software) in terms of asymmetry with the targets displaying suggestive postures (Figure 5). Following the procedure suggested by Schmidt and Kistemaker (2015), we calculated body-posture asymmetry by drawing five body-axes through parallel body parts (eyes, shoulders, elbows, hands, and hips). Both suggestive and nonsuggestive postures were associated with the same mean asymmetry index, that is, 29°. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint Results We submitted N170 amplitudes to a 2 (skin-to-clothing ratio: high, low) × 2 (posture suggestiveness: nonsuggestive, suggestive) × 2 (target gender: female, male) × 2 (picture position: upright, inverted) × 2 (hemispheric lateralization: left, right) repeated-measures ANOVA. Overall, we replicated the results found in Experiment 2 while using asymmetry-matched bodies. As in Experiment 2, and consistent with Hypothesis 2b that posited that posture suggestiveness drives cognitive objectification of bodies, we found an interaction between posture suggestiveness and picture position (Figure 6), F(1, 18) = 10.43, p = .005, η p 2 = .37: Inverted bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures (M = −3.17 µV; SE = .55) were associated with larger N170s compared with their upright counterparts (M = −2.49 µV; SE = .49), F(1, 18) = 6.58, p = .019, 95% CI = [–1.23, –0.12], η p 2 = .27, evidencing configural processing and no cognitive objectification. In contrast, picture position did not modulate the N170 amplitudes associated with bodies displaying suggestive postures, F(1, 18) = 0.08, p = .78, 95% CI = [–0.57, 0.43], η p 2 = .005, evidencing less configural processing and more cognitive objectification. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint One-sample t tests also replicated results found in Experiment 2, providing additional evidence for Hypothesis 2b: The inversion effect for bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures was significantly greater than zero, t(18) = 2.57, p = .019, whereas this was not the case either for objects, t(17) = 2.03, p = .059, or bodies displaying suggestive postures, t(18) = 0.29, p = .78. Overall, these results evidenced that bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally (as indexed by the significant N170 inversion effect), whereas bodies with suggestive postures were processed less configurally and cognitively objectified (as indexed by the absence of N170 inversion effect). Given bodies displaying suggestive postures are associated with the same asymmetry index as compared with bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures, this indicates that bodies displaying suggestive postures are processed less configurally and objectified because of posture suggestiveness, not because of body asymmetry. Moreover, as in Experiments 1 and 2, we found a main effect of skin-to-clothing ratio, F(1, 18) = 14.90, p = .001, η p 2 = .45, with bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −3.75 µV; SE = .66) associated with larger N170s in comparison with bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −2.06 µV; SE = .42). This main effect was qualified by a skin-to-clothing ratio and target gender interaction, F(1, 18) = 18.25, p < .001, η p 2 = .50. For female bodies, females with high skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −4.01 µV; SE = .71) caused larger N170 amplitudes than females with low-skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −2.07 μV; SE = .44), F(1, 18) = 18.12, p < .001 η p 2 = .50. Likewise, males with high skin-to-clothing ratios were associated with larger N170s (M = −3.50 µV; SE = .62) in comparison with males with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −2.06 µV; SE = .41), F(1, 18) = 11.36, p = .003, η p 2 = .39, although this pattern was significantly less pronounced in comparison with females. We also found a main effect of posture suggestiveness, F(1, 18) = 9.58, p = .006, η p 2 = .35: Bodies with suggestive (vs. nonsuggestive) postures were associated with enhanced N170 amplitudes in comparison with bodies with nonsuggestive postures, suggesting that bodies with suggestive postures were more arousing. Finally, a main effect of target gender on N170 amplitude did emerge, F(1, 18) = 5.09, p = .037, η p 2 = .22, with larger N170s for female versus male bodies. Additional secondary results can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials document. Discussion The results from Experiment 3 replicated Experiments 1 and 2, revealing that posture suggestiveness, but not skin-to-clothing ratio caused cognitive objectification. Importantly, Experiment 3 showed that the effects of postural suggestiveness on cognitive objectification (i.e., similar N170s for inverted vs. upright bodies) hold even when asymmetry remains constant. Moreover, as in Experiments 1 and 2, participants were sensitive to changes in skin-to-clothing ratio, as was evidenced by larger N170s for people with high (vs. low) skin-to-clothing ratios, but this did not manifest in cognitive objectification. In a similar vein, participants were also sensitive to posture suggestiveness as evidenced by larger N170s for bodies with suggestive (vs. nonsuggestive) postures.

Meta-Analysis and Bayesian Analysis (Experiments 1-3) Meta-Analysis We combined datasets for bodies having low versus high skin-to-clothing ratio (Experiments 1-3), for bodies displaying nonsuggestive versus suggestive postures (Experiments 2-3) and for objects (Experiments 1-3). First, we submitted N170 amplitudes to a 2 (skin-to-clothing ratio: high, low) × 2 (picture position: upright, inverted) repeated-measures ANOVA. The interaction between skin-to-clothing ratio and picture position was not significant, F(1, 59) = 0.63, p = .43, η p 2 = .01. However, the main effect of picture position was significant, F(1, 59) = 23.45, p < .001, 95% CI = [–1.11, –0.46], η p 2 = .28, with inverted bodies associated with larger N170s in comparison with their upright counterparts. Overall, this means that bodies with nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally and not objectified, regardless of the level of skin-to-clothing ratio. The ANOVA also corroborated the hypothesis that skin-to-clothing was encoded at an early stage of visual processing and perceived as arousing stimuli, with larger N170 amplitudes for bodies with high skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −4.85 µV, SE = .34) in comparison with bodies with low skin-to-clothing ratios (M = −2.72 µV, SE = .25), F(1, 59) = 85.08, p < .001, 95% CI = [–2.60, –1.67], η p 2 = .59. Second, we submitted N170 amplitudes to a 2 (posture suggestiveness: nonsuggestive, suggestive) × 2 (picture position: upright, inverted) repeated-measures ANOVA. The main effect of picture position reflecting larger N170s for inverted bodies in comparison with upright bodies, F(1, 38) = 4.89, p = .033, η p 2 = .11, was qualified by the interaction between posture suggestiveness and picture position, F(1, 38) = 25.04, p < .001, η p 2 = .40. For bodies with nonsuggestive postures, N170s were larger for inverted (M = −4.08 µV, SE = .41) than for their upright bodies (M = −3.34 μV, SE = .37), F(1, 38) = 11.87, p = .001, 95% CI = [–1.17, –0.31], η p 2 = .24. In contrast, this pattern did not emerge for bodies displaying suggestive postures, F(1, 38) = 0.36, p = .56, 95% CI = [–0.50, 0.27], η p 2 = .009. This further supports the notion that bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally and not objectified, whereas bodies displaying suggestive postures were processed less configurally and objectified. The main effect of posture suggestiveness was also significant, presumably because suggestive postures are more arousing in comparison with nonsuggestive postures. Larger N170 amplitudes emerged for bodies with suggestive postures (M = −3.96 µV, SE = .38) in comparison with bodies with nonsuggestive postures (M = −3.71 µV, SE = .37), F(1, 38) = 20.23, p < .001, 95% CI = [–0.36, –0.14], η p 2 = .35. Third, we compared whether N170 inversion effects associated with the different categories of bodies were significantly greater than the inversion effect associated with objects. The inversion effects of bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures (having either low or high skin-to clothing ratios) were significantly greater than the inversion effect associated with objects, ps < .01. However, the inversion effect associated with bodies displaying suggestive postures did not differ from the inversion effect associated with objects, t(37) = −0.24, p = .81. This confirms that bodies displaying suggestive postures were processed less configurally than bodies with nonsuggestive postures and cognitively objectified; bodies with suggestive postures were processed similarly to objects, with no N170 inversion effect (i.e., similar N170 amplitudes for inverted and upright stimuli), evidencing cognitive objectification. Bayesian Analysis Finally, given that we relied on the absence of the N170 amplitude inversion effect (i.e., no difference in N170 amplitudes for inverted and upright bodies) to examine cognitive objectification, we performed a Bayesian assessment of the extent to which the null result supports the null hypothesis. We used Dienes’s (2011) calculator and based our analysis of the lowest effect size observed in the previous literature (Minnebusch, Keune, Suchan, & Daum, 2010) for the body-inversion effect ( η p 2 = .25). This assumes greater amplitudes for inverted versus upright bodies. The mean difference between upright and inverted bodies on the N170 amplitude should follow a half-normal distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.71. The inversion effect for bodies with suggestive postures was associated with a Bayes factor of .19, which is considered as substantial evidence for the null hypothesis (Jeffreys, 1961), i.e., the absence of inversion effect in the context of the present investigation. In contrast, inversion effects for bodies with nonsuggestive postures were associated with Bayes factors (11-159) that are considered as strong to extreme evidence for H1, evidencing configural processing and no cognitive objectification. In sum, Bayesian statistics provided complementary evidence that bodies displaying nonsuggestive postures were processed configurally (i.e., larger N170s for inverted vs. upright bodies), regardless of skin-to-clothing ratio, whereas bodies displaying suggestive postures were associated with similar N170s when presented in an inverted versus upright position, evidencing less configural processing and cognitive objectification.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS, Belgium). Supplemental Material

Supplementary material is available online with this article.