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

Recently, Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, and Klein (2012) reported that individuals were less able to recognize inverted vs. upright pictures of sexualized men as compared to women. Based on their formulation of the sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis (SBIH) it was concluded that sexualized women as compared to men are perceived in a more object-like manner supporting sexual objectification (SO) of females - independent from observer gender. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the originally reported effect is the result of a methodological artifact due to gender-symmetry and stimuli setup-symmetry confounds in the original stimulus set. We tested this theoretically more parsimonious account in a methodologically stricter and extended conceptual replication of the putative SO-effect. Results from two studies showed that the original stimulus set indeed suffered from symmetry confounds and that these are necessary boundary-conditions in order for the hypothetical SO-effect to occur. It is concluded that the SBIH as postulated by Bernard et al. (2012) is based on a methodological artifact and cannot be related to SO but symmetry detection.