title: Reverse-correlating mental representations of sex-typed bodies: the effect of number of trials on image quality.
abstract: Sex categorization is a critical process in social perception. While psychologists have long theorized that perceivers have distinct mental representations of men and women that help them to achieve efficient sex categorizations, researchers have only recently begun using reverse-correlation to visualize the content of these mental representations. The present research addresses two issues concerning this relatively new methodological tool. First, previous studies of reverse-correlation have focused almost exclusively on perceivers' mental representations of faces. Our study demonstrates that this technique can also be used to visualize mental representations of sex-typed bodies. Second, most studies of reverse-correlation have employed a relatively large number of trials (1000+) to capture perceivers' mental representations of a given category. Our study demonstrated that, at least for sex-typed representations of bodies, high quality reverse-correlation images can be obtained with as few as 100 trials. Overall, our findings enhance knowledge of reverse-correlation methodology in general and sex categorization in particular, providing new information for researchers interested in using this technique to understand the complex processes underlying social perception.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA, USA.
authors.forename: David J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Lick
authors.forename: Colleen M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Carpinella
authors.forename: Mariana A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Preciado
authors.forename: Robert P
authors.initials: RP
authors.lastname: Spunt
authors.forename: Kerri L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Johnson
keywords: body shape; number of trials; reverse-correlation; sex categorization; social perception
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Feb 7;276(1656):575-84
references.pmid: 18945661
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;118(2):247-79
references.pmid: 21355661
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Nov;16(11):890-7
references.pmid: 16262776
references.citation: Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008 May 1;2(3):1497
references.pmid: 20107613
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992 May;44(4):671-703
references.pmid: 1615169
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec;19(12):1242-6
references.pmid: 19121131
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):402-9
references.pmid: 12219805
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 22;261(1362):367-73
references.pmid: 8587879
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Sep;93(3):335-52
references.pmid: 17723052
references.citation: J Vis. 2002;2(5):371-87
references.pmid: 12678652
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Sep;93(3):321-34
references.pmid: 17723051
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Jun;100(6):999-1014
references.pmid: 21443368
references.citation: Science. 2012 Nov 30;338(6111):1225-9
references.pmid: 23197536
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Aug 15;15(6):900-10
references.pmid: 14511542
references.citation: Br J Soc Psychol. 2010 Mar;49(Pt 1):107-27
references.pmid: 19296878
references.citation: Biometrics. 1986 Mar;42(1):121-30
references.pmid: 3719049
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 May;119(2):265-80
references.pmid: 21349506
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):5246-51
references.pmid: 17360395
references.citation: Front Integr Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:81
references.pmid: 23087622
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Dec;121(3):422-6
references.pmid: 21903209
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2003 Sep;14(5):505-9
references.pmid: 12930484
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Jan;65(2-3):137-65
references.pmid: 9557381
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Mar;16(3):184-9
references.pmid: 15733197
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Mar 1;2(3):111-7
references.pmid: 21227087
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1997;1(3):204-23
references.pmid: 15659350
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Mar;5(1):21-36
references.pmid: 15913005
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan;102(1):116-31
references.pmid: 21875229
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Mar;7(3):242-9
references.pmid: 16495945
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Oct;117(4):1168-87
references.pmid: 20822290
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Oct;85(4):616-26
references.pmid: 14561116
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Dec;31(6):1247-1265
references.pmid: 16366787
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Oct;19(10):978-80
references.pmid: 19000205
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):482-98
references.pmid: 9697428
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jan;13(1):20-6
references.pmid: 19070533
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Feb;31(1):137-49
references.pmid: 10495845
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Dec 22;279(1749):4982-9
references.pmid: 23075835
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):673-90
references.pmid: 18999360
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:93-120
references.pmid: 10751966
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Nov 24;9(12):19.1-8
references.pmid: 20053110
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Feb;141(1):19-25
references.pmid: 21517206