Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion (#171)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Bogdan Kostic. Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion. (2013, November 06). Retrieved 16:12, August 17, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTcx

MLA Style

"Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion" Bogdan Kostic. 06 Nov 2013 11:44 17 Aug 2017, 16:12 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTcx>

MHRA Style

'Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion', Bogdan Kostic, , 06 November 2013 11:44 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTcx> [accessed 17 August 2017]

Chicago Style

"Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion", Bogdan Kostic, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTcx (accessed August 17, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion [Internet]. Bogdan Kostic; 2013 Nov 06, 11:44 [cited 2017 Aug 17]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTcx

Reference to Original Report of Finding Bernard, P., Gervais, J., Allen, J., & Klein, O. (2013). Perceptual determinants are critical, but they don't explain everything: A response to Tarr (2013). Psychological Science, 24, 1071-1073.
Title Response Times in Sexualized Body Inversion
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result In a recognition task, inverting sexualized images of male targets produces longer response times than upright sexualized male targets. The difference is less pronounced when inverting sexualized female targets.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Not Applicable
Number of Subjects 102
Number of Subjects in Original Study 78
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2013
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Bogdan Kostic
Detailed Description of Method/Results Participants viewed 24 images of sexualized males and 24 images of sexualized females. Half of each were presented in an upright position, and half were inverted. (Stimuli were not counterbalanced across upright/inversion condition, in accordance with the original study's methods.) Participants were then asked to indicate which of two L-R mirror images had appeared earlier.

The study used a 2 (Position: Upright vs. Inverted) x 2 (Target Sex: Male vs. Female) x 2 (Participant Sex: Male vs. Female) design, in which the Position and Target Sex were manipulated within subjects while Participant Sex was treated as a between-subjects factor. The main dependent variable being analyzed is response time for correct responses.

The original results reported that inverted bodies would produce longer response times than upright bodies, and the current study replicated this effect, F(1,100)=9.82, p=.002, partial eta squared=.089. The original results also reported a marginally significant interaction between Position and Target Sex (p=.096, partial eta squared=.036), while the current study found a fully significant interaction, F(1,100)=16.40, p<.001, partial eta squared=.141. However, the current study confirmed the main point of the original analyses, in that response times for inverted female targets were not longer than response times for inverted male targets. In fact, the difference was significant in the opposite direction, t(101)=3.18, p=.002, which further supports the conclusions of the original study.

As in the original study, the current study also did not find any differences across target sex or participant sex (p's>.50).

The averages and standard deviations for response times for correct responses in each condition are listed below:

Male upright: 1655.82 (641.83)
Male inverted: 1927.51 (577.22)
Female upright: 1755.35 (783.74)
Female inverted: 1765.14 (579.43)

See the attached figure. Error bars represent standard error.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
No.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Bogdan Kostic
Location of ProjectHill Hall 425, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Students were enrolled in an Experimental Psychology (Research Methods) course and participated as part of a lab activity that was led by the instructor.
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?Yes
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published