Perception isn't so simple: commentary on Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, and Klein (2012).

<p><a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/1069.long#ref-1">Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, and Klein (2012)</a> report an inversion effect only when participants viewed sexualized male body images and not when they viewed sexualized female body images. On the basis of a belief that face and person recognition is subject to an inversion effect (<a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/1069.long#ref-11">Rossion, 2008</a>; <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/1069.long#ref-16">Yin, 1969</a>) but that object recognition is not, the authors concluded that “at a basic cognitive level, sexualized men were perceived as persons, whereas sexualized women were perceived as objects” (p. 470). The inference is that different visual-recognition processes are applied to images of males and images of females. This conclusion is unwarranted on empirical, methodological, and logical grounds.</p>