Erratum: Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias
Version of Record online: 25 JUN 2013
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
European Journal of Social Psychology
Special Issue: Social Psychological Perspectives on the Legitimation of Social Inequality
Volume 43, Issue 4, page 319, June 2013
How to Cite
(2013), Erratum: Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 43: 319. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1934
- Issue online: 25 JUN 2013
- Version of Record online: 25 JUN 2013
Vol. 42, Issue 6, 743–753, Version of Record online: 29 JUN 2012
2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 743-753. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1890, , , , & (
The above research article was first published online on 29 June 2012. In the results section on page 746, the correct data is p = .142 (not p <. 06), p = .106 (not p <. 04), and p = .053 (not p < .05). In the results section on page 748, the correct data is p = .119 (not p < .05).
While the interaction was significant and the means were in the hypothesized directions, the simple main effect comparisons did not reach conventional levels of significance. This is likely due to the modest effect sizes combined with the small samples. We reexamined the effects of recognition task and target gender across Experiments 1 and 2 by combining the scores from Experiment 1 with the local condition scores from Experiment 2 and submitted them to a Target Gender (male or female) × Recognition Task (body part or whole body) × Participant Gender (male or female) mixed-model ANOVA. Consistent with Experiments 1 and 2, the hypothesized Target Gender × Recognition Task interaction emerged, F(1, 159) = 16.57, p < .0001, ηp2 = .09. Male whole body recognition (M = .60, SD = .20) was better than male body part recognition (M = .53, SD = .21), F(1, 159) = 9.26, p = .003, ηp2 = .06. By contrast, female body part recognition (M = .63, SD = .23) was better than female whole body recognition (M = .56, SD = .21), F(1, 159) = 7.49, p = .007, ηp2 = .05. Female body part recognition was also better than male body part recognition, F(1, 159) = 17.10, p < .0001, ηp2 = .10, whereas whole body recognition did not vary as a function of target gender, F < 2.62. Taken together with Experiments 1 and 2, these supplementary analyses suggest that the effects are indeed reliable. However, future research in this area should utilize large samples, given the modest size of these effects.
Please note that the p-values have been corrected in the online version of the original article along with some other minor changes to the text, in addition to the publication of this erratum.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by this error, and would like to thank Dr.Wicherts for his help in identifying the problem.