Allowed response time and estimated average body size influence visual body size estimates

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Acta Psychologica Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104730
Stephen Gadsby , Manja M. Engel
{"title":"Allowed response time and estimated average body size influence visual body size estimates","authors":"Stephen Gadsby ,&nbsp;Manja M. Engel","doi":"10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Studies show that body size estimates exhibit a contraction bias wherein participants with a lower-than-average BMI overestimate their bodies while participants with a higher-than-average BMI underestimate. We attempted to replicate this effect and test its relationship to allowed response time and estimates of average body size. Neurotypical female Dutch participants (n = 277) estimated their body size using a forced-choice task, which we modified to modulate allowed response time, and a method-of-adjustment task. They also estimated the average body size (for their age and gender) and their ideal size. We found no direct evidence of a contraction bias in either task. However, estimates of average body size predicted misestimation of own body size (consistent with a contraction bias). Finally, we found that greater allowed response time caused greater body size overestimation amongst participants with higher BMIs (in our forced-choice task). Our results support the context-sensitive nature of the contraction bias and the influence of allowed response time on visual body size misestimation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7141,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychologica","volume":"253 ","pages":"Article 104730"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825000435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Studies show that body size estimates exhibit a contraction bias wherein participants with a lower-than-average BMI overestimate their bodies while participants with a higher-than-average BMI underestimate. We attempted to replicate this effect and test its relationship to allowed response time and estimates of average body size. Neurotypical female Dutch participants (n = 277) estimated their body size using a forced-choice task, which we modified to modulate allowed response time, and a method-of-adjustment task. They also estimated the average body size (for their age and gender) and their ideal size. We found no direct evidence of a contraction bias in either task. However, estimates of average body size predicted misestimation of own body size (consistent with a contraction bias). Finally, we found that greater allowed response time caused greater body size overestimation amongst participants with higher BMIs (in our forced-choice task). Our results support the context-sensitive nature of the contraction bias and the influence of allowed response time on visual body size misestimation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
允许的反应时间和估计的平均体型影响视觉上的体型估计。
研究表明,身体尺寸的估计表现出一种收缩偏差,即BMI低于平均水平的参与者高估了自己的身体,而BMI高于平均水平的参与者则低估了自己的身体。我们试图复制这种效应,并测试其与允许反应时间和平均体型估计的关系。神经正常的荷兰女性参与者(n = 277)通过一个强迫选择任务和一个调整方法任务来估计自己的体型,我们对这个任务进行了修改,以调节允许的反应时间。他们还估计了平均体型(根据他们的年龄和性别)和理想体型。我们没有发现在这两个任务中存在收缩偏差的直接证据。然而,对平均体型的估计预测了对自身体型的错误估计(与收缩偏差一致)。最后,我们发现,在bmi较高的参与者中,更长的允许反应时间导致了更大的体型高估(在我们的强制选择任务中)。我们的研究结果支持收缩偏差的上下文敏感性以及允许的反应时间对视觉体型错误估计的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Psychologica
Acta Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
274
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychologica publishes original articles and extended reviews on selected books in any area of experimental psychology. The focus of the Journal is on empirical studies and evaluative review articles that increase the theoretical understanding of human capabilities.
期刊最新文献
Teacher-student relationships as a pathway to sustainable learning: Psychological insights on motivation and self-efficacy Development and validation of an Age-related Language Decline Scale (ALDS) for older adults Neural mechanisms of self-processing in autism: An ALE-based meta-analysis The constant ping: Examining the effects of after-hours work connectivity on employee turnover intention Research trends and hotspots in post-stroke speech rehabilitation: A bibliometric analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1