Recently, Cornelissen, Cornelissen, Groves, McCarty and Tovée (2018) asked which image orientations (e.g. front-, side-, or three-quarter view) are most appropriate for tasks which are used for self-estimates of body size and shape. Based on psychophysical measurements, they showed that front view stimuli showed substantially poorer content validity compared to side- and three-quarter view stimuli. Here, we tested the real-world consequences of Cornelissen et al.’s (2018) findings. We carried out a body size self-estimation task in a sample of healthy adult women, once with front view stimuli, and once with three-quarter view stimuli. The order in which front- and three-quarter view tasks were carried out was randomized across participants. Compared to three-quarter view stimuli, we found that: a) the precision of participants’ judgements was worse with front view stimuli, and b) that front view stimuli led to over-estimation of body size by ∼1.7 BMI units. While these results need to be replicated, they do suggest that careful consideration needs to be given to stimulus orientation in future studies.

最近，Cornelissen、Cornelissen、Groves、McCarty 和 Tovée（2018）询问哪些图像方向（例如正面、侧面或四分之三视图）最适合用于自我估计身体尺寸和形状的任务。根据心理物理学测量，他们表明，与侧视图和四分之三视图刺激相比，前视图刺激的内容效度要差得多。在这里，我们测试了 Cornelissen 等人（2018 年）的发现在现实世界中的后果。我们在健康成年女性样本中进行了体型自我估计任务，一次是正面观察刺激，一次是四分之三观察刺激。执行前视图和四分之三视图任务的顺序在参与者之间是随机的。与四分之三的视图刺激相比，我们发现：a) 参与者判断的准确性在前视刺激下较差，并且 b) 前视刺激导致对身体尺寸的高估约 1.7 BMI 单位。虽然这些结果需要复制，但它们确实表明在未来的研究中需要仔细考虑刺激方向。