arbiter
JournalsAccount

A consistent but highly varied androcentric bias in the visual representation of “typical” faces

Daniel N. Albohn & Alexander Todorov

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations2026https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261426255article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Decades of research have shown that androcentric bias (i.e., assuming that men represent the default) is prevalent across text, images, and social interactions. Despite this evidence, recent research on the mental imagery of faces shows an opposite of the expected androcentric bias: Mental representations of “typical” faces appear more like women than men. In the present research, we first aim to reconcile this apparent discrepancy by examining the mental imagery associated with typical persons using generative reverse correlation—a data-driven method that leverages artificial intelligence to construct photo-realistic imagery of visual stereotypes for both groups and individuals. Second, we explore potential reasons for the observed reversal in mental imagery by examining individual differences in typicality judgments. Across two studies, our results show (1) individuals tend to equate “typical persons” with “men” in their mental representations at the group-level; but (2) there is large individual-level variability in both “typical person” mental imagery and explicit “typicality” judgments that complicates conclusions drawn from aggregate-level data.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261426255

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{daniel2026,
  title        = {{A consistent but highly varied androcentric bias in the visual representation of “typical” faces}},
  author       = {Daniel N. Albohn & Alexander Todorov},
  journal      = {Group Processes and Intergroup Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302261426255},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A consistent but highly varied androcentric bias in the visual representation of “typical” faces

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.