Pupillometric assessment of arousal to sexual stimuli: Novelty effects or preference?
- 189 Downloads
The pupillary response of male and female subjects to various sexual stimuli was examined. Change in pupil size was compared using light and dark control slides and nude male and female, heterosexual, and homosexual stimulus slides. Attempts were made to control for the many confounds inherent in pupillometric research. Pupil size was measured using video-recording techniques that magnified pupils to an easily measured size. Greater pupil change was found when the stimulus slide was preceded by a relatively lighter control slide. In addition, pupil change was related to familiarity with the stimulus slide and the relative pupil response changed as subjects gained experience with the stimulus material. Explanations and implications for further research are discussed.
Key wordspupil response pupillometry sexual preference sexual arousal habituation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Birren, J. E., Casperson, R. C., and Botwinick, J. (1951). Pain measurement by the radiant heat method: Individual differences in pain sensitivity, the affects of skin temperature, and stimulus duration.J. Exp. Psychol. 4: 419–424.Google Scholar
- Gambill, H. D., Ogle, K. N., and Kearns, T. P. (1967). Mydriatic effect of four drugs determined with pupillography.Arch. Opthalmol. 77: 740–746.Google Scholar
- Hess, E. H. (1975). The role of pupil size in communication.Sci. Am. 233: 46–54.Google Scholar
- Hess, E. H., Seltzer, A., and Shlien, J. M. (1965). Pupil responses of hetero- and homo-sexual males to pictures of men and women: A pilot study.J. Abn. Psychol. 70: 165–168.Google Scholar
- Janisse, M. P. (1973). Pupil size and affect: A critical review of the literature since 1960.Can. Psychol. 14: 311–329.Google Scholar
- Janisse, M. P. (1977).Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response Hemisphere, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Lawless, J. C., and Wake, F. R. (1968). Sex differences in pupillary response to visual stimuli.Psychophysiology 5: 568–569.Google Scholar
- Metalis, S. A., and Hess, E. H. (1982). Pupillary response/semantic differential scale relationships.J. Res. Pers. 16: 201–216.Google Scholar
- Nunally, J. C., Knott, P. D., Duchnowski, A., and Parker, R. (1967). Pupillary response as a general measure of activiation.Percept. Psychophys. 2: 149–155.Google Scholar
- Peavler, W. S., and Mclaughlin, J. P. (1967). The question of stimulus content and pupil size.Psychonom. Sci. 8: 505–506.Google Scholar
- Simms, T. M. (1967). Pupillary response of male and female subjects to pupillary difference in male and female picture stimuli.Percept. Psychophys. 2: 533–555.Google Scholar
- Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical Principles in Experimental Design McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Woodmansee, J. (1966). Methodological problems in pupillographic experiments. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Vol. 1, pp. 133–134.Google Scholar