Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 434–441 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Adults’ Relative Visual Interest in Female and Male Faces, Toys, and Play Styles

  • Gerianne M. Alexander
  • Nora Charles
Original Paper

Abstract

An individual’s reproductive potential appears to influence response to attractive faces of the opposite sex. Otherwise, relatively little is known about the characteristics of the adult observer that may influence his or her affective evaluation of male and female faces. An untested hypothesis (based on the proposed role of attractive faces in mate selection) is that most women would show greater interest in male faces whereas most men would show greater interest in female faces. Further, evidence from individuals with preferences for same-sex sexual partners suggests that response to attractive male and female faces may be influenced by gender-linked play preferences. To test these hypotheses, visual attention directed to sex-linked stimuli (faces, toys, play styles) was measured in 39 men and 44 women using eye tracking technology. Consistent with our predictions, men directed greater visual attention to all male-typical stimuli and visual attention to male and female faces was associated with visual attention to gender conforming or nonconforming stimuli in a manner consistent with previous research on sexual orientation. In contrast, women showed a visual preference for female-typical toys, but no visual preference for male faces or female-typical play styles. These findings indicate that sex differences in visual processing extend beyond stimuli associated with adult sexual behavior. We speculate that sex differences in visual processing are a component of the expression of gender phenotypes across the lifespan that may reflect sex differences in the motivational properties of gender-linked stimuli.

Keywords

Sex differences Sex-linked play Toy preferences Face perception 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Julia Makkaoui and Jennifer Armstrong for help with behavioral testing. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant MH071414.

References

  1. Alexander, G. M. (2003). An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preferences: Pink, blue, and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 7–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (1994). Gender labels and play styles: Their relative contribution to children’s selection of playmates. Child Development, 65, 869–879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in responses to children’s toys in a non-human primate (cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, G. M., Wilcox, T., & Woods, R. (in press). Sex differences in infants’ visual interest in toys. Archives of Sexual Behavior.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berenbaum, S. A., & Hines, M. (1992). Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences. Psychological Science, 3, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26, 507–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Blakemore, S.-J., & Frith, U. (2004). How does the brain deal with the social world? NeuroReport, 15, 119–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social-cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, A., Shirley, L., & Heywood, C. (2000). Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cloutier, J., Heatherton, T. F., Whalen, P. J., & Kelley, W. M. (2008). Are attractive people rewarding? Sex differences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 941–951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Batki, A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2000). Sex differences in human neonatal social perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 23, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Peterson-Badali, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunne, M. P., Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., & Martin, N. G. (2000). The subtlety of sex-atypicality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 549–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geary, D. C. (1999). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  19. Hassett, J. M., Siebert, E. R., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormones and Behavior, 54, 359–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hines, M., Brook, C., & Conway, G. S. (2004). Androgen and psychosexual development: Core gender identity, sexual orientation, and recalled childhood gender role behavior in women and men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Journal of Sex Research, 41, 75–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Honekopp, J. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 199–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Law Smith, M. J. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 78–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology, 16, 63–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lankford, C. (2000). Gazetracker: Software designed to facilitate eye movement analysis. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. Levy, B., Ariely, D., Mazar, N., Chi, W., Lukas, S., & Elman, I. (2008). Gender differences in the motivational processing of facial beauty. Learning and Motivation, 39, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Lippa, R. A. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual attraction to both sexes? Psychological Science, 17, 46–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 268, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lykins, A. D., Meana, M., & Strauss, G. P. (2008). Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 219–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nordenstrom, A., Servin, A., Bohlin, G., Larsson, A., & Wedell, A. (2002). Sex-typed toy play behavior correlates with the degree of prenatal androgen exposure assessed by cyp21 genotype in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 87, 5119–5124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobaysahi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., et al. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face perception. Nature, 399, 741–742.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Quinn, P. D., Kelly, D. J., Lee, K., Pascalis, O., & Slater, A. M. (2008). Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics. Developmental Science, 11, 76–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye-movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson, D., & Spivey, M. (2000). Representation, space, and Hollywood squares: Looking at things that aren’t there anymore. Cognition, 76, 269–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Roney, J. R., Hanson, K. N., Durante, K. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: Women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 273, 2169–2175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 858–932). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2003). Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science, 302, 1231–1233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanley, D., Phelps, E., & Banaji, M. (2008). The neural basis of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, S. E., Cousino Klein, L., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Welling, L. L. M., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2008). Sex drive is positively associated with women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in men’s and women’s faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich, F. K. (in press). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for sex-typed play. Developmental Psychology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M University, TAMU-4235College StationUSA

Personalised recommendations