Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 1055–1062 | Cite as

Gazing Behavior During Mixed-Sex Interactions: Sex and Attractiveness Effects

  • Ischa van Straaten
  • Rob W. Holland
  • Catrin Finkenauer
  • Tom Hollenstein
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated to what extent the length of people’s gazes during conversations with opposite-sex persons is affected by the physical attractiveness of the partner. Single participants (N = 115) conversed for 5 min with confederates who were rated either as low or high on physical attractiveness. From a mating strategy perspective, we hypothesized that men’s increased dating desire towards highly attractive confederates would lead to longer periods of gazing, whereas women’s gazing would be less influenced by their dating desire towards highly attractive confederates. Results confirmed our hypothesis, with significantly increased gazing for men in the high attractiveness condition but no significant differences in women in the two attractiveness conditions. Contrary to past research findings, there was no significant sex difference in the size of the effect of physical attractiveness on dating desire. The results were discussed in terms of preference for physically attractive partners and communication strategies during courtship.

Keywords

Physical attractiveness Gazing Sex differences Dyadic interaction 

References

  1. Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioural evidence. Neuron, 32, 537–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bente, G., Donaghy, W. C., & Suwelack, D. (1998). Sex differences in body movement and visual attention: An integrated analysis of movement and gaze in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breed, G., & Porter, M. (1972). Eye contact, attitudes, and attitude change among males. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 120, 211–217.Google Scholar
  6. Burgoon, J. K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P., & Hale, J. L. (1985). Effects of gaze on hiring, credibility, attraction and relational message interpretation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance: Attributions of power based on relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. (1965). Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality (pp. 319–350). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fugita, S. S., Agle, T. A., Newman, I., & Walfish, N. (1977). Attractiveness, self-concept, and a methodological note about gaze behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 487–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371–390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1978). Nonverbal communication: The state of the art. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kampe, K. K. W., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature, 413, 589.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleck, R. E., & Rubenstein, C. (1975). Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleinke, C. L. (1972). Interpersonal attraction as it relates to gaze and distance between people. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 3, 105–120.Google Scholar
  23. Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A., & Berger, D. E. (1975a). Evaluation of an interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of subject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 115–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A., & Pipp, S. L. (1975b). Effects of gaze, distance, and attractiveness on males’ first impressions of females. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 7–12.Google Scholar
  26. Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology, 16, 63–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology, 23, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazzerini, A. J., Stephenson, G. M., & Neave, H. (1978). Eye-contact in dyads: A test of the independence hypothesis. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 227–229.Google Scholar
  29. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., et al. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellegrini, R. J., Hicks, R. A., & Gordon, L. (1970). The effect of an approval-seeking induction on eye-contact in dyads. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 373–374.Google Scholar
  33. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rutter, D. R., Pennington, D. C., Dewey, M. E., & Swain, J. (1984). Eye-contact as a chance product of individual looking: Implications for the intimacy model of Argyle and Dean. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Strick, M., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Seductive eyes: Attractiveness and direct gaze increase desire for associated objects. Cognition, 106, 1486–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thayer, S., & Schiff, W. (1977). Gazing patterns and attribution of sexual involvement. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. van Straaten, I., Engels, R., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2008). Sex differences in short-term mate preferences and mimicry: A semi-naturalistic experiment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 902–911.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ischa van Straaten
    • 1
  • Rob W. Holland
    • 1
  • Catrin Finkenauer
    • 2
  • Tom Hollenstein
    • 3
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Social PsychologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations