Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1389–1401 | Cite as

Vicarious Viewing Time: Prolonged Response Latencies for Sexually Attractive Targets as a Function of Task- or Stimulus-Specific Processing

  • Roland ImhoffEmail author
  • Alexander F. Schmidt
  • Simone Weiß
  • Andrew W. Young
  • Rainer Banse
Original Paper

Abstract

The amount of time an individual spends gazing at images is longer if the depicted person is sexually appealing. Despite an increasing use of such response latencies as a diagnostic tool in applied forensic settings, the underlying processes that drive the seemingly robust effect of longer response latencies for sexually attractive targets remain unknown. In the current study, two alternative explanations are presented and tested using an adapted viewing time paradigm that disentangled task- and stimulus-specific processes. Heterosexual and homosexual male participants were instructed to rate the sexual attractiveness of target persons differing in sex and sexual maturation from four experimentally assigned perspectives—heterosexual and homosexual perspectives for both sexes. This vicarious viewing time paradigm facilitated the estimation of the independent contributions of task (assigned perspective) and stimuli to viewing time effects. Results showed a large task-based effect as well as a relatively smaller stimulus-based effect. This pattern suggests that, when viewing time measures are used for the assessment of sexual interest, it should be taken into consideration that response latency patterns can be biased by judging images from a selected perspective.

Keywords

Viewing time Sexual preference Indirect measure Cognitive processes Faking 

References

  1. Abel, G. G. (1995). The Abel assessment of interest in paraphilias. Atlanta, GA: Abel Screening, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Abel, G. G., Huffman, J., Warberg, B., & Holland, C. L. (1998). Visual reaction time and plethysmography as measures of sexual interest in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 81–95. doi: 10.1177/107906329801000202.Google Scholar
  3. Abel, G. G., Jordan, A., Hand, C. G., Holland, L. A., & Phipps, A. (2001). Classification models of child molesters utilising the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest™. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 703–718. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00227-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banse, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Clarbour, J. (2010). Indirect measures of sexual interest in child sex offenders: A multimethod approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 319–335. doi: 10.1177/0093854809357598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glasgow, D. V., Osborne, A., & Croxen, J. (2003). An assessment tool for investigating paedophile sexual interest using viewing time: An application of single case methodology. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 96–102. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-3156.2003.00180.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gress, L. (2005). Viewing time and sexual interest: Another piece in the puzzle. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 117–125. doi: 10.1080/13552600500063666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., & Chaplin, T. C. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest among child molesters and heterosexual men. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 389–394. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(95)00070-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Bernhardt, J., Dierksmeier, A., & Banse, R. (2011). An inkblot for sexual preference: A semantic variant of the Affect Misattribution Procedure. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 676–690. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2010.508260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Nordsiek, U., Luzar, C., Young, A. W., & Banse, R. (2010). Viewing time effects revisited: Prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets under restricted task conditions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1275–1288. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9595-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishai, A. (2007). Sex, beauty and the orbifrontal cortex. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 181–185. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Israel, E., & Strassberg, D. S. (2007). Viewing time as an objective measure of sexual interest in heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 551–558. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9246-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaine, A., Crim, M., & Mersereau, G. (1988). Faking sexual preference. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 379–385.Google Scholar
  14. Kalmus, E., & Beech, A. R. (2005). Forensic assessments of sexual interest: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 193–217. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karama, S., Lecours, A. R., Leroux, J.-M., Bourgoin, P., Beaudoin, G., Joubert, S., & Beauregard, M. (2002). Areas of brain activation in males and females during viewing of erotic film excerpts. Human Brain Mapping, 16, 1–13. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konopansky, R. J., & Konopansky, A. W. B. (2000). Remaking penile plethysmography. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 257–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Laws, D. R., & Gress, C. L. Z. (2004). Seeing things differently: The viewing time alternative to penile plethysmography. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 9, 183–196. doi: 10.1348/1355325041719338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Logan, C. (2008). Sexual deviance in females: Psychopathology and theory. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 486–507). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mouras, H., Stoléru, S., Bittoun, J., Glutron, D., Pélégrini-Issac, M., Paradis, A.-L., & Burnod, Y. (2003). Brain processing of visual sexual stimuli in healthy men: A functional magnetic resonance imagining study. NeuroImage, 20, 855–869. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00408-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pacific Psychological Assessment Cooperation. (2004). The not-real people stimulus set for assessment of sexual interest. Victoria, BC: PPAC.Google Scholar
  21. Ponseti, J., Bosinski, H. A., Wolff, S., Peller, M., Jansen, O., Mehdorn, H. M., … Siebner, H. R. (2006). A functional endophenotype for sexual orientation in humans. NeuroImage, 23, 825–833. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinsey, V., Ketsetzis, M., Earls, C., & Karamanouikan, A. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 341–354. doi: 10.1016/S0162-3095(96)00060-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Redouté, J., Stoléru, S., Grégoire, M.-C., Costes, N., Cinotti, L., Lavenne, F., … Pujol, J. F. (2000). Brain processing of visual sexual stimuli in human males. Human Brain Mapping, 11, 162–177. doi: 10.1002/1097-0193(200011)11:3<162::AID-HBM30>3.0.CO;2-A.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbloom, A. L., & Tanner, J. M. (1998). Misuse of tanner puberty stages to estimate chronologic age. Pediatrics, 102, 1494. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.6.1494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenzweig, S. (1942). The photoscope as an objective device for evaluating sexual interest. Psychosomatic Medicine, 4, 150–157.Google Scholar
  26. Safron, A., Barch, B., Bailey, J. M., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., & Reber, P. J. (2007). Neural correlates of sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 237–248. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santtila, P., Mokros, A., Viljanen, K., Koivisto, M., Sandnabba, N. K., Zappala, A., & Osterheider, M. (2009). Assessment of sexual interest using a choice reaction time task and priming: A feasibility study. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 65–82. doi: 10.1348/135532507X267040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stoléru, S., Grégoire, M.-C., Gérard, D., Decety, J., Lafarge, E., Cinotti, L., … Comar, D. (1999). Neuroanatomical correlates of visually evoked sexual arousal in human males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 1–21. doi: 10.1023/A:1018733420467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanner, J. (1978). Fetus into man: Physical growth from conception to maturity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Thornton, D., & Laws, D. R. (2009). Cognitive approaches to the assessment of sexual interest in sex offenders. New York: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470747551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zamansky, H. S. (1956). A technique for measuring homosexual tendencies. Journal of Personality, 24, 436–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1956.tb01280.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Imhoff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander F. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Simone Weiß
    • 1
  • Andrew W. Young
    • 2
  • Rainer Banse
    • 1
  1. 1.Social and Legal Psychology, Department of PsychologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations