Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1439–1451 | Cite as

Gender and Visibility of Sexual Cues Influence Eye Movements While Viewing Faces and Bodies

  • Lauri Nummenmaa
  • Jari K. Hietanen
  • Pekka Santtila
  • Jukka Hyönä
Original Paper

Abstract

Faces and bodies convey important information for the identification of potential sexual partners, yet clothing typically covers many of the bodily cues relevant for mating and reproduction. In this eye tracking study, we assessed how men and women viewed nude and clothed, same and opposite gender human figures. We found that participants inspected the nude bodies more thoroughly. First fixations landed almost always on the face, but were subsequently followed by viewing of the chest and pelvic regions. When viewing nude images, fixations were biased away from the face towards the chest and pelvic regions. Fixating these regions was also associated with elevated physiological arousal. Overall, men spent more time looking at female than male stimuli, whereas women looked equally long at male and female stimuli. In comparison to women, men spent relatively more time looking at the chests of nude female stimuli whereas women spent more time looking at the pelvic/genital region of male stimuli. We propose that the augmented and gender-contingent visual scanning of nude bodies reflects selective engagement of the visual attention circuits upon perception of signals relevant to choosing a sexual partner, which supports mating and reproduction.

Keywords

Eye movements Body Nudity Visual attention Sexuality Mate choice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the AivoAalto grant from the Aalto University, and Academy of Finland (Grant # 251125 to LN). We thank Sanni Aalto, Jenny Wahlström, and Anna Backström for their help with data acquisition.

References

  1. Alexander, G. M., & Charles, N. (2009). Sex differences in adults’ relative visual interest in female and male faces, toys, and play styles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 434–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, T., Puce, A., & McCarthy, G. (2000). Social perception from visual cues: Role of the STS region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 267–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocher, M., Chisin, R., Parag, Y., Freedman, N., Weil, Y. M., Lester, H., … Bonne, O. (2001). Cerebral activation associated with sexual arousal in response to a pornographic clip: A O-15-H2O, PET study in heterosexual men. NeuroImage, 14, 105–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment mannequin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldara, R., Zhou, X., & Miellet, S. B. (2010). Putting culture under the Spotlight reveals universal information use for face recognition. PLoS ONE, 5, e9708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calder, A. J., & Young, A. W. (2005). Understanding facial identity and facial expression recognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 641–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvo, M. G., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Gaze patterns when looking at emotional pictures: Motivationally biased attention. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvo, M. G., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). Detection of emotional faces: Salient physical features guide effective visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calvo, M. G., & Nummenmaa, L. (2009). Eye-movement assessment of the time course in facial expression recognition: Neurophysiological implications. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 398–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Changizi, M. A., Zhang, Q., & Shimojo, S. (2006). Bare skin, blood and the evolution of primate colour vision. Biology Letters, 2, 217–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J. B., Kiviniemi, V., George, H. R., & Tovee, M. J. (2009). Patterns of eye movements when male and female observers judge female attractiveness, body fat and waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costa, M., Braun, C., & Birbaumer, N. (2003). Gender differences in response to pictures of nudes: A magnetoencephalographic study. Biological Psychology, 63, 129–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costell, R. M., Lunde, D. T., Kopell, B. S., & Wittner, W. K. (1972). Contingent negative variation as an indicator of sexual object preference. Science, 177, 718–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dabbs, J. M. (1997). Testosterone and pupillary response to auditory sexual stimuli. Physiology & Behavior, 62, 909–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Gelder, B., Van den Stock, J., Meeren, H. K. M., Sinke, C. B. A., Kret, M. E., & Tamietto, M. (2010). Standing up for the body: Recent progress in uncovering the networks involved in the perception of bodies and bodily expressions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 513–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deaner, R. O., Khera, A. V., & Platt, M. L. (2005). Monkeys pay per view: Adaptive valuation of social images by rhesus macaques. Current Biology, 15, 543–548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dixson, B., Grimshaw, G., Linklater, W., & Dixson, A. (2009). Eye-tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francken, A. B., van de Wiel, H. B. M., van Driel, M. F., & Weijmar Schultz, W. C. M. (2002). What importance do women attribute to the size of the penis? European Urology, 42, 426–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghazanfar, A. A., & Santos, L. R. (2004). Primate brains in the wild: The sensory bases for social interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 603–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grammer, K., Fink, B., Moller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78, 385–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89, 453–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 223–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2008). Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hietanen, J. K., & Nummenmaa, L. (2011). The naked truth: The face and body sensitive N170 response is enhanced for nude bodies. PLoS One, 6(11), e24408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janelle, C. M., Hausenblas, H. A., Ellis, R., Coombes, S. A., & Duley, A. R. (2009). The time course of attentional allocation while women high and low in body dissatisfaction view self and model physiques. Psychology & Health, 24, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jasienska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 1213–1217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiang, Y., Costello, P., Fang, F., Huang, M., & He, S. (2006). A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 17048–17052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kittler, R., Kayser, M., & Stoneking, M. (2003). Molecular evolution of Pediculds humanus and the origin of clothing. Current Biology, 13, 1414–1417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kvavadze, E., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Boaretto, E., Jakeli, N., Matskevich, Z., & Meshveliani, T. (2009). 30,000-year-old wild flax fibers. Science, 325, 1359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American Psychologist, 50, 372–385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langton, S. R. H., Law, A. S., Burton, A. M., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2008). Attention capture by faces. Cognition, 107, 330–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsey, D. T., Brown, A. M., Reijnen, E., Rich, A. N., Kuzmova, Y. I., & Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Color channels, not color appearance or color categories, guide visual search for desaturated color targets. Psychological Science, 21, 1208–1214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lykins, A. D., Meana, M., & Kambe, G. (2006). Detection of differential viewing patterns to erotic and non-erotic stimuli using eye-tracking methodology. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 569–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Evolution and human behavior: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Minnebusch, D. A., & Daum, I. (2009). Neuropsychological mechanisms of visual face and body perception. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 1133–1144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Most, S. B., Smith, S. D., Cooter, A. B., Levy, B. N., & Zald, D. H. (2007). The naked truth: Positive, arousing distractors impair rapid target perception. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 964–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Calvo, M. G. (2006). Eye movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. Emotion, 6, 257–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Calvo, M. G. (2009). Emotional scene content drives the saccade generation system reflexively. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 305–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Hietanen, J. K. (2009). I’ll walk this way: Eyes reveal the direction of locomotion and make passersby look and go the other way. Psychological Science, 20, 1454–1458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peelen, M. V., & Downing, P. E. (2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 636–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pouliot, M. C., Despres, J. P., Lemieux, S., Moorjani, S., Bouchard, C., Tremblay, A., … Lupien, P. J. (1994). Waist circumference and abdominal sagittal diameter–Best simple anthropometric indexes of abdominal visceral adipose-tissue accumulation and related cardiovascular risk in men and women. American Journal of Cardiology, 73, 460–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quinsey, V. L., Ketsetzis, M., Earls, C., & Karamanoukian, A. (1996). Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19, 109–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saunders, D. R., Williamson, D. K., & Troje, N. F. (2010). Gaze patterns during perception of direction and gender from biological motion. Journal of Vision, 10. doi: 10.1167/10.11.9.
  51. Schiffer, B., Krueger, T., Paul, T., de Greiff, A., Forsting, M., Leygraf, N., … Gizewski, E. (2008). Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in homosexual pedophiles. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 33, 23–33.Google Scholar
  52. Sell, R. L. (1996). The Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation: Background and scoring. Journal of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identity, 1, 295–310.Google Scholar
  53. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stulhofer, A. (2006). How (un)important is penis size for women with heterosexual experience [Letter to the Editor]? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 5–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theeuwes, J., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2006). Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 13, 657–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walen, S. R., & Roth, D. (1987). A cognitive approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 335–362). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wandell, B. A. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauri Nummenmaa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jari K. Hietanen
    • 4
  • Pekka Santtila
    • 5
  • Jukka Hyönä
    • 6
  1. 1.Brain Research Unit, O.V. Lounasmaa LaboratorySchool of Science, Aalto UniversityEspooFinland
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Engineering and Computational ScienceSchool of Science, Aalto UniversityEspooFinland
  3. 3.Turku PET CentreTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyÅbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland
  6. 6.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations