Eye Tracking of Men’s Preferences for Female Breast Size and Areola Pigmentation

Abstract

Sexual selection via male mate choice has often been implicated in the evolution of permanently enlarged breasts in women. While questionnaire studies have shown that men find female breasts visually attractive, there is very little information about how they make such visual judgments. In this study, we used eye-tracking technology to test two hypotheses: (1) that larger breasts should receive the greatest number of visual fixations and longest dwell times, as well as being rated as most attractive; (2) that lightly pigmented areolae, indicative of youth and nubility, should receive most visual attention and be rated as most attractive. Results showed that men rated images with medium-sized or large breasts as significantly more attractive than small breasts. Images with dark and medium areolar pigmentation were rated as more attractive than images with light areolae. However, variations in breast size had no significant effect on eye-tracking measures (initial visual fixations, number of fixations, and dwell times). The majority of initial fixations during eye-tracking tests were on the areolae. However, areolar pigmentation did not affect measures of visual attention. While these results demonstrate that cues indicative of female sexual maturity (large breasts and dark areolae) are more attractive to men, patterns of eye movements did not differ based on breast size or areolar pigmentation. We conclude that areolar pigmentation, as well as breast size, plays a significant role in men’s judgments of female attractiveness. However, fine-grained measures of men’s visual attention to these morphological traits do not correlate, in a simplistic way, with their attractiveness judgments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biro, F. M., Falkner, F., Khoury, P., Morrison, J., & Lucky, A. (1992). Areolar and breast staging in adolescent girls. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 5, 271–272.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, T. P., La, H., Ringrose, C., Hyland, R. E., Cole, A. A., & Brotherston, T. M. (1999). A method for assessing female breast morphometry and its clinical application. British Journal of Plastic Surgery, 52, 353–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Castellanos, E. H., Charboneau, E., Dietrich, M. S., Park, S., Bradley, P., Mogg, K., et al. (2009). Obese adults have visual attentional bias for food cue images: Evidence for altered reward system function. International Journal of Obesity, 33, 1063–1073.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cornellissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J. B., Kiviniemi, V., George, H. R., & Tovée, 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. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.003.

  6. De Martino, B., Kalisch, R., Rees, G., & Dolan, R. J. (2009). Enhanced processing of threat stimuli under limited attentional resources. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 127–134.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dean, N., Haynes, J., Brennan, J., Neild, T., Goddard, C., Dearman, B., et al. (2005). Nipple areolar pigmentation: Histology and potential for reconstitution in breast reconstruction. British Journal of Plastic Surgery, 58, 202–208.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G, M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2009). Eye tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5.

  9. Fink, B., Matts, P. J., Klingenberg, H., Kuntze, S., Bettina, W., & Grammer, K. (2008). Visual attention to variation in facial skin color distribution. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 155–161.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Furnham, A., Swami, V., & Shah, K. (2006). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio and breast size correlates of ratings of attractiveness and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gallup, G. G. (1982). Permanent breast enlargement in human females: A sociobiological analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 11, 597–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garn, S. N., & French, N. Y. (1963). Post-partum and age changes in areolar pigmentation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 85, 873–875.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Garn, S. N., Selby, S., & Crawford, M. R. (1956). Skin reflectance studies in children and adults. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 14, 101–117.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goodhart, C. B. (1964). A biological view of toplessness. New Scientist, 407, 558–560.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grammer, K., Fink, B., Juette, A., Ronzal, G., & Thornhill, R. (2001). Female faces and bodies: N-dimensional feature space and attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & I. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Advances in visual cognition I: Facial attractiveness (pp. 91–125). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guthrie, R. D. (1976). Body hot spots. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Horvath, T. (1981). Physical attractiveness: The influence of selected torso parameters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 21–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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, 271, 1213–1217.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, D. (1996). Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection. Ann Arbor, MI: Museum of Anthropology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lass-Hennemann, J., Schulz, A., Nees, F., Blumenthal, T. D., & Schachinger, H. (2009). Direct gaze of photographs of female nudes influences startle in men. International Journal of Psychology, 72, 111–114.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Linzell, J. L. (1959). Physiology of the mammary glands. Physiological Reviews, 39, 534–576.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (1996). Comparison of salivary steroid profiles in naturally occurring conception and non-conception cycles. Human Reproduction, 11, 2090–2096.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lykins, A. D., Meana, M., & Strauss, G. P. (2008). Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic visual stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 219–228.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., & Gailliot, M. T. (2008). Selective attention to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 488–501.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marlowe, F. (1998). The nubility hypothesis: The human breast as an honest signal of residual reproductive value. Human Nature, 9, 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Montagna, W., & Macpherson, E. E. (1974). Some neglected aspects of the anatomy of the breasts. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 63, 10–16.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Muzaffar, F., Hussain, I., & Haroon, T. S. (1998). Physiologic skin changes during pregnancy: A study of 140 cases. International Journal of Dermatology, 37, 429–431.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pawson, I. G., & Petrakis, N. L. (1975). Comparison of breast pigmentation among women of different racial groups. Human Biology, 47, 441–450.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Raymond, J. E., & O’Brien, L. (2009). Selective visual attention and motivation: The consequences of value learning in an attentional blink task. Psychological Science, 20, 981–988.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye tracking study of men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 524–533.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ruz, M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2002). A review of attentional capture: On its automaticity and sensitivity to endogenous control. Psicológica, 23, 283–309.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, S. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Short, R. V. (1976). The evolution of human reproduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 195, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Simblet, S. (2001). Anatomy for the artist. New York: DK Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Suschinsky, K. D., Elias, L. J., & Krupp, D. B. (2007). Looking for Ms. Right: Allocating attention to facilitate mate choice decisions. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 428–441.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sütterlin, B., Brunner, T. A., & Opwis, K. (2008). Eye-tracking the cancellation and focus model for preference judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 904–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tsujimura, A., Miyagawa, Y., Takada, S., Matsuoka, Y., Takao, T., Hirai, T., et al. (2009). Sex differences in visual attention to sexually explicit videos: A preliminary study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1011–1017.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Vandeweyer, E., & Hertens, D. (2002). Quantification of glands and fat in breast tissue: An experimental determination. Annals of Anatomy, 184, 181–184.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. L. (2006). Success is all in the measures: Androgenousness, curvaceousness, and starring frequencies in adult media actresses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 297–304.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. L. (2009). Data are the natural enemy of hypotheses: Reply to Holland (2009) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 460–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wiggins, J. S., Wiggins, N., & Conger, J. C. (1968). Correlates of heterosexual somatic preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 82–90.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barnaby J. Dixson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dixson, B.J., Grimshaw, G.M., Linklater, W.L. et al. Eye Tracking of Men’s Preferences for Female Breast Size and Areola Pigmentation. Arch Sex Behav 40, 51–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9601-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Female attractiveness
  • Breast size
  • Areolar pigmentation
  • Sexual selection
  • Eye-tracking