Visual Attention Patterns of Women with Androphilic and Gynephilic Sexual Attractions
- 663 Downloads
Women who report exclusive sexual attractions to men (i.e., androphilia) exhibit gender-nonspecific patterns of sexual response—similar magnitude of genital response to both male and female targets. Interestingly, women reporting any degree of attraction to women (i.e., gynephilia) show significantly greater sexual responses to stimuli depicting female targets compared to male targets. At present, the mechanism(s) underlying these patterns are unknown. According to the information processing model (IPM), attentional processing of sexual cues initiates sexual responding; thus, attention to sexual cues may be one mechanism to explain the observed within-gender differences in specificity findings among women. The purpose of the present study was to examine patterns of initial and controlled visual attention among women with varying sexual attractions. We used eye tracking to assess visual attention to sexually preferred and nonpreferred cues in a sample of 164 women who differed in their degree of androphilia and gynephilia. We found that both exclusively and predominantly androphilic women showed gender-nonspecific patterns of initial attention. In contrast, ambiphilic (i.e., concurrent androphilia and gynephilia) and predominantly/exclusively gynephilic women oriented more quickly toward female targets. Controlled attention patterns mirrored patterns of self-reported sexual attractions for three of these four groups of women, such that gender-specific patterns of visual attention were found for androphilic and gynephilic women. Ambiphilic women looked significantly longer at female targets compared to male targets. These findings support predictions from the IPM and suggest that both initial and controlled attention to sexual cues may be mechanisms contributing to within-gender variation in sexual responding.
KeywordsGender specificity Eye tracking Visual attention Information processing model Sexual orientation Sexual arousal
This research was supported in part by a grant from the American Institute of Bisexuality awarded to M. L. Chivers and an Ontario Trillium Scholarship awarded to S. J. Dawson. The authors would like to thank Katrina Bouchard, Jackie Huberman, and Kelly Suschinsky for their thoughtful suggestions on an earlier version of this article. This paper was presented at the annual meetings of the International Academy of Sex Research in Toronto, ON, Canada, August 2015, and Canadian Sex Research Forum, Kelowna, BC, Canada, September 2015, as well as the quinquennial meeting of the Puzzle of Sexual Orientation Workshop in Lethbridge, AB, Canada, July 2015.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Samantha J. Dawson, Katherine M. Fretz, and Meredith L. Chivers declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures were approved under the General Research Ethics Board at Queen’s University.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.Google Scholar
- Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rosen, C., Brown, J., Heiman, S., Leiblum, C., Meston, R., Shabsigh, D., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rullo, J. E., Kinnish, K., & Strassberg, D. S. (2006). Sex differences in the specificity of sexual behavior, fantasy, and romantic attraction. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
- Spiering, M., & Everaerd, W. (2007). The sexual unconscious. In E. Janssen (Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 166–184). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Toothaker, L. E. (1991). Multiple comparisons for researchers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar