Eye movements of 105 heterosexual undergraduate students (36 males) were monitored while viewing photographs of men and women identified as a potential mate or a potential friend. Results showed that people looked at the head and chest more when assessing potential mates and looked at the legs and feet more when assessing potential friends. Single people looked at the photographs longer and more frequently than coupled people, especially when evaluating potential mates. In addition, eye gaze was a valid indicator of relationship interest. For women, looking at the head corresponded to greater interest in friendship, whereas for men looking at the head corresponded to less interest in friendship. These findings show that relational goals and gender may affect the way people scan their environment and search for relevant information in line with their goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Male (M = 3.84, SD = 0.12) and female (M = 3.89, SD = 0.14) images did not differ on attractiveness, t(18) = 0.85, p = .41. Images presented as potential friends (M = 3.88, SD = 0.14) and potential mates (M = 3.86, SD = 0.13) did not differ on attractiveness, t(18) = 0.30, p = .77.
Exploratory analyses looked for possible effects of target image gender in the friendship block. Both male and female subjects were more likely to look at the legs of women compared to men, and female subjects but not male subjects were more likely to look at the waist–hip region of women compared to men.
Exploratory analyses included an indicator variable for whether pictures were repeated or new. There were some significant effects; in each case, participants looked more at the new pictures than the repeated pictures. Importantly, the effects of relational goal as reported in Table 1 remain significant when controlling for the repeated/new covariate with one exception—the effect of relational goal on looking at legs changes from significant to marginally significant for the fixation count analysis and from significant to nonsignificant for the fixation duration analysis.
Item-specific ICCs from the null models with the more complex covariance structure are available in the online supplementary material; however, the usual interpretation of ICC is untenable in this special case. For a more useful point of reference, overall ICCs from the null models with a single residual variance estimate for fixation count and fixation duration, respectively are: head (.31, .29), chest (.34, .20), waist–hip (.32, .19), legs (.27, .08), feet (.18, .09).
Image order was included as a covariate because exploratory analyses determined that participants tended to spend more time looking at the first image compared to subsequent images, perhaps to familiarize themselves with the task since there were no practice trials. Block order was also tested as a covariate, but in the interest of parsimony it was not retained in the final model. There were some significant effects; in each case, participants looked at the images more when the friend block was presented first. Importantly, all effects of relational goal remain significant when controlling for block order.
Choice of color scale used in the data visualizations was guided by the goal of accentuating the differences in looking patterns identified by the MLM analysis. Readers should refer to the significance tests presented in Table 1 to evaluate whether relational goal reliably influenced eye gaze for a given body region.
Item-specific ICCs from the null model with the more complex covariance structure are available in the online supplementary material; however, the usual interpretation of ICC is untenable in this special case. For a more useful point of reference, the overall ICC from the null model with a single residual variance estimate is .26.
The same series of multilevel models was conducted using fixation duration data; these analyses replicated the findings from the models using fixation counts in every way. Details are available in the online supplementary material.
Bahns, A. J., Crandall, C. S., Gillath, O., & Wilmer, J. (2016). Nonverbal communication of similarity via the torso: It’s in the bag. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40, 151–170.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Gillath, O. (2006). Measuring subgoals of the sexual behavioral system: What is sex good for? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 675–701.
Bleske-Rechek, A., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1310–1323.
Brewer, G., Archer, J., & Manning, J. (2007). Physical attractiveness: The objective ornament and subjective self-ratings. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 29–38.
Brooks, R. C., Shelly, J. P., Jordan, L. A., & Dixson, B. J. (2015). The multivariate evolution of female body shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 351–358.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2008). Neuroimaging as a new tool in the inbox of psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 62–67.
Cash, T. F., & Derlega, V. J. (1978). The matching hypothesis: Physical attractiveness among same-sexed friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 240–243.
de Valois, R. L., & de Valois, K. K. (1980). Spatial vision. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 309–341.
Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011a). Eye-tracking of men’s preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 43–50.
Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Ormsby, D. K., & Dixson, A. F. (2014). Eye-tracking women’s preferences for men’s somatotypes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 73–79.
Dixson, A., Halliwell, G., East, R., Wignarajah, P., & Anderson, M. (2003). Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 29–39.
Dixson, B. J., Vasey, P. L., Sagata, K., Sibanda, N., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011b). Men’s preferences for women’s breast morphology in New Zealand, Samoa, and Papua New Guinea. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1271–1279.
Edlund, J. E., Sagarin, B. J., & Johnson, B. S. (2007). Reciprocity and the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 589–596.
Ekman, P. (1978). Facial signs: Facts, fantasies, and possibilities. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Sight, sound and sense (pp. 124–156). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fantz, R. L. (1961). The origin of form perception. Scientific American, 20, 66–72.
Fantz, R. L. (1965). Visual perception from birth as shown by pattern selectivity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 188, 793–814.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.
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.
Gillath, O., Bahns, A. J., Ge, F., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Shoes as a source of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 423–430.
Hall, C., Hogue, T., & Guo, K. (2011). Differential gaze behavior towards sexually preferred and non-preferred human figures. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 461–469.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383–410.
Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Straube, T., & Miltner, W. H. (2008). Gender differences for specific body regions when looking at men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 67–78.
Hinsz, V. B., Matz, D. C., & Patience, R. A. (2001). Does women’s hair signal reproductive potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 166–172.
Hughes, S., & Gallup, G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 173–178.
Janssens, K., Pandelaere, M., Van den Bergh, B., Millet, K., Lens, I., & Roe, K. (2011). Can buy me love: Mate attraction goals lead to perceptual readiness for status products. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 254–258.
Johnson, M. A. (1989). Variables associated with friendship in an adult population. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 379–390.
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.
Kowler, E. (2011). Eye movements: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1457–1483.
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.
Lyons, M., Marcinkowska, U., Moisey, V., & Harrison, N. (2016). The effects of resource availability and relationship status on women’s preference for facial masculinity in men: An eye-tracking study. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 25–28.
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174–179.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A meta-analysis investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64–94.
Morry, M. M., Kito, M., & Ortiz, L. (2011). The attraction-similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18, 125–143.
Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 659–669.
Rilling, J. K., Kaufman, T. L., Smith, E. O., Patel, R., & Worthman, C. M. (2009). Abdominal depth and waist circumference as influential determinants of human female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 21–31.
Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., & Pawlowski, B. (2005). Men’s ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size. Biological Psychology, 68, 299–308.
Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8, 371–389.
Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 1913–1917.
Schmukle, S. C., Liesenfeld, S., Back, M. D., & Egloff, B. (2007). Second to fourth digit ratios and the implicit gender self-concept. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1267–1277.
Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 654–657.
Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. F. (1979). Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522–533.
Shoup, M. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2008). Men’s faces convey information about bodies and their behavior: What you see is what you get. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 469–479.
Simpson, J. A., & Harris, B. A. (1994). Interpersonal attraction. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 45–66). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women’s attractiveness: The critical role of waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4, 297–321.
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 176–181.
Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6, 51–65.
Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2013). Resource security impacts men’s female breast size preferences. PLoS ONE, 8, e57623. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057623.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.
Tovée, M. J., Maisey, D. S., Emery, J. L., & Cornelissen, P. L. (1999). Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 211–218.
Tovée, M. J., Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Mangalparsad, R. (2006). Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 443–456.
Tovée, M. J., Tasker, K., & Benson, P. J. (2000). Is symmetry a visual cue to attractiveness in the human female body? Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 191–200.
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.
Wetsman, A., & Marlowe, F. (1999). How universal are preferences for female waist-to-hip ratios? Evidence from the Hadza of Tanzania. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 219–228.
Yang, T., Chen, H., Hu, Y., Zheng, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Preferences for sexual dimorphism on attractiveness levels: An eye-tracking study. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 179–185.
Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Olson, K., & Hoffman, K. (1993). Stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 453–466.
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Melanie Canterberry and Austen McGuire for assisting with the eye-tracking equipment and software, and we thank Megan Chen for creating the data visualizations displayed in Figures 2 and 3.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
About this article
Cite this article
Gillath, O., Bahns, A.J. & Burghart, H.A. Eye Movements When Looking at Potential Friends and Romantic Partners. Arch Sex Behav 46, 2313–2325 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1022-5
- Waist-to-hip ratio