Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 374–376 | Cite as

Sex differences in the duration of visual attention

  • Bruce T. Leckart
  • Kenneth R. Keeling
  • Paul Bakan


Normal adult males and females looked at a series of photographs containing either a single adult male or female. Ss viewed each picture for as long as they wished. Assuming that measures of the duration of attention would reflect Ss attraction for the opposite sex, it was hypothesized that Ss would spend relatively more time viewing photographs of the opposite sex. The results failed to support the hypothesis. Although males did not differentially attend to the stimuli, females looked significantly longer at the females than they did at the males. The results were interpreted in terms of the “overt sexual content” of the stimuli and socially conditioned attentiveness and inattentiveness.


  1. Bakan, P., &Leckart, B. T. Attention, extraversion, and stimulus-personality congruence.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 355–357.Google Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict and information-theory variables as determinants of human perceptual curiosity.J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 53, 399–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses.J. exp. Psychol., 1958a, 55, 289–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. E. Supplementary report: Complexity and orienting responses with, longer exposures.J. exp. Psychol., 1958b, 56, 183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt, H. F.The psychology of seeing. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L. T., &Farha, W. Some physical determinants of viewing time under three instructional sets.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullock, D. H. Note on “looking at pictures” behavior.Percept. mot. Skills, 1959, 9, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantor, J. H., &Cantor, G. N. Observing behavior in children as a function of stimulus novelty.Child Develpm., 1964a, 35, 119–128.Google Scholar
  9. Cantor, J. H., &Cantor, G. N. Children’s observing behavior as related to amount and recency of stimulus familiarization.J. exp. child. Psychol, 1964b, 1, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantor, G. N., Cantor, J. H., &Ditrichs, R. Observing behavior in preschool children as a function of stimulus complexity.Child Develpm., 1963, 34, 683–689.Google Scholar
  11. Christiansen, K. C. Response duration as a measure of ambivalent response tendencies.J. Pers., 1961, 29, 115–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Leckart, B. T. Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 142–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leckart, B. T., &Bakan, P. Complexity judgments of photographs and looking time.Percept, mot. Skills, 1965, 21, 16–18.Google Scholar
  14. Leckart, B. T., Keeling, K., &Bakan, P. The effect of rate of presentation on free looking time.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, B. Expression and inhibition of sex motive arousal in college males.J. abnorm, soc. Psychol., 1964, 68, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McReynolds, P. Reactions to novel and familiar stimuli as a function of schizophrenic withdrawal.Percept, mot. Skills, 1963, 16, 847–850.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenzweig, S. The photoscope as an objective device for evaluating sexual interest.Psychosom. Med., 1942, 4, 150–158.Google Scholar
  18. Zamansky, H. S. A technique for assessing homosexual tendencies.J. Pers., 1956, 24, 436–448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Zamansky, H. S. An investigation of the psychoanalytic theory of paranoid delusions.J. Pers., 1958, 26, 410–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce T. Leckart
    • 1
  • Kenneth R. Keeling
    • 2
  • Paul Bakan
    • 2
  1. 1.Ohio UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations