Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 6, pp 1890–1900 | Cite as

Gender and individual differences in cueing effects: Visuospatial attention and object likability

  • Takashi MitsudaEmail author
  • Mio Otani
  • Sayana Sugimoto


An arrow marker appearing in a field of view shifts the observer’s attention in its indicated direction. On the other hand, the gaze of another individual not only shifts the observer’s attention but also increases the likability of objects in the direction of their gaze. These effects occur even when the arrow markers or gaze cues are presented for very short periods so that the observer is unaware of them. To expand on the findings of previous studies, we conducted two experiments. In the first we examined the changes in likability and attentional shift induced by supraliminal and subliminal arrow markers, using 40 male and 40 female participants. We found, contrary to previous findings, that supraliminal arrow markers not only shifted the observers’ attention but slightly increased object likability. On the other hand, subliminal arrow markers only shifted the observers’ attention. The attentional shift was stronger for female than for male participants in the case of supraliminal, but not of subliminal, markers. The second experiment verified the changes in likability induced by supraliminal arrow markers and compared the effects with those of supraliminal gaze cues among 40 female participants. We found that the liking effect was observed for both arrow markers and gaze cues. However, both effects were small, and no significant difference was found between them. Overall, these results show that gender and individual differences have considerable impacts on cueing effects.


Attention Preference Gender differences Cueing Unconsciousness 



  1. Alwall, N., Johansson, D., & Hansen, S. (2010). The gender difference in gaze-cueing: Associations with empathizing and systemizing. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 729–732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference. The truth about the male and female brain. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bayliss, A. P., di Pellegrino, G., & Tipper, S. P. (2005). Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 631–650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayliss, A. P., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotional expression. Cognition, 104, 644–653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayliss, A. P., Paul, M. A., Cannon, P. R., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Gaze cuing and affective judgments of objects: I like what you look at. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1061–1066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayliss, A. P., Schuch, S., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Gaze cueing elicited by emotional faces is influenced by affective context. Visual Cognition, 18, 1214–1232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, M. W. (2010). The effectiveness of a gaze cue depends on the facial expression of emotion: Evidence from simultaneous competing cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1814–1824. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornstein, R.F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadas, E., & Mast, M. S. (2017). Drawn towards what others seem to like: Implicit preference for objects and people looked at with a Duchenne smile. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 628–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooney, S. M., Brady, N., & Ryan, K. (2017). Spatial orienting of attention to social cues is modulated by cue type and gender of viewer. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 1481–1490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deaner, R. O., Shepherd, S. V., & Platt, M. L. (2007). Familiarity accentuates gaze cuing in women but not men. Biology Letters, 3, 64–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Endo, N., Saiki, J., Nakao, Y., & Saito, H. (2003). Perceptual judgments of novel contour shapes and hierarchical descriptions of geometrical properties. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 74, 346–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng, Q., Zheng, Y. Q., Zhang, X. M., Song, Y., Luo, Y. J., Li, Y. D., & Talhelm, T. (2011). Gender differences in visual reflexive attention shifting: Evidence from an ERP study. Brain Research, 1401, 59–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabay, S., Avni, D., & Henik, A. (2012). Reflexive orienting by central arrows: Evidence from the inattentional blindness task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 625–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gayet, S., Van der Stigchel, S., & Paffen, C. L. E. (2014). Seeing is believing: Utilization of subliminal symbols requires a visible relevant context. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 489–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Does subliminal exposure to sexual stimuli have the same effects on men and women? Journal of Sex Research, 44, 111–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Main, J. C., Little, A. C., Welling, L. L. M., Feinberg, D. R., & Tiddeman, B. P. (2010). Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 617–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, D., Rowe, A., & Leonards, U. (2011). I trust you; hence, I like the things you look at: Gaze cueing and sender trustworthiness influence object evaluation. Social Cognition, 29, 476–485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, G., Hu, P. P., Fan, J., & Wang, K. (2013). Gender differences associated with orienting attentional networks in healthy subjects. Chinese Medical Journal, 126, 2308–2312. Google Scholar
  20. Manera, V., Elena, M. R., Bayliss, A. P., & Becchio, C. (2014). When seeing is more than looking: Intentional gaze modulates object desirability. Emotion, 14, 824–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merritt, P., Hirshman, E., Wharton, W., Stangl, B., Devlin, J., & Lenz, A. (2007). Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 597–609. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitsuda, T., & Masaki, S. (2018). Subliminal gaze cues increase preference levels for items in the gaze direction. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 1146–1151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niedzwiecka, A., & Tomalski, P. (2015). Gaze-cueing effect depends on facial expression of emotion in 9-to-12-month-old infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 122:1–11. Google Scholar
  24. Ponari, M., Trojano, L., Grossi, D., & Conson, M. (2013). “Avoiding or approaching eyes”? Introversion/extraversion affects the gaze-cueing effect. Cognitive Processing, 14, 293–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reuss, H., Pohl, C., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2011). Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 82–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sato, W., Okada, T., & Toichi, M. (2007). Attentional shift by gaze is triggered without awareness. Experimental Brain Research, 183, 87–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Serrien, D. J., Sovijärvi-Spapé, M. M., & Rana, G. (2012). Subliminal priming and effects of hand dominance. Acta Psychologica, 141, 73–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strick, M., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Seductive eyes: Attractiveness and direct gaze increase desire for associated objects. Cognition, 106, 1487–1496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Süßenbach, F., & Schönbrodt, F. (2014). Not afraid to trust you: Trustworthiness moderates gaze cueing but not in highly anxious participants. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 670–678. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tipples, J., & Pecchinenda, A. (2018). A closer look at the size of the gaze-liking effect: A preregistered replication. Cognition and Emotion. Advance online publication.
  32. Treinen, E., Corneille, O., & Luypaert, G. (2012). L-eye to me: The combined role of need for cognition and facial trustworthiness in mimetic desires. Cognition, 122, 247–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ulloa, J. L., Marchetti, C., Taffou, M., & George, N. (2015). Only your eyes tell me what you like: Exploring the liking effect induced by other’s gaze. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 460–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van der Weiden, A., Veling, H., & Aarts, H. (2010). When observing gaze shifts of others enhances object desirability. Emotion, 10, 939–943. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2006). Individual and gender differences in Empathizing and Systemizing: Measurement of individual differences by the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 77, 271–277. Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu, S., Zhang, S., & Geng, H. Y. (2011). Gaze-induced joint attention persists under high perceptual load and does not depend on awareness. Vision Research, 51, 2048–2056. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and EngineeringRitsumeikan UniversityKusatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations