Gynephilic Men’s and Androphilic Women’s Visual Attention Patterns: The Effects of Gender and Sexual Activity Cues

ABSTRACT

Men and women differ in the degree of specificity of sexual response and differences in attention to sexual cues may be a mechanism underlying these gendered patterns. The majority of previous research has examined attention using static images, which differ considerably from the dynamic videos used in studies of sexual response. To test attention as a potential mechanism involved in gendered sexual response, we used eye-tracking to examine visual attention patterns of 33 gynephilic men and 36 androphilic women to videos depicting preferred and nonpreferred gender targets engaging in varying sexual activities. Specificity of controlled attention was gendered, and this effect differed depending on the intensity of sexual activity cues depicted. Regardless of sexual activity cues, men’s controlled attention was gender-specific toward preferred targets. Sexual activity cues did, however, impact the degree to which women’s controlled attention was gender-specific. Specifically, women’s attention was gender-specific to low-intensity stimuli but nonspecific for masturbation and same-sex dyadic stimuli. Women’s attention was gender-specific for mixed-sex dyadic stimuli, but with greater attention directed toward nonpreferred gender targets. Overall, contextual cues impact women’s attention to a greater degree than men’s. Potential explanations for these findings and implications of stimulus selection for sexuality research are discussed.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kaylee Clark, Katherine Fretz, and Emily McBride for their assistance with data collection and data preparation.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available here https://osf.io/yugkn/.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by two Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grants, one awarded to S. J. Dawson and one awarded to M. L. Chivers and a Canadian Foundation for Innovation Operating Fund awarded to M. L. Chivers. S. Milani was supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Master’s Scholarship. M. L. Chivers was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award. S. J. Dawson was supported by an Ontario Trillium Scholarship, Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award.