Pupillary Response as an Age-Specific Measure of Sexual Interest

Abstract

In the visual processing of sexual content, pupil dilation is an indicator of arousal that has been linked to observers’ sexual orientation. This study investigated whether this measure can be extended to determine age-specific sexual interest. In two experiments, the pupillary responses of heterosexual adults to images of males and females of different ages were related to self-reported sexual interest, sexual appeal to the stimuli, and a child molestation proclivity scale. In both experiments, the pupils of male observers dilated to photographs of women but not men, children, or neutral stimuli. These pupillary responses corresponded with observer’s self-reported sexual interests and their sexual appeal ratings of the stimuli. Female observers showed pupil dilation to photographs of men and women but not children. In women, pupillary responses also correlated poorly with sexual appeal ratings of the stimuli. These experiments provide initial evidence that eye-tracking could be used as a measure of sex-specific interest in male observers, and as an age-specific index in male and female observers.

Heterosexual, Homosexual, and Bisexual Men’s Pupillary Responses to Persons at Different Stages of Sexual Development

“…A recent study therefore reexamined whether pupillary response can provide an age-specific measure of sexual interest using highly sensitive, contemporary eye-tracking equipment (Attard-Johnson, Bindemann, & Ó Ciardha, 2016). Consistent with previous research, heterosexual male observers displayed larger pupils during the viewing of adult women (Hess et al, 1965;Rieger et al, 2015;Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012).…”

“…However, the study by Attard-Johnson et al (2016) was also limited in some important respects. One caveat is that the pupils of heterosexual female observers also revealed dilation during the viewing of adult women.…”

“…This pattern of female responding is not yet fully understood (Rieger et al, 2015;Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012) but is common in the wider sex literature and has been obtained with a range of measures and paradigms, such as viewing and response times (Israel & Strassberg, 2009;Lippa, Patterson, & Marelich, 2010) and genital arousal (e.g., Chivers, Rieger, Latty, & Bailey, 2004;Chivers, Seto, Lalumière, Laan, & Grimbos, 2010;Suschinsky, Lalumière, & Chivers, 2009). However, in combination with the use of visual scenes, which were employed as a natural context for the presentation of the person stimuli and to provide alternative nonperson content to view, the possibility arises that these pupillary responses are driven by additional nonperson aspects of the stimuli, such as the distribution of luminance within scenes or image-based factors that cannot be easily identified (see Attard-Johnson et al, 2016;Bergamin & Kardon, 2003;Ellis, 1981).…”

Development of a Cued Pro- and Antisaccade Paradigm: An Indirect Measure to Explore Automatic Components of Sexual Interest

“…In turn, in the incongruent condition, instructed antisaccades away from sexually relevant information should be in conflict with exogenous generation processes towards significant information. Although previous studies point to sexual nonspecificity in sexual information processing in women that occurs independent from assessment methods (e.g., Attard-Johnson et al, 2016;Chivers, Rieger, Latty, & Bailey, 2004;Dawson & Chivers, 2016;Lippa, 2006), we included male and female participants. However, it is an empirical question whether men and women show sexual-interest specific differences in the performance of pro-and antisaccades in the CPAP.…”

“…While participants predominately looked at the face of stimuli rated in the loveeliciting condition, they fixated comparatively more often body parts of stimuli in the lusteliciting condition. In addition, other eye tracking studies revealed that eye movement data, for example on pupil dilation or gaze time, differed between sexually relevant and irrelevant stimulus material (e.g., Attard-Johnson, Bindemann, & Ciardha, 2016;Bradley, Costa, & Lang, 2015;Dawson & Chivers, 2016;Fromberger et al, 2012;. Dawson and Chivers (2016) suggested that these findings imply sexual interest-specific allocation of attention that influences 4 sexual information processing as well as behavioral reactions both at an automatic and an intentional level.…”