1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0162-3095(96)00060-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Viewing time as a measure of sexual interest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
62
1
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
62
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We conducted this analysis because when rating facial attractiveness, people tend to view more attractive faces for longer periods of time (55,56). Our results demonstrated that participants viewed spaces that they opted to "enter" for longer periods compared with spaces that they opted to "exit," t(17) = 2.60, P < 0.05 (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…We conducted this analysis because when rating facial attractiveness, people tend to view more attractive faces for longer periods of time (55,56). Our results demonstrated that participants viewed spaces that they opted to "enter" for longer periods compared with spaces that they opted to "exit," t(17) = 2.60, P < 0.05 (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…However, prior research on the viewing time effect has provided mixed results. Although standard viewing time effects emerged also for women, these effects were usually smaller than those for heterosexual males (Israel & Strassberg, 2009;Quinsey et al, 1996). To explore this gender specificity effect also for the restricted display variation, we recruited a community sample of men and women.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher mean response latencies in trials with targets of specific sex or sexual maturity are then interpreted as indicating the sexual interests of the individual. In spite of profound support for the validity of VT tasks in assessing sexual orientation (e.g., Bourke & Gormley, 2012;Ebsworth & Lalumière, 2012;Imhoff et al, 2010;Imhoff et al, 2011, Study 1;Israel & Strassberg, 2009;Lippa, 2012;Quinsey, Ketsetzis, Earls, & Karamanoukian;Zamansky, 1956), the underlying mechanisms have not been finally clarified. However, Imhoff et al (2010) experimentally ruled out deliberate delay of response latencies and interfering attentional adhesion effects due to the sexually attractive nature of relevant target stimuli.…”
Section: Task-relevant Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%