Sex Differences in Attention and Attitude Toward Infant and Sexual Images
- PMID: 37626259
- DOI: 10.1007/s10508-023-02676-6
Sex Differences in Attention and Attitude Toward Infant and Sexual Images
Abstract
Reproduction in mammals includes two general categories of behaviors: mating and parenting. Historically and cross-culturally, men invest more than women in mating; women invest more than men in parenting. Sex differences in attention and attitude toward mating and parenting stimuli have rarely been assessed together despite theoretical interest. To evaluate these differences simultaneously in a naturalistic setting, 582 study participants (459 women, 123 men) were presented with sexual and infant images, online in the privacy of their home, at three time periods spanning several weeks for a more reliable result. Attention was measured by covertly recording viewing time of images using Qualtrics software, and attitude was measured via self-report after each viewing session. Men reported a more positive attitude than women toward the sexual images; women reported a more positive attitude than men toward the infant images. Women viewed the infant images marginally longer than did men, and the infant-to-sexual viewing ratio was larger for women. The sexual-to-infant viewing ratio was larger for men than for women. Unexpectedly, both genders viewed the sexual images longer than the infant images, with no significant gender difference in the sexual image viewing time. The results suggest that women and men may give equal attention to visual sexual stimuli despite self-reported sex differences in interest. The possibly underestimated valence of visual sexual stimuli for women is discussed.
Keywords: Infant stimuli; Mating; Parenting; Sex differences; Sexual stimuli.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Sex differences in visual attention to sexually explicit videos: a preliminary study.J Sex Med. 2009 Apr;6(4):1011-1017. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01031.x. Epub 2008 Oct 17. J Sex Med. 2009. PMID: 19175861
-
Gender-Specificity in Viewing Time Among Heterosexual Women.Arch Sex Behav. 2017 Jul;46(5):1361-1374. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0795-2. Epub 2016 Aug 10. Arch Sex Behav. 2017. PMID: 27511206
-
Viewing time as an objective measure of sexual interest in heterosexual men and women.Arch Sex Behav. 2009 Aug;38(4):551-8. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9246-4. Epub 2007 Oct 18. Arch Sex Behav. 2009. PMID: 17943432
-
Attentional bias toward and distractibility by sexual cues: A meta-analytic integration.Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Oct;105:276-287. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.015. Epub 2019 Aug 12. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019. PMID: 31415866 Review.
-
Brain research, gender and sexual orientation.J Homosex. 1995;28(3-4):283-301. doi: 10.1300/J082v28n03_07. J Homosex. 1995. PMID: 7560933 Review.
References
-
- Anderson, M., Vogels, E. A., & Turner, E. (2020, 6 February). The virtues and downsides of online dating. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/02/...
-
- Arteche, A. X., Vivian, F. A., Dalpiaz, B. P. Y., & Salvador-Silva, R. (2016). Effects of sex and parental status on the assessment of infant faces. Psychology & Neuroscience, 9(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101552 - DOI
-
- Backx, R., Skirrow, C., Dente, P., Barnett, J. H., & Cormack, F. K. (2020). Comparing Web-based and lab-based cognitive assessment using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery: A within-subjects counterbalanced study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e16792. https://doi.org/10.2196/16792 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources