Men and women respond differently when presented with sexual stimuli. Men's reaction is gender-specific, and women's reaction is gender-nonspecific. This might be a result of differential cognitive processing of sexual cues, namely copulatory movement (CM), which is present in almost every dynamic erotic stimulus. A novelty eye-tracking procedure was developed to assess the saliency of short film clips containing CM or non-CM sexual activities. Results from 29 gynephilic men and 31 androphilic women showed only small and insignificant effects in attention bias and no effects in attentional capture. Our results suggest that CM is not processed differently in men and women and, therefore, is not the reason behind gender-nonspecific sexual responses in women.

Center for Sexual Health and Interventions National Institute of Mental Health Topolová 748 250 67 Klecany Czech Republic

Department of Psychology and Life Sciences Faculty of Humanities Charles University Pátkova 2137 5 182 00 Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Chivers ML. The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientations: A review and ten hypotheses. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017;46:1161–1179. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0897-x. PubMed DOI

Chivers ML. A brief update on the specificity of sexual arousal. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2010;25:407–414. doi: 10.1080/14681994.2010.495979. DOI

Chivers ML, Rieger G, Latty E, Bailey JM. A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychol. Sci. 2004;15:736–744. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00750.x. PubMed DOI

Chivers ML, Bailey JM. A sex difference in features that elicit genital response. Biol. Psychol. 2005;70:115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.002. PubMed DOI

Chivers ML, Seto MC, Blanchard R. Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007;93:1108. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108. PubMed DOI

Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML, Chivers ML. Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Arch. Sex. Behav. 2009;38:559–573. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9339-8. PubMed DOI

Peterson ZD, Janssen E, Laan E. Women’s sexual responses to heterosexual and lesbian erotica: The role of stimulus intensity, affective reaction, and sexual history. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2010;39:880–897. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9546-y. PubMed DOI

Spape J, Timmers AD, Yoon S, Ponseti J, Chivers ML. Gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal to prepotent sexual features in heterosexual women and men. Biol. Psychol. 2014;102:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.008. PubMed DOI

Sawatsky ML, Dawson SJ, Lalumiere ML. Genital lubrication: A cue-specific sexual response? Biol. Psychol. 2018;134:103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.003. PubMed DOI

Prause N, Janssen E, Hetrick WP. Attention and emotional responses to sexual stimuli and their relationship to sexual desire. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2008;37:934–949. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9236-6. PubMed DOI

Shilhan J. Attentional Processing of Visual Sexual Stimuli and The Concordia Sexual Image Dataset. Concordia University; 2017.

Wierzba M, et al. Erotic subset for the Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS ERO): Cross-sexual comparison study. Front. Psychol. 2015;6:136. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01336. PubMed DOI PMC

Fromberger P, Jordan K, von Herder J, Steinkrauss H, Nemetschek R, Stolpmann G, Müller JL. Initial orienting towards sexually relevant stimuli: Preliminary evidence from eye movement measures. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012;41:919–928. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9816-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Lykins AD, Meana M, Kambe G. Detection of differential viewing patterns to erotic and non-erotic stimuli using eye-tracking methodology. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2006;35:569–575. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9065-z. PubMed DOI

Lykins AD, Meana M, Strauss GP. Sex differences in visual attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2008;37:219–228. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9208-x. PubMed DOI

Baumeister RF. Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychol. Bull. 2000;126:347. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.347. PubMed DOI

Ganesan A, Morandini JS, Veldre A, Hsu KJ, Dar-Nimrod I. Ethnic differences in visual attention to sexual stimuli among Asian and White heterosexual women and men. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020;155:109630. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109630. DOI

Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal in response to rape cues. Psychol. Sci. 2011;22:159–165. doi: 10.1177/0956797610394660. PubMed DOI

Janssen E, Everaerd W, Spiering M, Janssen J. Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. J. Sex Res. 2000;37:8–23. doi: 10.1080/00224490009552016. DOI

Spiering M, Everaerd W, Janssen E. Priming the sexual system: Implicit versus explicit activation. J. Sex Res. 2003;40:134–145. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552175. PubMed DOI

Spiering M, Everaerd W, Karsdorp P, Both S, Brauer M. Nonconscious processing of sexual information: A generalization to women. J. Sex Res. 2006;43:268–281. doi: 10.1080/00224490609552325. PubMed DOI

de Jong DC. The role of attention in sexual arousal: Implications for treatment of sexual dysfunction. J. Sex Res. 2009;46:237–248. doi: 10.1080/00224490902747230. PubMed DOI

Janssen E, Carpenter D, Graham CA. Selecting films for sex research: Gender differences in erotic film preference. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2003;32:243–251. doi: 10.1023/A:1023413617648. PubMed DOI

Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. The effect of static versus dynamic stimuli on visual processing of sexual cues in androphilic women and gynephilic men. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018;5:172286. doi: 10.1098/rsos.172286. PubMed DOI PMC

Connor CE, Egeth HE, Yantis S. Visual attention: Bottom-up versus top-down. Curr. Biol. 2004;14:R850–R852. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.09.041. PubMed DOI

Boğa M, Koyuncu M, Kaça G, Bayazıt TO. Comparison of emotion elicitation methods: 3 methods, 3 emotions, 3 measures. Curr. Psychol. 2022;42:18670–18685. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-02984-5. DOI

Sarlo M, Buodo G. To each its own? Gender differences in affective, autonomic, and behavioral responses to same-sex and opposite-sex visual sexual stimuli. Physiol. Behav. 2017;171:249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.017. PubMed DOI

Gross JJ, Levenson RW. Emotion elicitation using films. Cogn. Emot. 1995;9:87–108. doi: 10.1080/02699939508408966. DOI

Faul F, Erdfelder E. GPOWER: A Priori-, Post Hoc-, and Compromise Power Analyses for MS-DOS [Computer Program] Bonn University; 1992.

Novák O, Bártová K, Vagenknecht V, Klapilová K. Attention bias and recognition of sexual images. Front. Psychol. 2020;11:556071. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.556071. PubMed DOI PMC

Schmukle SC. Unreliability of the dot probe task. Eur. J. Pers. 2005;19:595–605. doi: 10.1002/per.554. DOI

Staugaard SR. Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces. Psychol. Sci. Q. 2009;51:339–350.

Taylor SE, Fiske ST. Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1978;11:249–288. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60009-X. DOI

Rosenholtz R. A simple saliency model predicts a number of motion popout phenomena. Vision Res. 1999;39:3157–3163. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00077-2. PubMed DOI

SR Research Experiment Builder. (2019).

Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. Gender-specificity of initial and controlled visual attention to sexual stimuli in androphilic women and gynephilic men. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152785. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152785. PubMed DOI PMC

Dawson SJ, Fretz KM, Chivers ML. Visual attention patterns of women with androphilic and gynephilic sexual attractions. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017;46:141–153. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0825-0. PubMed DOI

EyeLink Data Viewer. (2020).

R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).

Calvo MG, Lang PJ. Gaze patterns when looking at emotional pictures: Motivationally biased attention. Motiv. Emot. 2004;28:221–243. doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000040153.26156.ed. DOI

Ossandón JP, Onat S, König P. Spatial biases in viewing behavior. J. Vis. 2014;14:1–26. doi: 10.1167/14.2.20. PubMed DOI

Brinkmann H, Mikuni J, Dare Z, Kawabata H, Leder H, Rosenberg R. Cultural diversity in oculometric parameters when viewing art and non-art. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2023;17:398–411. doi: 10.1037/aca0000563. DOI

Brauer M, Van Leeuwen M, Janssen E, Newhouse SK, Heiman JR, Laan E. Attentional and affective processing of sexual stimuli in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012;41:891–905. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9820-7. PubMed DOI

Nolet K, Emond FC, Pfaus JG, Gagnon J, Rouleau JL. Sexual attentional bias in young adult heterosexual men: Attention allocation following self-regulation. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021;50:2531–2542. doi: 10.1007/s10508-021-01928-7. PubMed DOI

Aguiar S, Carvalho J, Carrito ML, Santos IM. Automatic attention to sexual stimuli: Exploring the role of neuroticism and sexual excitation/inhibition through event-related potentials. J. Sex. Med. 2023;20:367–376. doi: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdac048. PubMed DOI