“I can see you”: The impact of implied social presence on visual attention to erotic and neutral stimuli in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The watchful eye of others often leads people to alter their behaviour. Eye tracking methodology has been used to create implied social presence, as well as to examine gaze patterns to erotic stimuli, but the effects of implied social presence on visual attention to erotic and neutral stimuli remains largely unknown. In the present study, we examined precisely this issue. We compared looking behaviour of men and women who were either aware that their gaze patterns were being monitored (implied social presence) and those who lacked this knowledge (no implied presence). Women in the aware condition made significantly fewer fixations than men, whereas no such gender differences were found in the unaware condition. Across both conditions, men made significantly more fixations to the erotic stimuli compared to the neutral stimuli and the background. For women, no significant differences were found in the number of fixations to the erotic stimuli and the background, although women look at these areas more than the neutral stimuli. These results demonstrate that eye tracking creates an implied social presence, and this differentially affects the looking behaviour of women versus men. Moreover, gendered sexual norms coupled with the need to manage self-presentation may influence women’s sexual urges and expressions. The inhibition of sexuality displayed by women indicates that sexual double standards still exist in society and need to be addressed. As well, theoretical, methodological, and clinical implications of eye tracking methodology should be taken into consideration in future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".