MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390047049 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2023.2284346

The Role of Attractiveness in Gendered Sexual Response Patterns

2023· article· en· W4390047049 on OpenAlex
Amanda D. Timmers, Shari M. Blumenstock, Lisa M. DeBruine, Meredith L. Chivers

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttractivenessSexual arousalPsychologySexual attractionArousalPreferenceDevelopmental psychologySexual orientationSocial psychologySexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously documented sexual response patterns of gender-specificity among gynephilic men and gender-nonspecificity among gynephilic women could be explained by women responding more strongly to non-gendered aspects of sexual stimuli. Cues of attractiveness are known determinants of sexual decision-making, yet have not been directly tested as determinants of sexual response. The current study investigated the role of attractiveness cues in explaining gender-based patterns of sexual response. Thirty-one gynephilic men and 60 androphilic women were presented slideshows of images depicting individual nude men and women that were pre-rated in a pilot study as either attractive or unattractive. The men and women were posed with legs spread and aroused genitals displayed prominently. Images were isolated against a white background and included minimal contextual information. Three sexual responses - genital arousal (via photoplethysmographs), self-reported arousal, and visual attention (via eye-tracking) - were recorded continuously. Across all three response modalities, men's and women's responses were stronger for the attractive versus unattractive images and for their preferred versus non-preferred gender. For men's arousal and women's self-reported arousal, the effect of attractiveness was stronger for their preferred versus non-preferred gender. Thus, both men and women demonstrated preference-specific patterns of sexual response. Gender cues had the strongest effect on men's visual attention, whereas attractiveness cues had the strongest effect on women's visual attention. Findings establish the importance of target attractiveness in arousal to sexual stimuli and add to mounting evidence that androphilic women's sexual responses are sensitive to gender, but may be more sensitive to non-gendered features of sexual stimuli.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it