Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pupillometric assessment of arousal to sexual stimuli: Novelty effects or preference?

  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pupillary response of male and female subjects to various sexual stimuli was examined. Change in pupil size was compared using light and dark control slides and nude male and female, heterosexual, and homosexual stimulus slides. Attempts were made to control for the many confounds inherent in pupillometric research. Pupil size was measured using video-recording techniques that magnified pupils to an easily measured size. Greater pupil change was found when the stimulus slide was preceded by a relatively lighter control slide. In addition, pupil change was related to familiarity with the stimulus slide and the relative pupil response changed as subjects gained experience with the stimulus material. Explanations and implications for further research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlow, J. D. (1970). Pupillary size as an index of preference.Percept. Mot. Skills 31: 331–336.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernick, N., Kling, A., and Borowitz, G. (1971). Physiologic differentiation of sexual arousal and anxiety.Psychosom. Med. 33: 341–352.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birren, J. E., Casperson, R. C., and Botwinick, J. (1951). Pain measurement by the radiant heat method: Individual differences in pain sensitivity, the affects of skin temperature, and stimulus duration.J. Exp. Psychol. 4: 419–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambill, H. D., Ogle, K. N., and Kearns, T. P. (1967). Mydriatic effect of four drugs determined with pupillography.Arch. Opthalmol. 77: 740–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldwater, B. C. (1972). Psychological significance of pupillary movements.Psychol. Bull. 77: 340–355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Good, L. R., and Levine, R. H. (1970). Pupillary responses of repressors and sensitizers to sexual and adversive stimuli.Percept. Mot. Skills 30: 631–634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, R. F. (1974). Female subjective and pupillary reaction to nude male and female figures.J. Psychol. 87: 171–175.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H. (1975). The role of pupil size in communication.Sci. Am. 233: 46–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H. (1965). Attitude and pupil size.Sci. Am. 212: 46–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H., and Polt, J. M. (1960). Pupil size as related to the interest value of visual stimuli.Science 132: 349–350.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H., Seltzer, A., and Shlien, J. M. (1965). Pupil responses of hetero- and homo-sexual males to pictures of men and women: A pilot study.J. Abn. Psychol. 70: 165–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janisse, M. P. (1973). Pupil size and affect: A critical review of the literature since 1960.Can. Psychol. 14: 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janisse, M. P. (1977).Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response Hemisphere, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, J. C., and Wake, F. R. (1968). Sex differences in pupillary response to visual stimuli.Psychophysiology 5: 568–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metalis, S. A., and Hess, E. H. (1982). Pupillary response/semantic differential scale relationships.J. Res. Pers. 16: 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunally, J. C., Knott, P. D., Duchnowski, A., and Parker, R. (1967). Pupillary response as a general measure of activiation.Percept. Psychophys. 2: 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peavler, W. S., and Mclaughlin, J. P. (1967). The question of stimulus content and pupil size.Psychonom. Sci. 8: 505–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, T. R., Wells, W. H., Wood, D. Z., and Morgan, D. I. (1967). Pupil response and sexual interest re-examined.J. Clin. Psychol. 23: 433–438.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simms, T. M. (1967). Pupillary response of male and female subjects to pupillary difference in male and female picture stimuli.Percept. Psychophys. 2: 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, B. J. (1971).Statistical Principles in Experimental Design McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodmansee, J. (1966). Methodological problems in pupillographic experiments. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Vol. 1, pp. 133–134.

  • Zuckerman, M. (1971). Physiological measures of sexual arousal in the human.Psychol. Bull. 75: 297–329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veterans Administration Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA

    James C. Garrett Ph.D.

  2. Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    David W. Harrison Ph.D. & Patti L. Kelly Ph.D.

Authors
  1. James C. Garrett Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David W. Harrison Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patti L. Kelly Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrett, J.C., Harrison, D.W. & Kelly, P.L. Pupillometric assessment of arousal to sexual stimuli: Novelty effects or preference?. Arch Sex Behav 18, 191–201 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01543194

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01543194

Key words

Search

Navigation