Can’t Take My Eyes off You—Your Face, That Is
The direction of your gaze when looking at someone offers an unconscious, automatic giveaway of whether your initial reaction is romance or sex. Christie Nicholson reports
By Christie Nicholson
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
When it comes to first impressions of a potential new love, the eyes may indeed be the window to the soul—because the direction of your gaze when looking at this person offers an unconscious, automatic giveaway of whether your initial reaction is romance or sex. That’s according to a study in the journal Psychological Science. [Mylene Bolmont et al: Love Is in the Gaze: An Eye-Tracking Study of Love and Sexual Desire]
Heterosexual subjects looked at photographs on a computer of fully clothed, attractive strangers of the opposite sex. For each photo, they had to decide as quickly as possible if they experienced feelings of either sexual lust or romantic love.
The researchers found no significant difference in the time it took subjects to make their decision. But eye-tracking data uncovered a big difference in where the subject looked. If one of the volunteers felt lust for the individual in the photograph, they tended to look at the eyes first, then fixated on the body. While those who felt romantic love, were more likely to keep their attention only on the eyes and face.
The researchers say that “identification of distinct visual patterns for love and lust could have theoretical and clinical importance in couples therapy.” Especially if one of them is looking out the window at strangers.
—Christie Nicholson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
