ArticleBiology of sex differences2026
Sex differences in face looking preferences at birth.
Article in Biology of sex differences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While sex differences in behaviour have attracted considerable scientific interest, their underlying causes are complex and remain poorly understood. One approach to understand whether early biological factors might play a partial role is to study newborns, who have limited postnatal experiences. Previous research on neonatal sex differences is extremely limited, and studies that do exist have yielded mixed results, raised methodological concerns, and are yet to be replicated. To assess these gaps, the present study aimed to reevaluate sex differences in neonatal attention. 130 neonates (67 males, 63 females; mean age = 33 h) were presented with a video of a human face and a non-social object. When analysing percentage looking times, on average, females allocated a greater percentage of time looking at the face relative to males (d = 0.40). When analysing absolute looking times, females showed a preference for the face compared to the non-social object, while males showed no preference for either. However, no differences were observed between males' and females' absolute looking times for the face or object, indicating that sex differences are most prominent in the relative allocation of attention. Since sex differences in relative attentional patterns are present from the earliest days of life, one possible explanation for this effect may be due to contributions from prenatal factors (e.g., sex hormones). However, alternative explanations may be that these differences reflect general maturational differences between males and females or arise from low-level visual properties of the stimuli rather than their social versus non-social content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.