Although sexual orientation (SO) is perceptually ambiguous, people are able to detect it with above-chance accuracy from faces and, sometimes, from voices. Despite a multitude of “gaydar” studies, it is unclear (1) whether vocal or facial signals carry more SO information, (2) whether raters refer to target’s SO instead of gender-role conformity when forming SO impressions, and (3) whether there are any differences for female and male targets. We collected face photographs, voice recordings, and self-reported gender-role conformity of 18 lesbian/gay and straight female and male target persons each. Study 1 (rating of SO) showed that faces led to higher accuracies than voices, which was especially true for female targets. Study 2 (rating of gender-role conformity) showed that the link between self-reported and attributed SO was mediated by self-reported and attributed gender-role conformity. Results support the centrality of gender-role conformity, more than that of SO, in impression formation.
AmbadyN.HallahanM.ConnerB. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 538-547. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.538
2.
BossonJ. K.Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L.TaylorJ. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552-565. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552
3.
BruckmüllerS. (2013). Singled out as the effect to be explained: Implications for collective self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 237-249. doi:10.1177/0146167212471686
4.
CampM. (2009). Japanese lesbian speech: Sexuality, gender identity, and language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195371
5.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CohenJ. D.MacWhinneyB.FlattM.ProvostJ. (1993). Psyscope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 25, 257-271. doi:10.3758/BF03204507
7.
CoxW. T. L.DevineP. G.BischmannA. A.HydeJ. S. (2016). Inferences about sexual orientation: The roles of stereotypes, faces, and the gaydar myth. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 157-171. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1015714.
8.
DekkerA.SchäferS. (1999). Zum Sampling-Bias empirischer Studien über männliche Homosexualität [On the sampling-bias in empirical studies on male homosexuality]. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 12, 350-361.
9.
DingJ. Y. C.RuleN. O. (2012). Gay, straight, or somewhere in between: Accuracy and bias in the perception of bisexual faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 165-176. doi:10.1007/s10919-011-0129-y
10.
DunkleJ. H.FrancisP. L. (1990). The role of facial masculinity/femininity in the attribution of homosexuality. Sex Roles, 23, 157-167. doi:10.1007/BF00289863
11.
FasoliF.HegartyP.MaassA.AntónioR. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 59-64. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.046
12.
FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L.AmbadyN.RuleN. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1318-1331. doi:10.1177%2F0146167210378755
13.
GaudioR. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69, 30-57. doi:10.2307/455948
14.
GilesH.CouplandN. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
15.
HancockJ. T.TomaC. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367-386. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x
16.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
HughesS. M.BremmeR. (2011). The effects of facial symmetry and sexually-dimorphic facial proportions on assessments of sexual orientation. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5, 214-230. doi:10.1037/h0099261
18.
JohnsonK. L.GillS.ReichmanV.TassinaryL. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 321-334. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.321.supp
19.
KachelS.SimpsonA. P.SteffensM. C. (2017). Acoustic correlates of sexual orientation and gender-role self-concept in women’s speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141, 4793. doi:10.1121/1.4988684
20.
KachelS.SimpsonA. P.SteffensM. C. (2018). Do I sound straight? Acoustic correlates of actual and perceived sexual orientation and masculinity/femininity in men’s speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 1-19. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0125
21.
KachelS.SteffensM. C.NiedlichC. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 956. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956
22.
KinseyA.PomeroyW.MartinC.GebhardP. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
23.
KiteM. E.DeauxK. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-96. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x
24.
KiteM. E.WhitleyB. E.Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336-353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002
25.
LesterD.McLaughlinS.CohenR.DunnL. (1977). Sex-deviant handwriting, femininity, and homosexuality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1156. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.45.3f.1156
26.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2013). Deliberate changes to gendered body motion influence basic social perceptions. Social Cognition, 31, 656-671. doi:10.1521/soco.2013.31.6.656
27.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2014a). “You can’t tell just by looking!”: Beliefs in the diagnosticity of visual cues explain response biases in social categorization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1494-1506. doi:10.1177/0146167214549323
28.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2014b). Perceptual underpinnings of antigay prejudice: Negative evaluations of sexual minority women arise on the basis of gendered facial features. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1178-1192. doi:10.1177/0146167214538288
29.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2016). Straight until proven gay: A systematic bias toward straight categorizations in sexual orientation judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 801-817. doi:10.1037/pspa0000052
30.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L.RuleN. O. (2015). Disfluent processing of nonverbal cues helps to explain anti-bisexual prejudice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 275-288. doi:10.1007/s10919-015-0211-y
31.
LinvilleS. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35-48. doi:10.1159/000021447
32.
LippaR. A. (2005). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16, 119-153. doi:10.1080/10532528.2005.10559831
33.
LyonsM.LynchA.BrewerG.BrunoD. (2014). Detection of sexual orientation (“gaydar”) by homosexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 345-352. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0144-7
34.
MacmillanN. A. (2002). Signal detection theory. In WixtedJ.PashlerH. (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 43-90). New York, NY: Wiley.
35.
MeyerI. H.WilsonP. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 23-31. doi:10.1037/a0014587
36.
MillerA. (2018). Searching for gaydar: Blind spots in the study of sexual orientation perception. Psychology & Sexuality, 10, 1-16. doi:1080/19419899.2018.1468353
37.
MunsonB. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125-142. doi:10.1177/00238309070500010601
38.
MunsonB.McDonaldE. C.DeBoeN. L.WhiteA. R. (2006). The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men’s sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 202-240. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.05.003
39.
PiccoloF. (2008). Listener-identified phonetic correlates of gay-, lesbian- and straight-sounding speech (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/20680
40.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
41.
ProthroE. T.MelikianL. H. (1955). Studies in stereotypes: V. Familiarity and the kernel of truth is. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 3-10. doi:10.1080/00224545.1955.9714248
42.
RakićT.SteffensM. C.MummendeyA. (2010). Blinded by the accent: The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 16-29. doi:10.1037/a0021522
RiegerG.LinsenmeierJ. A. W.GygaxL.BaileyJ. M. (2008). Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44, 46-58. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.46
45.
RiegerG.LinsenmeierJ. A. W.GygaxL.GarciaS.BaileyJ. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and the role of masculinity–femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 124-140. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2
46.
RuleN. O. (2011). The influence of target and perceiver race in the categorization of male sexual orientation. Perception, 40, 830-839. doi:10.1068/p7001
47.
RuleN. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 129-139. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2
48.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50 ms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1100-1105. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.12.001
49.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN.AdamsR. B.MacraeC. N. (2008). Accuracy and awareness in the perception and categorization of male sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1019-1028. doi:10.1037/a0013194
50.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN.HallettK. C. (2009). Female sexual orientation is perceived accurately, rapidly, and automatically from the face and its features. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1245-1251. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.07.010
51.
RuleN. O.IshiiK.AmbadyN.RosenK. S.HallettK. C. (2011). Found in translation: Cross-cultural consensus in the accurate categorization of male sexual orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1499-1507. doi:10.1177/0146167211415630
52.
RuleN. O.JohnsonK. L.FreemanJ. B. (2016). Evidence for the absence of stimulus quality differences in texts of the accuracy of sexual orientation judgments: A reply to Cox, Devine, Bischmann, and Hyde (2016). Journal of Sex Research, 54, 813-819. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1205547
53.
RuleN. O.RosenK. S.SlepianM. L.AmbadyN. (2011). Mating interest improves women’s accuracy in judging male sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 22, 881-886. doi:10.1177/0956797611412394
54.
SandfortT. G. M. (1997). Sampling male homosexuality. In BancroftJ. (Ed.), Researching sexual behavior: Methodological issues (pp. 261-275). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55.
Savin-WilliamsR. C. (2006). Who’s gay? Does it matter?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 40-44. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00403.x
SmythR.JacobsG.RogersH. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329-350. doi:10.1017/S0047404503323024
58.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR. L.StappJ. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. doi:10.1037/h0076857
59.
SternC.WestT. V.JostJ. T.RuleN. O. (2013). The politics of gaydar: Ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 520-541. doi:10.1037/a0031187
60.
SulpizioS.FasoliF.AntónioR.EysselF.PaladinoM. P.DiehlC. (2019). Auditory gaydar: Perception of sexual orientation based on female voices. Language and Speech. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0023830919828201
61.
SulpizioS.FasoliF.MaassA.PaladinoM. P.VespignaniF.EysselF.BentlerD. (2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within and across languages. PLoS One, 10, e0128882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128882
62.
SylvaD.RiegerG.LinsenmeierJ. A. W.BaileyJ. M. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 141-152. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9466-2
63.
TabakJ. A.ZayasV. (2012). The roles of featural and configural face processing in snap judgments of sexual orientation. PLoS One, 7, e36671. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036671
64.
TracyE. C.BainterS. A.SatarianoN. P. (2015). Judgments of self-identified gay and heterosexual male speakers: Which phonemes are most salient in determining sexual orientation?Journal of Phonetics, 52, 13-25. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.001
65.
TskhayK. O.FeriozzoM. M.RuleN. O. (2013). Facial features influence the categorization of female sexual orientation. Perception, 42, 1090-1094. doi:10.1068/p7575
66.
TskhayK. O.KrendlA. C.RuleN. O. (2016). Age-related physical changes interfere with judgments of male sexual orientation from faces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1217-1226. doi:10.1177/0146167216653585
67.
TskhayK. O.RuleN. O. (2013a). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72-86. doi:10.1177/1088868312461308
68.
TskhayK. O.RuleN. O. (2013b). Accurate identification of a preference for insertive versus receptive intercourse from static facial cues of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1217-1222. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0092-2
69.
TskhayK. O.RuleN. O. (2015). Emotions facilitate the communication of ambiguous group memberships. Emotion, 15, 812-826. doi:10.1037/emo0000077
70.
ValentovaJ. V.HavlíčekJ. (2013). Perceived sexual orientation based on vocal and facial stimuli is linked to self-rated sexual orientation in Czech men. PLoS ONE, 8, e82417. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082417
71.
ValentovaJ. V.KleisnerK.HavlíčekJ.NeustupaJ. (2014). Shape differences between the faces of homosexual and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 353-361. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0194-x
72.
ValentovaJ. V.RiegerG.HavlíčekJ.LinsenmeierJ. A. W.BaileyJ. M. (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1145-1152. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9818-1
73.
van BorselJ.van de PutteA. (2014). Lisping and male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1159-1163. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0262-x
74.
ZimmanL. (2010). Female-to-male transsexuals and gay-sounding voices: A pilot study. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22, 1-21. Retrieved from https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol22/iss1/3/
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
