Perceiving a male speaker as gender atypical increases the chances of categorizing him as gay. The perception of how fluent the categorization process is can also play a role. Listeners categorized gay and straight speakers’ sexual orientation, reported their perceived categorization fluency, and rated speakers’ gender atypicality. When categorization fluency was high, gay speakers perceived as gender atypical were more likely categorized as gay. When categorization fluency was low, gender atypicality increased the likelihood of categorizing straight speakers as gay.
AltN. P.LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2020). The straight categorization bias: A motivated and altruistic reasoning account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1266–1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000232
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
3.
BrambillaM.RivaP.RuleN. O. (2013). Familiarity increases the accuracy of categorizing male sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.023
4.
BrewerG.LyonsM. (2016). Discrimination of sexual orientation: Accuracy and confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.019
5.
BrewerG.LyonsM. (2017). Is gaydar affected by attitudes toward homosexuality? Confidence, labelling bias, and accuracy. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(9), 1241–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1244443
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
7.
CoxW. T.DevineP. G.BischmannA. A.HydeJ. S. (2016). Inferences about sexual orientation: The roles of stereotypes, faces, and the gaydar myth. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1015714
DragojevicM. (2020). Extending the fluency principle: Factors that increase listeners’ processing fluency positively bias their language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1663543
10.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don't like you because you're hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
11.
FasoliF.HegartyP.FrostD. M. (2021). Stigmatization of ‘gay-sounding’ voices: The role of heterosexual, lesbian, and gay individuals’ essentialist beliefs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3), 826–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12442
12.
FasoliF.HegartyP.MaassA.AntonioR. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs, and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.046
13.
FasoliF.MaassA.BerghellaL. (2022). Who has a better auditory gaydar? Sexual orientation categorization by heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Journal of Homosexuality. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.2004796
14.
GaudioR. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/455948
15.
HehmanE.SutherlandC. A.FlakeJ. K.SlepianM. L. (2017). The unique contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000090
16.
JohnsonK. L.LickD. J.CarpinellaC. M. (2015). Emergent research in social vision: An integrated approach to the determinants and consequences of social categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12147
17.
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(7), 1560–1578. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0125
18.
KachelS.SteffensM. C.NiedlichC. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956
19.
KachelS.SteffensM. C.PreußS.SimpsonA. P. (2020). Gender (conformity) matters: Cross-dimensional and cross-modal associations in sexual orientation perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X19883902
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2013). Fluency of visual processing explains prejudiced evaluations following categorization of concealable identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.001
22.
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(6), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000052
23.
MooreM. A. (2012). Believing that gay men are more feminine than straight men; How stereotype threat and identity stability affect sexual minority men. Doctoral dissertation. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2439.3682.
24.
MorrisonM. A.MorrisonT. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v43n02_02
25.
OlszanowskiM.KaminskaO. K.WinkielmanP. (2018). Mixed matters: Fluency impacts trust ratings when faces range on valence but not on motivational implications. Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1386622
OppenheimerD. M.FrankM. C. (2008). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106(3), 1178–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010
28.
PainterD.FasoliF.SulpizioS. (2021). The impact of stimuli length and analytic method on auditory ‘gaydar’ research. Journal of Voice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.08.016
29.
RiegerG.LinsenmeierJ. A. W.GygaxL.GarciaS.BaileyJ. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and the role of masculinity-femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2
30.
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(7), Article e0128882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128882
31.
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(12), Article e82417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082417
32.
WrightD. B.HorryR.SkagerbergE. M. (2009). Functions for traditional and multilevel approaches to signal detection theory. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.257
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.
