When Fluency Matters: The Interplay between Categorization Fluency and Gender Atypicality on Gaydar Judgments

Abstract

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.

Keywords

sexual orientation auditory gaydar fluency gender atypicality voice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alt

N. P.

Lick

D. J.

Johnson

K. 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

Alter

A. L.

Oppenheimer

D. 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

Brambilla

Riva

Rule

N. 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

Brewer

Lyons

(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

Brewer

Lyons

(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

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Cox

W. T.

Devine

P. G.

Bischmann

A. A.

Hyde

J. 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

DeCarlo

L. T.

(1998). Signal detection theory and generalized linear models. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.186

Dragojevic

(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.

Dragojevic

Giles

(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.

Fasoli

Hegarty

Frost

D. 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.

Fasoli

Hegarty

Maass

Antonio

(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.

Fasoli

Maass

Berghella

(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.

Gaudio

R. 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.

Hehman

Sutherland

C. A.

Flake

J. K.

Slepian

M. 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.

Johnson

K. L.

Lick

D. J.

Carpinella

C. 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.

Kachel

Simpson

A. P.

Steffens

M. 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.

Kachel

Steffens

M. C.

Niedlich

(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.

Kachel

Steffens

M. C.

Preuß

Simpson

A. 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

20.

Kite

M. E.

Deaux

(1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83–096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x

21.

Lick

D. J.

Johnson

K. 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.

Lick

D. J.

Johnson

K. 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.

Moore

M. 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.

Morrison

M. A.

Morrison

T. 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.

Olszanowski

Kaminska

O. K.

Winkielman

(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

26.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

(2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014

27.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Frank

M. 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.

Painter

Fasoli

Sulpizio

(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.

Rieger

Linsenmeier

J. A. W.

Gygax

Garcia

Bailey

J. 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.

Sulpizio

Fasoli

Maass

Paladino

M. P.

Vespignani

Eyssel

Bentler

(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.

Valentova

J. V.

Havlíček

(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.

Wright

D. B.

Horry

Skagerberg

E. 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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB