Although there has been considerable research investigating the ability to identify sexual orientation from static images, or “gaydar,” few studies have considered the role of female sexual orientation or sexual interest (for example, sociosexual orientation) in judgment accuracy. In two studies, we investigated the sexuality detection ability, and masculinity and femininity as cues used in judgment. In Study 1, we recruited heterosexual (N = 55) and homosexual (N = 71) women to rate the sexual orientation of homosexual and heterosexual male and female targets (N = 80: 20 heterosexual men, 20 homosexual men, 20 heterosexual women, and 20 homosexual women). We found that detection accuracy was better than chance levels for both male and female targets and that male targets were more likely to be falsely labeled as homosexual than female targets were. Overall, female faces were more accurately identified as heterosexual or homosexual than male faces and homosexual female raters were biased towards labeling targets as homosexual. Sociosexuality did not influence the accuracy with which targets were identified as heterosexual or homosexual. In Study 2, 100 heterosexual and 20 homosexual women rated the stimulus for masculinity and femininity. Heterosexual women were rated as more feminine and less masculine than homosexual women and homosexual men were rated as more feminine and less masculine than heterosexual men. Sexual orientation of the judges did not affect the ratings. The results were discussed with a reference to evolutionary and cultural influences affecting sexual orientation judgment accuracy.
Facial perception Gaydar Sex Sexuality Sexual orientation Sociosexual orientation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Brinsmead-Stockham, K., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Macrae, N. (2008). Female sexual orientation and menstrual influences on person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 729–734. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 1126–1134. doi:10.1177/01461672992512006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, P. A., Perfect, T. J., & Bruno, D. (2009). Investigating strength and frequency effects in recognition memory using type-2 signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,35, 57–80. doi:10.1037/a0013865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hughes, S. M., & Bremme, R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 321–334. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly,11, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lübke, K. T., Hoenen, M., & Pause, B. M. (2012). Differential processing of social chemosignals obtained from potential partners in regards to gender and sexual orientation. Behavioral and Brain Research, 228, 375–387. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.12.018.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Macrae, C. N., Alnwick, K. A., Milne, A. B., & Schloerscheidt, A. M. (2002). Person perception across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on social-cognitive functioning. Psychological Science,13, 532–536. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95, 1113–1135. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2006). Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex and own-ethnicity bias. Memory,14, 289–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Roney, J. R., Hanson, K. N., Durante, K. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: Women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B,273, 2169–2175. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Sefcek, J. A. (2009). Sociosexuality and face perception: Unrestricted sexual orientation facilitates sensitivity to female facial cues. Personality and Individual Differences,47, 777–782. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y.-J. (2012). Internet dating sites as heterotopias of gender performance: A case study of Taiwanese heterosexual male daters. International Journal of Cultural Studies,15, 485–500. doi:10.1177/1367877911422855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar