Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 345–352 | Cite as

Detection of Sexual Orientation (“Gaydar”) by Homosexual and Heterosexual Women

  • Minna Lyons
  • Aoife Lynch
  • Gayle Brewer
  • Davide Bruno
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Facial perception Gaydar Sex Sexuality Sexual orientation Sociosexual orientation 

References

  1. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, G., Hank, L., Rauzi, T., & Simkins, L. (1987). Detection of sexual orientation by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 83–100. doi:10.1300/J082v13n04_05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves recognition of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2008.02187.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. (2002). The role of appearance and nonverbal behaviors in the perception of sexual orientation among lesbians and gay men. Psychological Reports, 91, 115–122. doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collier, K. L., Bos, M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2012). Intergroup contact, attitudes toward homosexuality, and the role of acceptance of gender non-conformity in young adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 899–907. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.010.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Doyal, L., Paparini, S., & Anderson, J. (2008). ‘Elvis died and I was born’: Black African men negotiating same-sex desire in London. Sexualities, 11, 171–192. doi:10.1177/1363460707085469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, R. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1318–1331. doi:10.1177/0146167210378755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Linville, S. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality and Culture, 8, 60–86. doi:10.1007/s12119-004-1006-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Rellecke, J., Sommer, W., & Schacht, A. (2012). Does processing of emotional facial expressions depend on intention? Time-resolved evidence from event-related brain potentials. Biological Psychology, 90, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rieger, G., Linsemeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Rule, N., Macrae, C. N., & Ambady, N. (2009). Ambiguous group membership is extracted automatically from faces. Psychological Science, 20, 441–443. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02314.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rule, N. O., Rosen, K. S., Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2011). Mating interest improves women’s accuracy in judging male sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 22, 881–886. doi:10.1177/0956797611412394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Samal, A., Subramani, V., & Marx, D. (2007). Analysis of sexual dimorphism in human face. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 18, 453–463. doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2007.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., & Rogers, H. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329–350. doi:10.1017/S0047404503323024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sylva, D., Rieger, G., Linsemeier, J. A. W., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 141–152. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9466-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabak, J. A., & Zayas, V. (2012). The roles of featural and configural face processing in snap judgments of sexual orientation. PLoS ONE, 7, e36671.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Woolery, L. M. (2007). Gaydar: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 9–17. doi:10.1300/J082v53n03_02.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minna Lyons
    • 1
  • Aoife Lynch
    • 1
  • Gayle Brewer
    • 2
  • Davide Bruno
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK

Personalised recommendations