Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 165–176

Gay, Straight, or Somewhere in Between: Accuracy and Bias in the Perception of Bisexual Faces

Brief Report

Abstract

Sexual orientation can be accurately identified from photos of faces, but previous work has focused exclusively on straight versus gay and lesbian individuals. Across three studies, the current work investigated the facial perception of bisexual men and women, a less socially salient category. Although participants could identify straight and gay men at above-chance levels in a trichotomous categorization task, bisexual men were categorized only at chance (Study 1). Participants perceived bisexual men to be significantly different from straight men, but not gay men (Study 2). Similarly, whereas bisexual and lesbian women were not rated differently, both groups were distinguishable from straight female targets (Study 3). These findings suggest a straight-non straight dichotomy in the categorization of sexual orientation.

Keywords

Bisexuality Social cognition Nonverbal behavior Sexual orientation Person perception 

References

  1. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar, M., Neta, M., & Linz, H. (2006). Very first impressions. Emotion, 6, 269–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexbile and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Bisexuality: Some social psychological issues. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brebner, J. L., Martin, D., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). Dude looks like a lady: Exploring the malleability of person perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1109–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of a definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36, 1–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, Y. S., Gray, H. M., & Ambady, N. (2005). The glimpsed world: Unintended communication and unintended perception. In R. R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 309–333). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, M. A., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1995). The contributions of appearance to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eliason, M. (2001). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Goode, E., & Haber, L. (1977). Sexual correlates of homosexual experience: An exploratory study of college women. Journal of Sex Research, 13, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haselton, M. G., & Funder, D. (2006). The evolution of accuracy and bias in social judgment. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 15–37). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janus, S., & Janus, C. (1993). The Janus report on sexual behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. 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, 321–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  25. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levon, E. (2007). Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society, 36, 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDonald, A. P. (1981). Bisexuality: Some comments on research and theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 21–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). Social cognition: Categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as a predictor of later military rank. Social Forces, 74, 823–850.Google Scholar
  32. Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality and Culture, 8, 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). On the categorization of admired and disliked exemplars of admired and disliked racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 517–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., & Bailey, J. M. (2008). Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44, 46–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Dissecting “Gaydar”: Accuracy and role of masculinity-femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 124–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Rudd, N. A. (1996). Appearance and self-presentation research in gay consumer cultures: Issues and impact. Journal of Homosexuality, 31,109–134.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2011). Judgments of power from college yearbook photos and later career success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., Jr, & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Us and them: Memory advantages in perceptually ambiguous groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., Jr, & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Accuracy and awareness in the perception and categorization of male sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1019–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. (2009a). Female sexual orientation is perceived accurately, rapidly, and automatically from the face and its features. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1245–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rule, N. O., Macrae, C. N., & Ambady, N. (2009b). Ambiguous group membership is extracted automatically from faces. Psychological Science, 20, 441–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary bases of first impressions. In N. Ambady & J. J. Skowronski (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 15–34). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (2009). Social cognition and self-cognition: Two sides of the same evolutionary coin? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1245–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, E. A., Munson, B., & Hall, K. C. (2008). Rethinking the meaning of Minnesotan [æ]: Sexual orientation or personal well being? Oral presentation at the conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV). Texas: Houston.Google Scholar
  50. Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., & Rogers, H. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language and Society, 32, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sylva, D., Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 141–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thornhill, R., & Gangestead, S. W. (1996). The evolution of human sexuality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wagner, H. L. (1993). On measuring performance in category judgment studies of nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1995). Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  58. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul?. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  59. Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. (2006). The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 81–113). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations