Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 129–139 | Cite as

Perceptions of Sexual Orientation From Minimal Cues

  • Nicholas O. RuleEmail author
Special Section: The Puzzle of Sexual Orientation

Abstract

People derive considerable amounts of information about each other from minimal nonverbal cues. Apart from characteristics typically regarded as obvious when encountering another person (e.g., age, race, and sex), perceivers can identify many other qualities about a person that are typically rather subtle. One such feature is sexual orientation. Here, I review the literature documenting the accurate perception of sexual orientation from nonverbal cues related to one’s adornment, acoustics, actions, and appearance. In addition to chronicling studies that have demonstrated how people express and extract sexual orientation in each of these domains, I discuss some of the basic cognitive and perceptual processes that support these judgments, including how cues to sexual orientation manifest in behavioral (e.g., clothing choices) and structural (e.g., facial morphology) signals. Finally, I attend to boundary conditions in the accurate perception of sexual orientation, such as the states, traits, and group memberships that moderate individuals’ ability to reliably decipher others’ sexual orientation.

Keywords

Appearance Behavior Clothing Gaydar Sexual orientation Social psychology Voices 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author has received research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. J. (2008). First impressions. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition. In J. R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Jolliffe, T. (1997). Is there a “language of the eyes”? Evidence from normal adults, and adults with autism or asperger syndrome. Visual Cognition, 4, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, G., Hank, L., Rauzi, T., & Simkins, L. (1987). Detection of sexual orientation by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 83–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogaert, A. F. (2010). Physical development and sexual orientation in men and women: An analysis of NATSAL-2000. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 110–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brambilla, M., Riva, P., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Familiarity increases the accuracy of categorizing male sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bruno, D., Lyons, M., & Brewer, G. (2014). Response to Bayesian advice for gaydar-based picking up: Commentary on Lyons, Lynch, Brewer, and Bruno (2013) by Plöderl [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 11–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Buck, D. M., & Plant, E. A. (2011). Interorientation interactions and impressions: Does the timing of disclosure of sexual orientation matter? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2002). Role of appearance and nonverbal behaviors in the perception of sexual orientation among lesbians and gay men. Psychological Reports, 91, 115–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cartei, V., & Reby, D. (2012). Acting gay: Male actors shift the frequency components of their voices towards female values when playing homosexual characters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, culture, and the making of the gay male world 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conron, K. J., Mimiaga, M. J., & Landers, S. J. (2010). A population-based study of sexual orientation identity and gender differences in adult health. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1953–1960.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox, W. T. L., Devine, P. G., Bischmann, A. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Inferences about sexual orientation: The roles of stereotypes, faces, and the gaydar myth. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 157–171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Coyle, E. F., Fulcher, M., & Trübutschek, D. (2016). Sissies, mama’s boys, and tomboys: Is children’s gender nonconformity more acceptable when nonconforming traits are positive? Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0695-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Crist, S. (1997). Duration of onset consonants in gay male stereotyped speech. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 53–70.Google Scholar
  21. David, L., Seinfeld, J., Charles, L., Mehlman, P., & Cherones, T. (1993). The outing. In J. Seinfeld (Ed.), Seinfeld. Los Angeles, CA: National Broadcasting Company.Google Scholar
  22. Ding, J. Y. C., & Rule, N. O. (2012). Gay, straight, or somewhere in between: Accuracy and bias in the perception of bisexual faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Everly, B. A., Shih, M. J., & Ho, G. C. (2011). Don’t ask, don’t tell? Does disclosure of gay identity affect partner performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 407–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1318–1331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaudio, R. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69, 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hallahan, M. (1998). Reanalysis of Berger, Hank, Rauzi, & Simkins, 1987. Unpublished manuscript, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
  27. Hennen, P. (2008). Faeries, bears, and leathermen: Men in community queering the masculine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hess, U., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Who may frown and who should smile? Dominance, affiliation, and the display of happiness and anger. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 515–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, K. L., & Ghavami, N. (2011). At the crossroads of conspicuous and concealable: What race categories communicate about sexual orientation. PLoS One, 6, e18025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Khan, N., Huang, E., Smithyman, D., & Scanlon, C. (2015). The blind spot. In R. Blomquist, E. Huang, & J. McEwen (Eds.), Fresh off the boat. New York: American Broadcast Company.Google Scholar
  35. Knöfler, T., & Imhof, M. (2007). Does sexual orientation have an influence on nonverbal behavior in interpersonal communication? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krakauer, I. D., & Rose, S. M. (2002). The impact of group membership on lesbians’ physical appearance. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 31–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2014). Perceptual roots of anti-gay prejudice: Negative evaluations of targets perceived to be lesbian/gay arise early in person perception on the basis of gender atypical visual cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1178–1192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lick, D. J., Johnson, K. L., & Gill, S. V. (2013). Deliberate changes to gendered body motion influence basic social perceptions. Social Cognition, 31, 656–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lick, D. J., Johnson, K. L., & Gill, S. (2014). Why do they have to flaunt it? Perceptions of communicative intent predict antigay prejudice based upon brief exposure to nonverbal cues. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 927–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lick, D. J., Johnson, K. L., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Disfluent processing of nonverbal cues helps to explain anti-bisexual prejudice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linville, S. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lyons, M., Lynch, A., Brewer, G., & Bruno, D. (2014). Detection of sexual orientation (“gaydar”) by homosexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 345–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mack, S., & Munson, B. (2012). The influence of/s/quality on ratings of men’s sexual orientation: Explicit and implicit measures of the “gay lisp” stereotype. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Macrae, C. N., & Quadflieg, S. (2010). Perceiving people. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 428–463). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Malatesta, C. Z., Fiore, M. J., & Messina, J. J. (1987). Affect, personality, and facial expression characteristics of older people. Psychology and Aging, 2, 64–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Martin, J. T., & Nguyen, D. H. (2004). Anthropometric analysis of homosexuals and heterosexuals: Implications for early hormone exposure. Hormones and Behavior, 45, 31–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Mason, M. F., Tatkow, E., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16, 236–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. McKenna, N. (2003). The secret life of Oscar Wilde. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., & Behrmann, M. (1997). What is special about face recognition? 19 experiments on a person with visual object agnosia and dyslexia but normal face-recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 555–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Munson, B. (2010). Variation, implied pathology, social meaning, and the “gay lisp”: A response to Van Borsel et al. (2009). Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Munson, B., & Babel, M. (2007). Loose lips and silver tongues, or, projecting sexual orientation through speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 416–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Netter, F. H. (2003). Atlas of human anatomy (3rd ed.). Teterboro, NJ: Icon Learning Systems.Google Scholar
  55. Newton, E. (1984). The mythic mannish lesbian: Radclyffe Hall and the new woman. Signs, 9, 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality and Culture, 8, 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Are you always on my mind? A review of how face perception and attention interact. Neuropsychologia, 45, 75–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Plöderl, M. (2014). Bayesian advice for gaydar-based picking up: Commentary on Lyons, Lynch, Brewer, and Bruno (2013) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 7–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Re, D. E., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Appearance and physiognomy. In D. Matsumoto, H. Hwang, & M. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 221–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  61. Reilly, A., & Saethre, E. J. (2013). The hankie code revisited: From function to fashion. Critical Studies in Men’s Fashion, 1, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rendall, D., Vasey, P. L., & McKenzie, J. (2008). The Queen’s English: An alternative biosocial hypothesis for the distinctive features of “gay speech”. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 188–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., Gygax, L., & Bailey, J. M. (2008). Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44, 46–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Rinn, W. E. (1991). Neuropsychology of facial expression. In R. S. Feldman & B. Rime (Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal behavior (pp. 3–30). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rodin, M. J. (1987). Who is memorable to whom: A study of cognitive disregard. Social Cognition, 5, 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are there butch/femme differences in sexual identity development? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 34–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rudd, N. A. (1996). Appearance and self-presentation research in gay consumer cultures: Issues and impact. Journal of Homosexuality, 31, 109–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rule, N. O. (2011). The influence of target and perceiver race in the categorization of male sexual orientation. Perception, 40, 830–839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. C. (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
  74. Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016a). Subtle perceptions of male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology.Google Scholar
  75. Rule, N. O., Ishii, K., Ambady, N., Rosen, K. S., & Hallett, K. C. (2011a). Found in translation: Cross-cultural consensus in the accurate categorization of male sexual orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1449–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rule, N. O., Johnson, K. L., & Freeman, J. B. (2016b). Evidence for the absence of stimulus quality differences in tests of the accuracy of sexual orientation judgments: A reply to Cox, Devine, Bischmann, and Hyde (2016). Journal of Sex Research. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1205547.
  77. Rule, N. O., Macrae, C. N., & Ambady, N. (2009b). Ambiguous group membership is extracted automatically from faces. Psychological Science, 20, 441–443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Rule, N. O., Rosen, K. S., Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2011b). Mating interest improves women’s accuracy in judging male sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 22, 881–886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Rule, N. O., Tskhay, K. O., Brambilla, M., Riva, P., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Krendl, A. C. (2015). The relationship between anti-gay prejudice and the categorization of sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rule, N. O., Tskhay, K. O., Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2014). On the interactive influence of facial appearance and explicit knowledge in social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 529–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zambarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1999). Lesbian erotic role identification: Behavioral, morphological, and hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1035–1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Skorska, M. N., Geniole, S. N., Vrysen, B. M., McCormick, C. M., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Facial structure predicts sexual orientation in both men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1377–1394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Smigel, R., & Smedelmaier, J. J. (1996). The ambiguously gay duo. New York: National Broadcast Company.Google Scholar
  84. Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., & Rogers, H. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T., & Rule, N. O. (2013). The politics of gaydar: Ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 520–541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T., & Rule, N. O. (2014). “Ditto heads”: Do conservatives perceive greater consensus within their ranks than liberals? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1162–1177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., Vespignani, F., Eyssel, F., & Bentler, D. (2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within and across languages. PLoS One, 10, e0128882.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Sylva, D., Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 141–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Tabak, J. A., & Zayas, V. (2012). The roles of featural and configural face processing in snap judgments of sexual orientation. PLoS One, 7, e36671.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Tskhay, K. O., Feriozzo, M. M., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Facial features influence the categorization of female sexual orientation. Perception, 42, 1090–1094.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2015a). Emotions facilitate the communication of ambiguous group memberships. Emotion, 15, 812–826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2015b). Internalized homophobia influences perceptions of men’s sexual orientation from photos of their faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0628-8
  94. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Ulrichs, K. H. (1997). Araxes (J. Steakley, Trans.). In M. Blasius & S. Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: A historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 63–65) New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1870)Google Scholar
  96. Valentova, J. V., & Havlíček, J. (2013). Perceived sexual orientation based on vocal and facial stimuli is linked to self-rated sexual orientation in Czech men. PLoS One, 8, e82417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Valentova, J. V., Kleisner, K., Havlíček, J., & Neustupa, J. (2014). Shape differences between the faces of homosexual and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 353–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Valentova, J. V., Rieger, G., Havlíček, J., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity–femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1145–1152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Van Borsel, J., De Bruyn, E., Lefebvre, E., Sokoloff, A., De Ley, S., & Baudonck, N. (2009). The prevalence of lisping in gay men. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42, 100–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Van Borsel, J., & Van de Putte, A. (2014). Lisping and male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1159–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 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
  103. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the cross race effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 116–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations