Advertisement

Hierarchy of Desire: Partner Preferences and Social Identities of Men Who Have Sex with Men on Geosocial Networks

  • Cory J. CascalheiraEmail author
  • Brandt A. Smith
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Men who have sex with men (MSM) increasingly rely on geosocial networking (GSN) smartphone applications (“apps”), such as Grindr and Scruff, to form sexual networks. Using social identity theory as a framework, the present study employed images to offer a quantitative assessment of bias in favor of masculinity (heteronormative, effeminate) and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Latino, White). Participants (N = 395) completed a survey that simulated the use of GSN apps and measured social identity salience. A mixed-subjects ANOVA revealed main effects for masculinity and ethnicity. The interaction was significant, but a small effect size suggests MSM appraise each construct separately during partner selection. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that White and Latino heteronormative photos were the most preferred prototypes among all participants, regardless of their self-reported ethnicity. Thus, in-demand identities are more masculine and lighter-appearing, with European features, even among Black and Asian MSM. Asian participants scored highest on social identity salience, which was statistically equivalent among other ethnicities. Additionally, race-based stereotypes about sexual position were not associated with social identity salience. That is, Asian MSM were as likely as Black MSM to identify as tops, bottoms, or versatile. Although ethnic minority MSM do not define their sexual positions in terms of stereotypes, their ability to be desirable objects may hinge on the stereotypical expectations of potential partners.

Keywords

Stereotypes Gay men Bisexual men Dating apps Masculinity Sexual racism 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Institutional Review Board of Columbus State University) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12119_2019_9653_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (507 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 506 kb)

References

  1. Alderson, D. (2014). Acting straight: Reality TV, gender self-consciousness and forms of capital. New Formations, 83, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 960–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, F., Shedlin, M., Brooks, K., Montes Penha, M., Reisen, C., Zea, M., et al. (2010). Partner selection among Latino immigrant men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1321–1330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9510-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media and Society, 17(7), 1117–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonner-Thompson, C. (2017). ‘The meat market’: Production and regulation of masculinities on the Grindr grid in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. Gender, Place and Culture, 24(11), 1611–1625.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1356270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callander, D., Newman, C. E., & Holt, M. (2005). Is sexual racism really racism? Distinguishing attitudes toward sexual racism and generic racism among gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1991–2000.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0487-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carballo-Diéguez, A., Dolezal, C., Nieves, L., Díaz, F., Decena, C., & Balan, I. (2004). Looking for a tall, dark, macho man … sexual-role behaviour variations in Latino gay and bisexual men. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 6(2), 159–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050310001619662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascalheira, C. J. (2019). Hierarchy of desire. Open Science Framework.  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ESXZ7.Google Scholar
  10. Cheek, J. M., Smith, S., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Relational identity orientation: A fourth scale for the AIQ. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1643.7763.
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downing, M. J., & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2014). Self-presentation, desired partner characteristics, and sexual behavior preferences in online personal advertisements of men seeking non-gay-identified men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(1), 30–39.  https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eguchi, S. (2009). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: The rhetorical strategy of “straight-acting” among gay men. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 193–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2009.508892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fields, E. L., Bogart, L. M., Smith, K. C., Malebranche, D. J., Ellen, J., & Schuster, M. A. (2015). “I always felt I had to prove my manhood”: Homosexuality, masculinity, gender role strain, and HIV risk among young black men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goedel, W. C., & Duncan, D. T. (2015). Geosocial-networking app usage patterns of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: Survey among users of Grindr, a mobile dating app. JMIR Public Health Surveillance, 1, e4.  https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.4353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grov, C., Saleh, L. D., Lassiter, J. M., & Parsons, J. T. (2015). Challenging race-based stereotypes about gay and bisexual men’s sexual behavior and perceived penis size and size satisfaction. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12(3), 224–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-015-0190-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality and Culture, 16(4), 347–365.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority stress, masculinity, and social norms predicting gay men’s health risk behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 132–141.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Han, C. (2007). They don’t want to cruise your type: Gay men of color and the racial politics of exclusion. Social Identities, 13(1), 51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630601163379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Han, C., & Choi, K. (2018). Very few people say “No Whites”: Gay men of color and the racial politics of desire. Sociological Spectrum, 38, 145–161.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2018.1469444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, C., Proctor, K., & Choi, K. (2014). I know a lot of gay Asian men who are actually tops: Managing and negotiating gay racial stigma. Sexuality and Culture, 18(2), 219–234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9183-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris, D. (1997). The rise and fall of gay culture. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  26. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, C. J., Fasoli, F., Carnaghi, A., & Cadinu, M. (2016). Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 17(1), 108–112.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaspal, R. (2017). Gay men’s construction and management of identity on Grindr. Sexuality and Culture, 21, 187–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9389-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanzieri, N., & Hildebrandt, T. (2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(2), 275–293.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.540184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, Y. T. (1993). Ingroup preference and homogeneity among African American and Chinese American students. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehmiller, J. J., & Ioerger, M. (2014). Social networking smartphone applications and sexual health outcomes among men who have sex with men. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86603.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levan, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance orientation and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowry, R. (2019, April 17). Significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients [Software]. Retrieved from http://vassarstats.net/rdiff.html.
  34. Macapagal, K., Coventry, R., Puckett, J. A., Phillips, G., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Geosocial networking app use among men who have sex with men in serious romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(6), 1513–1524.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0698-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackie, D. M., Hamilton, D. L., Susskind, J., & Rosselli, F. (1996). Social psychological foundations of stereotype formation. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 41–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  36. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 436–447.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller, B. (2015). “Dude, where’s your face?” Self-presentation, self-description, and partner preferences on a social networking application for men who have sex with men: A content analysis. Sexuality and Culture, 19(4), 637–658.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9283-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, B. (2018). Textually presenting masculinity and the body on mobile dating apps for men who have sex with men. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(3), 305–326.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826518773417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, B., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2016). “Masculine guys only”: The effects of femmephobic mobile dating application profiles on partner selection for men who have sex with men. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 176–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mowlabocus, S. (2007). Gaydar: Gay men and the pornification of everyday life. In S. Paasonen, K. Nikunen, & L. Saarenmaa (Eds.), Pornification: Sex and sexuality in media culture (pp. 61–72). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  41. Mustanski, B., Lyons, T., & Garcia, S. C. (2011). Internet use and sexual health of young men who have sex with men: A mixed-methods study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 289–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9596-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nario-Redmond, M. R., Biernat, M., Eidelman, S., & Palenske, D. J. (2004). The social and personal identities scale: A measure of the differential importance ascribed to social and personal self-categorizations. Self and Identity, 3(2), 143–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newcomb, M., Ryan, D., Garofalo, R., & Mustanski, B. (2015). Race-based sexual stereotypes and their effects on sexual risk behavior in racially diverse young men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1959–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Ocampo, A. C. (2012). Making masculinity: Negotiations of gender presentation among Latino gay men. Latino Studies, 10(4), 448–472.  https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2012.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 257–278.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ortiz, C. (1994). Hot and spicy: Representation of Chicano/Latino men in gay pornography. Jump Cut, 39, 83–90.Google Scholar
  48. Paul, J. P., Ayala, G., & Choi, K. (2010). Internet sex ads for MSM and partner selection criteria: The potency of race/ethnicity online. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 528–538.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903244575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravenhill, J. P., & de Visser, R. O. (2017). Perceptions of gay men’s masculinity are associated with their sexual self-label, voice quality and physique. Psychology and Sexuality, 8, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raymond, H. F., & McFarland, W. (2009). Racial mixing and HIV risk among men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 13(4), 630–637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9574-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rice, E., Holloway, I., Winetrobe, H., Rhoades, H., Barman-Adhikari, A., Gibbs, J., et al. (2012). Sex risk among young men who have sex with men who use Grindr, a smartphone geosocial networking application. Journal of AIDS and Clinical Research, 1, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6113.S4-005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ro, A., Ayala, G., Paul, J., & Choi, K. (2013). Dimensions of racism and their impact on partner selection among men of colour who have sex with men: Understanding pathways to sexual risk. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 15, 836–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodriguez, N. S., Huemmer, J., & Blumell, L. (2016). Mobile masculinities: An investigation of networked masculinities in gay dating apps. Masculinities and Social Change, 5, 241–267.  https://doi.org/10.17583/MCS.2016.2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001723472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross, M. W., Rosser, B. R., McCurdy, S., & Feidman, J. (2007). The advantages and limitations of seeking sex online: A comparison of reasons given for online and offline sexual liaisons by men who have sex with men. Journal of Sex Research, 44(1), 59–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490709336793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosser, B. R., Wilkerson, J. M., Smolenski, D. J., Oakes, J. M., Konstan, J., Horvath, K. J., et al. (2011). The future of internet-based HIV prevention: A report on key findings from the men’s Internet (MINTS-I, II) sex studies. AIDS and Behavior, 15(Suppl 1), S91–S100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-9910-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10(1), 73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sánchez, F., & Vilain, E. (2012). “Straight-acting gays”: The relationship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the social in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30–65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  60. Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2008). The muscular male: A comparison of the physical attractiveness preferences of gay and heterosexual men. International Journal of Men’s Health, 7(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In J. A. Williams & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  62. Tziallas, E. (2015). Gamified eroticism: Gay male “social networking” applications and self-pornography. Sexuality and Culture, 19(4), 759–775.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9288-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Hispanic or Latino origin by race, 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_B03002&prodType=table.
  64. Waugh, T. (1996). Hard to imagine: Gay male eroticism in photography and film from their beginnings to Stonewall. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, P. A., Valera, P., Ventuneac, A., Balan, I., Rowe, M., & Carballo-Diéguez, A. (2009). Race-based sexual stereotyping and sexual partnering among men who use the internet to identify other men for bareback sex. Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 399–413.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902846479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyColumbus State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling and Educational PsychologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations