Perceived Sexual Orientation Based on Vocal and Facial Stimuli Is Linked to Self-Rated Sexual Orientation in Czech Men

Abstract

Previous research has shown that lay people can accurately assess male sexual orientation based on limited information, such as face, voice, or behavioral display. Gender-atypical traits are thought to serve as cues to sexual orientation. We investigated the presumed mechanisms of sexual orientation attribution using a standardized set of facial and vocal stimuli of Czech men. Both types of stimuli were rated for sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity by non-student heterosexual women and homosexual men. Our data showed that by evaluating vocal stimuli both women and homosexual men can judge sexual orientation of the target men in agreement with their self-reported sexual orientation. Nevertheless, only homosexual men accurately attributed sexual orientation of the two groups from facial images. Interestingly, facial images of homosexual targets were rated as more masculine than heterosexual targets. This indicates that attributions of sexual orientation are affected by stereotyped association between femininity and male homosexuality; however, reliance on such cues can lead to frequent misjudgments as was the case with the female raters. Although our study is based on a community sample recruited in a non-English speaking country, the results are generally consistent with the previous research and thus corroborate the validity of sexual orientation attributions.

Is Gaydar Affected by Attitudes Toward Homosexuality? Confidence, Labeling Bias, and Accuracy

“…Men and women correctly identify the sexual orientation of a target from a range of stimuli including photographs , video clips (Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999), near subliminal exposure to photographic images (Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009), body shape or movement (Johnson, Gill, Reichman, & Tassinary, 2007), and speech (Smyth, Jacobs, & Rogers, 2003). Ratings are typically more accurate when viewing female compared to male targets (Tabak & Zayas, 2012) and this accuracy does not depend on the sex or sexual orientation of the rater (Brewer & Lyons, 2016; although see also Havlicek, 2013 andValentova, Kleisner, Havlicek, &Neustupa, 2014 for opposing results). Ratings remain accurate when attempts are made to conceal sexual orientation (Sylva, Rieger, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2010), when facial cues, such as cosmetics or piercings, are removed (Tabak & Zayas, 2012), and when viewing a proportion of the face only (Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008).…”

The Sound of Voice: Voice-Based Categorization of Speakers’ Sexual Orientation within and across Languages

“…Recent studies have suggested that this “detection skill” may function only on the basis of acoustic cues, meaning that people infer the SO of male speakers from voice alone [ 3 , 4 , 2 ]. Interestingly, categorization of SO seems to be more accurate when based on vocal than facial features [ 5 ]. However, acoustic cues per se can be misleading [ 6 , 7 ] since they are affected by both anatomical aspects (speaker's size, shape, and physical conditions; [ 8 ]) and social expectations (e.g., social group membership or gender role; [ 9 ]).…”

Voice and Prejudice: The Social Costs of Auditory Gaydar

“…However, accuracy greatly depends on how it is defined and on how SO is conceptualized and measured (dichotomous or continuous). When using continua (e.g., from exclusively gay to exclusively straight), studies often found evidence for "relative accuracy" such that LG speakers are, on average, perceived as less heterosexual than straight speakers (Sulpizio et al, 2015;Valentova & Havlíček, 2013), but not for "absolute accuracy" given that mean ratings for LG speakers are generally located on the heterosexual side of the continuum. Put simply, LG speakers are, on average, perceived as heterosexual, although to a lesser degree than straight speakers.…”

“…Also, accuracy rates in auditory gaydar vary greatly across studies, with some studies showing relatively good performance (Gaudio, 1994;Pierrhumber et al, 2004;Rieger et al, 2010;Tracy, Bainter, & Satariano, 2015;Valentova & Havlíček, 2013;) and others showing very low accuracy rates (Munson et al, 2006;Smyth et al, 2003;Sulpizio et al, 2015). The latter studies have often found considerable agreement between judges (even between judges of different languages), but these judgments were often unrelated to the speakers' actual SO.…”