ORIGINAL PAPER

Dissecting ‘‘Gaydar’’: Accuracy and the Roleof Masculinity–Femininity

Gerulf Rieger Æ Joan A. W. Linsenmeier ÆLorenz Gygax Æ Steven Garcia Æ J. Michael Bailey

Received: 5 November 2007 / Revised: 5 May 2008 / Accepted: 5 May 2008 / Published online: 23 September 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract ‘‘Gaydar’’ is the ability to distinguish homosex-

ual and heterosexual people using indirect cues. We inves-

tigated the accuracy of gaydar and the nature of ‘‘gaydar

signals’’ conveying information about sexual orientation.

Homosexual people tend to be more sex atypical than hetero-

sexual people in some behaviors, feelings, and interests. We

hypothesized that indicators of sex atypicality might function

as gaydar signals. In Study 1, raters judged targets’ sexual

orientation from pictures, brief videos, and sound recordings.

Sexual orientation was assessed with high, though imperfect,

accuracy. In Study 2, different raters judged targets’ sex

atypicality from the same stimuli. Ratings of sexual orien-

tation from Study 1 corresponded highly with targets’ self-

reports of sex atypicality and with observer ratings of sex

atypicality from Study 2. Thus, brief samples of sex-atypical

behavior may function as effective gaydar signals.

Keywords Sexual orientation � Person perception �Sex-typed behavior

Introduction

‘‘Gaydar’’ refers to the ability to distinguish homosexual and

heterosexual people using indirect cues rather than explicit

information about sexual orientation. Gaydar encompasses at

least two distinct phenomena. First, gaydar may reflect the

detection of intentional interpersonal signals. For example,

flirtation may be associated with unusually long eye gazes

and other nonverbal behaviors (e.g., Moore, 1985, 2002), and

the sex of the targets of such signaling may provide infor-

mation relevant to sexual orientation. Second, gaydar may

reflect the detection of stable behavioral or psychological

differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.

For example, there are stereotypes about gay men’s (and

hence heterosexual men’s) patterns of interests, movement,

and speech. To the extent that such stereotypes correspond to

actual differences between homosexual and heterosexual

people, information about a person’s behavioral patterns and

psychological traits may also provide information regarding

sexual orientation.

Little research has been done to date regarding gaydar via

intentional interpersonal signaling. Nicholas (2004) con-

ducted an ethnographic study of gaydar involving participant

observation and interviews with gay men and lesbians. Based

on this research, Nichols described the use of the ‘‘gaydar

gaze’’ to signal a homosexual identity to other homosexual

individuals. The idea that individuals from marginalized and

partly hidden minorities may attempt to find and communi-

cate to each other in this manner seems eminently plausible.

We note, however, that there is likely nothing specific about

the association of lengthy eye gazes and homosexuality. For

example, heterosexual people with a romantic or sexual

interest in a person of the other sex may also signal their

interest in this way.

The other subtype of gaydar, as noted above, may depend

in part on the validity of stereotypes regarding behavioral and

psychological differences between homosexual and hetero-

sexual people. These stereotypes include a variety of phe-

nomena that have been explored in two, almost completely

separate, research programs. They are, respectively, research

G. Rieger (&) � J. A. W. Linsenmeier � S. Garcia � J. M. Bailey

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029

Sheridan Rd., Swift Hall #102, Evanston, IL 60208, USA

e-mail: gerulf@northwestern.edu

L. Gygax

Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope Tanikon,

Evanston, Switzerland

123

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2

concerning assessment of sexual orientation through quick,

initial judgments based on ‘‘thin behavioral slices’’ (e.g.,

Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999) and that concerning the

relationship of sexual orientation to masculinity and femi-

ninity (e.g., Lippa, 2005b).

Exploring the nature of gaydar has both social implica-

tions and the potential to illuminate sexual orientation and

masculinity–femininity. As Ambady, Bernieri, and Richeson

(2000) pointed out in their review on evaluations of thin slices

of behavior, initial impressions can influence subsequent

behavior towards targets. Deciding, based on gaydar signals,

that a person is probably homosexual, or probably hetero-

sexual, may have important social consequences for that

person. Understanding how observers make such judgments

may help to explain what motivates their subsequent inter-

personal behavior. Furthermore, it is not obvious that, or why,

sexual orientation should correlate with superficial aspects of

overt behavior. Exploring such correlations may enhance our

understanding of the nature and development of sexual ori-

entation, as well as other sex-typed behaviors.

Thin Slices of Sexual Orientation

Many psychological and relational characteristics can be

inferred with above-chance accuracy using information

gleaned from brief samples of expressive behavior (‘‘thin

slices’’) typically ranging from a few seconds to a few min-

utes (for reviews, see Ambady et al., 2000; Ambady &

Rosenthal, 1992). Examples include personality traits, such

as extroversion and sociability, temporary emotions, and

long-lasting emotional states, such as anxiety and depression.

Observers can also detect interaction motives, such as

deception by unknown people, at better than chance rates

from thin slices of behavior. Interpersonal relationships can

also be reliably assessed from thin slices, including romantic

involvement, dominance, friendship, and kinship.

Research has also addressed whether sexual orientation

can be assessed based on thin slices of visual information, that

is, information regarding the body and bodily movement

(Ambady et al., 1999; Johnson, Gill, Reichman, & Tassinary,

2007) and auditory information, that is, information regard-

ing speech (e.g., Bailey, 2003; Gaudio, 1994; Linville, 1998).

In other words, researchers have investigated whether as-

pects of people’s appearance, movement, and speech can

function as ‘‘gaydar signals’’ that enable others to detect their

sexual orientation.

Visual Thin Slices of Sexual Orientation

Research has generally shown that homosexual and hetero-

sexual individuals can be distinguished based on thin slices of

motor behavior. In one study, observers were able to assess a

person’s sexual orientation at better than chance rates based

on 10-s video clips, using only outlines of the targets’ body

movement (Ambady et al., 1999). Even 1-s video clips and

still photographs increased accuracy of sexual orientation

judgments compared with judgments expected by chance,

although neither conferred as much information about sexual

orientation as 10-s clips did. A subsequent study confirmed

that thin slices of motor behavior can provide useful infor-

mation for identifying sexual orientation (Johnson et al.,

2007). The researchers used a sophisticated computerized

data reduction technique to eliminate all information except

that regarding body shape and movement near body joints.

Raters viewing the resulting video files achieved greater than

chance accuracy in assessing the targets’ sexual orientation.

Auditory Thin Slices of Sexual Orientation

Gaudio (1994) examined whether listeners could differenti-

ate between speech of four heterosexual and four homosexual

men. Listeners rated voice recordings of approximately 15 s,

in which each target participant recited exactly the same

passages. Despite the small sample of targets, average ratings

were significantly related to targets’ sexual orientations.

Because the majority of targets were recruited among the

researcher’s acquaintances, it is unclear how generalizable

the findings are. However, other studies have also shown that

listeners can judge the sexual orientation of speakers better

than expected by chance (Bailey, 2003; Linville, 1998;

Smyth, Jacobs, & Rogers, 2003). Only one study included

female target participants (Sylva, Sell, & Bailey, 2007). For

male targets, results indicated that judgments of sexual ori-

entation based on speech samples were significantly related

to self-identified sexual orientation.

Individual Differences in Rating Accuracy

A common belief is that homosexual people have better

gaydar than heterosexual people. The assumption seems to be

that homosexual people have more experience interacting

with other homosexual people and are thus more familiar

with the specific behaviors and lifestyles that tend to

accompany homosexuality. In addition, they may be more

motivated to correctly identify the sexual orientation of

others. Some studies of thin slices of behavior have included

relevant data for evaluating this belief. One study found that

homosexual people were better than heterosexuals at accu-

rately judging sexual orientation from brief videotaped

interviews (Berger, Hank, Rauzi, & Simkins, 1987; results

reported in Ambady et al., 1999). Ambady et al. (1999)

found inconsistent results across two studies regarding the

relative accuracy of heterosexual and homosexual raters; in

general, results did not reveal that either was superior. Sylva

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 125

123

et al. (2007) found a modest significant advantage for

homosexual people in judging male (but not female) sexual

orientation based on speech samples. In general, it appears

that homosexual people may have some advantage in judging

sexual orientation using thin slices of behavior, but that the

advantage is modest and somewhat inconsistent across

studies.

Masculinity, Femininity, and Sexual Orientation

The research reviewed so far suggests that observable

behaviors can serve as gaydar signals. That is, at least some

people behave in ways that provide others with useful

information regarding their sexual orientation. However,

research presented thus far does not indicate what aspects of

these behaviors might lead observers to categorize the actors

as likely to be homosexual or heterosexual. Research

addressing the masculinity and femininity of homosexual

and heterosexual people may provide some answers.

Stereotypes about homosexual people tend to reflect the

idea that homosexual people are somewhat like heterosexu-

als of the other sex; that is, compared with other members of

their own sex, homosexual men are relatively feminine and

homosexual women relatively masculine (Kite & Deaux,

1987). Although the concepts of masculinity and femininity

have had a controversial history in scientific psychology

(Constantinople, 1973; Lippa, 2005a, Chap. 2; Spence &

Buckner, 1995), there has been recent empirical and theo-

retical progress. Masculinity and femininity can reasonably

be seen as opposite poles of a broad psychological and

behavioral dimension (e.g., Lippa, 1995a, 1995b, 2005a).

Specifically, unidimensional self-ratings of masculinity–

femininity have several correlates supporting that dimen-

sion’s construct validity. These include sex-typed occupa-

tional and recreational interests (Lippa, 1991, 1995a, 1995b),

recalled childhood sex atypicality (Lippa, 2006), and sexual

orientation (Lippa, 2005b). Moreover, these variables tend to

be moderately to strongly correlated within each sex; that is,

not only with self-ratings of masculinity–femininity, but also

with each other (Lippa, 2006). Three of these variables have

been studied extensively with respect to sexual orientation:

masculinity–femininity, sex-typed occupational and recrea-

tional interests, and childhood sex atypicality.

We note that in this article, rather than using the words

masculine and feminine, we often use the term sex atypical.

This term refers to males who are relatively feminine or

relatively unmasculine compared with other males, as well as

females who are relatively masculine or relatively unfemi-

nine compared with other females. Using a single term to

refer to atypical behavior by members of both sexes simpli-

fies our presentation and also emphasizes parallels between

the two sexes.

Self-reported Masculinity–Femininity, Sex-typed Interests,

and Sexual Orientation

Lippa (2005b) meta-analyzed results from several of his

studies in which he assessed participants’ self-rated mascu-

linity–femininity and sex-typed interests. Measures were

assessed in a manner that allowed direct comparison of het-

erosexual men and heterosexual women, and of heterosexual

and homosexual individuals within each sex. The difference

between heterosexual men and women was large, especially

for sex-typed interests (d = 2.7). Furthermore, findings

suggested that sexual orientation differences within each sex

paralleled those between the sexes. That is, homosexual men

(N = 799) rated themselves as more feminine compared

with heterosexual men (N = 2,724, d = 0.6). Similarly,

homosexual women (N = 697) rated themselves as more

masculine compared with heterosexual women (N = 5,053,

d = 1.3). Effect sizes were even larger for sex-typed inter-

ests, with homosexual people indicating more sex-atypical

interests than heterosexual people; for men d = 1.3, and for

women d = 1.5. Thus, self-assessed masculinity–femininity

differentiates not only men and women, but also heterosexual

and homosexual people within each sex.

Self-reported Childhood Sex Atypicality and Sexual

Orientation

Measures of childhood sex atypicality are usually retro-

spective and assess both general sex-typed behavior (e.g., ‘‘I

was a feminine boy;’’ ‘‘I was a masculine girl’’), and more

specific aspects of such behavior (e.g., ‘‘I preferred playing

with girls;’’ ‘‘I pretended to be a boy’’). In a meta-analysis of

32 studies (Bailey & Zucker, 1995), homosexual men re-

called much more sex atypicality during their childhoods

compared with heterosexual men (d = 1.3), and in the cor-

responding meta-analysis of 16 studies of women, homo-

sexual women recalled much more childhood sex atypicality

compared with heterosexual women (d = 1.0).

Lippa (2006) has shown that recalled childhood sex

atypicality is strongly correlated with current self-rated

masculinity–femininity and with sex-typed occupational

preferences, in both male and female samples including both

homosexual and heterosexual participants. These correla-

tions are consistent with the idea that an underlying dimen-

sion of masculinity–femininity contributes to variation in all

three traits. They further suggest considerable longitudinal

stability to this dimension.

Self-reported and Observed Sex Atypicality

Only a few studies have investigated the correspondence

between self-reported sex atypicality and ratings of sex

126 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

atypicality done by other people (observers). Lippa (1998)

found that self-reported interests in sex-typed activities,

occupations, and hobbies correlated significantly with ob-

server ratings of behavioral masculinity–femininity. In an-

other study, self-reports of sex atypicality correlated with

observer ratings of sex-atypical behavior based on 10- to 30-s

videos of target participants (Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, &

Bailey, 2008). This correlation was similar for heterosexual

and homosexual men and women. Thus, self-ratings of sex

atypicality seem to correspond to ‘‘thin slices’’ of sex atypi-

cality that can be observed by others.

Gaydar, Masculinity, and Femininity

Past research suggests both that sexual orientation can be

judged with some degree of accuracy using thin slices of

expressive behavior and that sexual orientation is strongly

correlated with questionnaire measures related to masculin-

ity–femininity. Furthermore, self-ratings of sex atypicality

correspond to the sex atypicality of observable behavior.

Thus, it is reasonable to raise the hypothesis that when people

judge sexual orientation based on thin slices of observable

behavior, these judgments depend on the sex atypicality of

the behavior observed. That is, expressions of masculinity in

women and of femininity in men may serve as gaydar signals,

enabling observers to make more accurate judgments of

people’s sexual orientation.

The hypothesis that a certain type of sex-atypical behavior

is a useful gaydar signal would be supported most directly if

its frequency in homosexual individuals is biased toward its

frequency in other-sex heterosexual individuals. A few

studies of motor behavior have demonstrated such differ-

ences. In one study (Bailey, 2003), raters used a rating scale

originally designed to discriminate men and women (Barlow

et al., 1979), and the ratings also demonstrated differences

between homosexual and heterosexual individuals, with

homosexual individuals showing more sex-atypical motor

behavior. Similarly, another study suggested that behavioral

displays of masculinity–femininity were related to sexual

orientation (Rieger et al., 2008). Johnson et al. (2007) fo-

cused on joint movements that are especially sexually

dimorphic in humans, namely those of the shoulder and hips.

Assessments of this movement yielded predicted homosex-

ual–heterosexual differences and also correlated with raters’

perceptions of sexual orientation.

Sometimes it is difficult to discern precisely what the

gaydar signal is, even when it is powerful. For example, Sylva

et al. (2007) found large differences in how listeners rated the

speech samples of homosexual and same-sex heterosexual

speakers. Using the same dataset, however, another research

group found relatively small differences in a particular

phonological aspect hypothesized to be important, namely

vowel production (Pierrehumbert, Bent, Munson, Bradlow,

& Bailey, 2004). Perhaps speakers’ cues regarding their

sexual orientations are perceived gestalt-like rather than with

regard to particular details. In such cases, at least two other

kinds of findings might support the notion that the gaydar

signal represents sex atypicality. First, a sex atypicality

interpretation of the gaydar signal would also be supported to

the extent that the signal is correlated with variables known to

be indicators of sex atypicality. These might include, for

example, self-rated masculinity–femininity (in the sex-

atypical direction), sex-atypical occupational interests, or

childhood sex atypicality. Second, if observers perceive the

gaydar signal as sex atypical, this would obviously support

that interpretation. One example of this kind comes from the

study of sexual orientation and speech by Gaudio (1994).

Gaudio found a very high correlation (r = .90) between

average ratings of speech samples for homosexual orienta-

tion and for femininity in a small sample of male speakers.

Overview of Studies

We conducted two studies to examine the accuracy of gaydar,

the roles of different possible gaydar signals, and the rela-

tionships among ratings of sexual orientation and ratings of

sex atypicality. We videotaped homosexual and heterosexual

men and women answering an interview question about their

interests. We then recruited two additional sets of partici-

pants to rate various aspects of brief excerpts from these

interviews. The first raters judged targets’ sexual orientations

from unedited videos and from partial information extracted

from the videos (e.g., video without sound for ratings of

movement or sound without picture for ratings of speech).

The second raters judged targets’ sex atypicality using the

same information.

The first study focused on the accuracy of gaydar, that is,

the accuracy of observer ratings of sexual orientation. We

also investigated whether certain raters (e.g., homosexual

individuals) have better gaydar than others. Ratings were

based on the targets’ overall presentation and on different

components of their behavior (e.g., movement or speech).

We further computed correlations of these different observer

ratings with targets’ self-reported masculinity–femininity to

investigate whether gaydar signals are related to indicators of

sex atypicality. The second study focused on the correspon-

dence between observer ratings of sexual orientation and

observer ratings of sex atypicality, to further investigate

whether indices of sex atypicality can function as gaydar

signals.

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 127

123

Study 1

Method

Participants

Targets We placed advertisements in alternative urban

newspapers and websites (The Chicago Reader,

chicago.craigslist.org), which are read by both heterosexual

and homosexual people, and in homophile publications (e.g.,

Gay Chicago). Advertisements were placed in the classified

sections under ‘‘miscellaneous job opportunities.’’ Four dif-

ferent advertisements were placed: one for ‘‘gay men,’’ one

for ‘‘lesbians,’’ one for ‘‘straight men,’’ and one for ‘‘straight

women.’’ For example, one advertisement read: ‘‘Gay men

wanted for a videotaped interview about their lifestyle and a

study about sexual orientation,’’ and analogous advertise-

ments were placed for the other groups of participants. Par-

ticipants who contacted the lab were told that we were

interested in studying whether their sexual orientation relates

to how they live their lives. They were also told that we would

like to videotape them during a casual interview. Sexual

orientation was assessed by self-labeling as either ‘‘gay’’ or

‘‘straight.’’

Recruited target participants included 25 homosexual

men, 23 homosexual women, 25 heterosexual men, and 22

heterosexual women. Mean ages (with SD) were 25.4 (3.5),

23.7 (3.1), 24.0 (2.8), and 23.6 (2.7) years, respectively. Ages

did not significantly differ between groups, p = .14, b = -

.19. (The effect size b is, throughout this article, the stan-

dardized regression coefficient as derived from multiple

regression analyses. All group differences were estimated by

calculating the main effects of sex, sexual orientation, and

their interaction effect). Forty-nine percent of the targets

were Caucasian. This proportion did not significantly differ

across groups, v2(3) \ 1. Twenty-eight percent were His-

panic and the remainder identified as African-American,

Native-American, Asian, or ‘‘other.’’

Raters Twelve homosexual men and 13 homosexual

women who were recruited via the same media as target

participants, and 13 heterosexual men and 13 heterosexual

women who were undergraduate students in an introductory

psychology class, rated targets on several measures of ob-

server-rated sexual orientation. Mean ages of raters were 26.1

(5.0), 29.5 (8.6), 19.6 (1.5), and 19.5 (1.1) years, respectively.

Homosexual raters were older than the heterosexual raters,

p \ .0001, b = .58. Because judgments of the four groups of

raters correlated with each other and barely differed (see

below), differences in age did not seem to have an important

influence on ratings. Fifty percent of the raters were Cauca-

sian. This proportion did not significantly differ across the

groups, v2(3) = 5.28, p = .15. Thirty-seven percent were

Hispanic, and the remainder identified as Asian or African-

American.

Self-report Measures

Childhood sex atypicality of targets was assessed with the

Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale (Bailey, Finkel,

Blackwelder, & Bailey, 1995; see also Rieger et al., 2008)

with seven statements for each sex. Sample items were: ‘‘As a

child, I often felt that I had more in common with [the

opposite sex]’’ or ‘‘I preferred playing with girls rather than

boys.’’ One measure of adult sex atypicality was the Con-

tinuous Gender Identity Scale (Bailey et al., 1995; Rieger

et al., 2008) with 10 items for each sex. Statements included:

‘‘I feel as if part of me is male and part of me is female’’ and ‘‘It

would be fun to go to a costume party dressed as [the opposite

sex].’’ Targets rated their agreement with each item using a

7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =

strongly agree. Item-reliability (Cronbach’s a) of the child-

hood scale was .82 and .86 for men and women, respectively.

For the adult scale, the respective numbers were .69 and .76.

Responses to different items were averaged and higher scores

represented greater sex atypicality. Items differed somewhat

between the sexes. Hence, targets’ scores for childhood and

adult sex atypicality were standardized within sex to allow

correlational analyses across the sexes.

Sex-atypical interests in certain hobbies and occupations

in adulthood were assessed with the 134-item version of the

Gender Diagnosticity Measure (e.g., Lippa, 2000). Sample

items ask about interest in being an opera singer or a physi-

cian or in going fishing or clothes shopping. Targets used a

7-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly dislike to 7 =

strongly like, to indicate their interest for each item. Two

research assistants rated whether each of the hobbies and

occupations was more male-typical, female-typical, or sex-

neutral. With two exceptions, they showed full agreement.

These exceptions were resolved by discussion of the two

assistants. The final numbers of items in each category were

56, 63, and 15, respectively. For both male and female targets,

item-reliability (a) exceeded .88 for the male-typical and

female-typical category.

Men’s ratings of male-typical interests and women’s rat-

ings of female-typical interests were reverse-coded so that

higher numbers now indicated less liking. For each sex, inter-

item reliability (a) across sex-atypical interests and reversed

sex-typical interests exceeded .80. Then, for each male target,

we added to his average rating of female-typical interests the

reverse of his average rating of male-typical interests. For

each female target, we added to her average rating of male-

typical interests the reverse of her average rating of female-

typical interests. Thus, for both sexes, we computed a final

average where higher scores indicated more sex-atypical

128 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

interests. For correlational analyses across the sexes, these

final scores were standardized within each sex.

Procedure

Target Interviews and Self-reports We videotaped targets

for 20 min during a casual interview about their lifestyle.

Targets sat in a chair in front of a digital camera, which

captured their entire bodies. For analyses, we used their re-

sponses to a question about their favorite interests, which we

asked towards the end of the interview. At that time, targets

were most likely to be relaxed in front of the camera, and the

majority of them used gesture and movement. We considered

their motor behavior, speech, and stated interests all to be

potential gaydar signals. After the interview, each target

stood upright so that we could take a full body picture, as

appearance was also considered a potential gaydar signal.

Then targets completed the questionnaires.

Preparation of Stimuli We used the first full sentence in

targets’ answers about their interests to prepare several types

of stimuli. One target explicitly revealed her sexual orienta-

tion in this first sentence, so, in her case, the second sentence

was taken. Selected videos of all targets were between 6 and

10 s long. This footage was used for subsequent ratings of the

target’s overall presentation. In addition, this footage was

modified in several ways to create stimuli that focused on

distinct observable components. Using Final Cut, we created

video clips, which were black and white with exaggerated

contrasts and no sound; these allowed raters to focus on the

targets’ movement (e.g., their gestures and posture). We

created sound clips by removing the video from people’s

responses in order to get ratings of the targets’ speech. For

judgments of appearance, we used the still photographs that

were taken of the targets. Finally, for ratings of stated inter-

ests, based on the brief behavioral samples, we presented

raters with written transcripts of targets’ answers.

Rating of Stimuli Equal numbers of raters from each group

(heterosexual and homosexual men and women) evaluated

each of the aforementioned stimuli sets (overall presentation,

movement, speech, appearance, and stated interests). Raters

evaluated stimuli for male targets separately from stimuli for

female targets, and across raters the order of sexes was ran-

dom. One half of raters first evaluated movement and then

speech. The other half of raters evaluated appearance first,

then interests, and then the unmodified videos for ratings of

overall presentation. Within each set, stimuli were presented

in random order.

Raters indicated their impressions of each target stimulus

on a 7-point scale. We asked them to compare each target to

the average person of his or her sex. For example, after each

video showing figural outlines of a male target, raters were

asked to indicate their impression of the target’s movement.

Specifically, they were asked ‘‘whether this man gestures,

moves, or sits in a more straight or gay manner.’’ Ratings

were made using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = more gay,

4 = average, and 7 = more straight. Corresponding scales

were used to rate the targets’ overall presentation (from the

unmodified videos), how targets sounded (for ratings of

speech) and looked (each photograph was shown for 3 s for

ratings of appearance), as well as whether they stated more

straight or gay interests (for ratings of the written transcripts).

Raters received no explicit information about the targets’

sexual orientation. Each rater was limited to 45 min of

evaluating stimuli.

Results

Inter-rater Consistency

Across each combination of target sex and observer-rated

measure (i.e., the targets’ overall presentation, movement,

speech, appearance, and stated interests), the ratings of the

four groups (heterosexual and homosexual men and women)

were correlated; the median r was .81, and the range was from

.51 (for heterosexual women and homosexual women rating

stated interests of women) to .94 (for homosexual men and

homosexual women rating appearance of women). Across all

raters, inter-rater reliability (Cronbach’s a) exceeded .89 for

each measure. Thus, for the majority of subsequent analyses,

we used each target’s average score (averaged across all

raters) for each of the observer-rated target measures.

How Accurate is Gaydar?

We investigated whether raters’ judgments of sexual orien-

tation were related to self-identified orientation. Ratings of

the targets’ overall presentation (from the unmodified vid-

eos) indicated that both male and female homosexual targets

were perceived as more homosexual than heterosexual tar-

gets. These effects were large; p \ .0001, d = 2.0, r = .63

for men, and p \ .0001, d = 1.8, r = .62 for women

(Fig. 1). The strength of these correlations indicated that

raters tended to be very accurate in assessing sexual

orientation.

We then used an additional approach to illustrate how

accurate raters were, on average, in judging the targets’

sexual orientation. We assumed that any target whose aver-

age rating was above 4 (that is, above average, the midpoint

of our scale) was predicted to be homosexual, and any target

whose average rating was below 4 was predicted to be het-

erosexual. Using these definitions, 87% of heterosexual tar-

gets and 75% of homosexual targets were accurately judged.

The difference in percentages was not statistically signifi-

cant, v2 = 2.4, p = .12. In total, 81% of all targets were

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 129

123

accurately judged, which was significantly more than 50%,

the expected chance value, v2 = 39.5, p \ .0001. These re-

sults emphasize the high accuracy of observers’ assessments.

Components of Gaydar

Next, we investigated how observer ratings of different

components of targets’ behavior related to targets’ self-

identified sexual orientation, that is, whether the individual

components functioned as useful gaydar signals. We con-

ducted a series of t-tests. Homosexual targets were generally

perceived as moving, sounding, and looking more homo-

sexual compared with heterosexual targets (Fig. 1). For

women, the correlation of sexual orientation with observer

ratings of their stated interests approached statistical signif-

icance, but for men it did not. In sum, these analyses suggest

that several observable components of behavior provided

substantial information regarding targets’ sexual ori-

entations.

The correlation of targets’ sexual orientation with ob-

server-rated sexual orientation based on movement could be

enhanced by information about targets’ appearance (e.g.,

their hairstyles or body shape). Although raters of movement

watched videos modified to minimize information about

targets’ appearance, the video modification did not com-

pletely eliminate such information. Indeed, after partialling

out the effect of appearance, and across all targets, movement

of homosexual targets was no longer perceived as

significantly more homosexual, p = .14, r = .15. Male and

female targets did not significantly differ in this partial cor-

relation, p = .41, b = .09. This effect was considerably

smaller in magnitude than the corresponding first order cor-

relation of sexual orientation with movement, p \ .0001,

r = .49. Thus, movement of homosexual targets may have

been rated as more homosexual than that of heterosexual

targets because of observed differences in appearance.

Similarly, the correlation of sexual orientation with

speech could be enhanced because raters evaluated speech

based on listening to targets talking about their interests.

However, across all targets, speech of homosexual targets

was rated as significantly more homosexual even after par-

tialling out the effect of observer-rated interests, p \ .0001,

r = .50. Male and female targets did not significantly differ

in this partial correlation, p = .23, b = -.11. Furthermore,

this effect was comparable in magnitude to the corresponding

first order correlation, p \ .0001, r = .53. Thus, speech

ratings were only marginally influenced by the content of

targets’ statements.

Figure 1 also shows that, for some types of stimuli, ob-

server ratings of sexual orientation varied more for homo-

sexual targets than for heterosexual targets. Levene tests for

unequal variance, which compared the magnitude of absolute

residuals, indicated that this sexual orientation difference in

variance was marginally significant for overall presenta-

tion and speech, p = .08, b = .18, and p = .06, b = .20,

respectively, and was significant for movement and

obse

rver

-rat

ed fe

mal

e se

xual

orie

ntat

ion

1

4

7

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

obse

rver

-rat

ed m

ale

sexu

al o

rient

atio

n

1

4

7

t n e m e v o M s t s e r e t n I e c n a r a e p p A h c e e p S

* ) 4 4 . ( 2 . 1

) 8 2 . ( 7 . 0

* * * ) 4 5 . ( 4 . 1 ) 4 1 . ( 3 . 0 * * ) 7 4 . ( 2 . 1

* * * ) 6 6 . ( 3 . 2 * * ) 3 5 . ( 3 . 1 * * * ) 6 5 . ( 9 . 1

l l a r e v O

* * * ) 3 6 . ( 0 . 2

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

* * * ) 2 6 . ( 8 . 1

Fig. 1 Observer-rated sexual orientation of 25 heterosexual and 25

homosexual male targets, and 22 heterosexual and 23 homosexual

female targets. The five measures are ratings of sexual orientation from

visual and sound recordings: overall presentation, movement, speech,

appearance, and stated interests. Points represent the scores of

individual targets, averaged across raters. Lines are 95% confidence

intervals. On the Y-axis, 1 is the most heterosexual and 7 the most

homosexual score. Numbers are effect sizes expressed as Cohen’s d’s

and, in parentheses, as correlation coefficients (rs) � p \ .10; * p \ .05;

** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

130 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

appearance, p = .0002, b = .37, and p = .005, b = .28,

respectively. The sexes did not significantly differ for these

effects (ps between .20 and .36, bs between -.11 and .13).

That is, observer ratings varied more for homosexual targets,

regardless of their sex. We further explored this sexual ori-

entation difference in variability in Study 2.

Rater Differences in Gaydar

For each observer-rated measure, we examined whether the

four groups of raters (heterosexual and homosexual men and

women) differed in how accurately they judged the targets’

self-identified sexual orientation. We computed mixed-

effects regression analyses, treating targets as random, to

acknowledge repeated measures of targets across the four

groups of raters (Zar, 1999). The dependent variable was the

targets’ observer-rated sexual orientation, averaged within

each group of raters. Independent variables were the raters’

sex, sexual orientation, and their interaction. Further inde-

pendent variables were the targets’ sexual orientation and the

interactions of the targets’ sexual orientation with the raters’

sex, sexual orientation, and their combination. With these

interactions, we tested whether the relationship of the targets’

self-identified and observer-rated sexual orientation differed,

depending on the raters’ sex and sexual orientation. Analyses

were done separately for the male and female targets.

Some group differences in rating accuracy were found.

These depended on the measure, and they did not indicate that

any group of raters was especially accurate or inaccurate,

compared with the other groups. For example, homosexual

women were less accurate than other groups rating male

targets using movement and speech; all ps \ .01, b’s be-

tween -.09 and -.06. Male raters were more accurate

judging male targets based on appearance compared with

female raters, p = .01, b = .08. Homosexual raters were

more accurate judging female targets based on movement

compared with heterosexual raters, p = .0007, b = .09.

Finally, heterosexual male raters were less accurate rating

female targets based on speech compared with the other

groups, p \ .01, b = -.10. Thus, no clear group differences

in accuracy emerged. Moreover, the significant group dif-

ferences were relatively small in magnitude (using the cri-

teria suggested by Cohen, 1988).

Sexual Orientation and Self-reported Sex Atypicality

Before investigating the correlation of gaydar signals with

self-reported sex atypicality, we explored whether, as in

previous research, homosexual people reported more sex

atypicality than heterosexual people. On all self-report

measures, homosexual targets indicated more sex atypicality

compared with heterosexual targets, though not always sig-

nificantly so. This difference was statistically significant for

males’ and females’ reports of childhood sex atypicality and

for males’ self-reported interests, and insignificant but in the

predicted direction for the other comparisons (Fig. 2).

Because the three self-report measures were correlated for

both male targets (r’s between .43 and .56; a = .75) and

female targets (r’s between .63 and .67; a = .85), we also

computed the average score for each target. On this com-

posite of self-reported sex atypicality, both male and female

homosexual targets scored significantly higher than hetero-

sexual targets (Fig. 2).

Are Gaydar Signals Related to Self-reported Sex Atypicality?

We next investigated whether signals important for gaydar

were related to self-reported sex atypicality. We computed

correlations among the five observer-rated measures of sex-

ual orientation and the three self-reported measures of sex

atypicality (and their composite). To give our analyses more

power, we first computed correlations across all targets.

Specifically, we computed the partial correlations controlling

for both sexual orientation and sex, to show their magnitudes

independent of group. All of the partial correlations were

positive and most were significant (Table 1, below the

diagonal). For example, the partial correlation of gaydar

ratings based on overall presentation with the composite of

self-reported sex atypicality was moderate to strong in

magnitude, p \ .0001, r = .46. Thus, for both sexes and

sexual orientations, individuals who were rated as relatively

homosexual on observable components tended to report

more sex atypicality.

Table 1 also shows the intercorrelations between different

measures of observer-rated sexual orientation. Individuals

who were rated as relatively homosexual on one observable

component tended to be rated as homosexual on other com-

ponents as well.

The partial correlations in Table 1 suggest that measures

of observer-rated sexual orientation and self-reported sex

atypicality tended to be related, in general, for heterosexual

and homosexual male and female targets. It seemed possible

that these correlations would differ for the different target

groups. For example, because homosexual targets showed

somewhat more variability with respect to gaydar signals

(Fig. 1), it seemed possible that they would show stronger

correlations of gaydar signals with self-reported sex atypi-

cality. We therefore conducted a series of regression ana-

lyses. In each analysis, we computed interactions that tested

whether the relationship between two measures was moder-

ated by the targets’ sex, sexual orientation, or their combi-

nation. Four significant interactions were found, all for

relationships between two observer-rated measures of sexual

orientation. However, these interactions did not suggest

consistent sex or sexual orientation differences, and their

meaning was unclear. For the remaining correlations shown

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 131

123

in Table 1, heterosexual and homosexual men and women

did not significantly differ.

Discussion

Observers in Study 1 assessed sexual orientation with high

accuracy. For example, based on our operationalization of

judged sexual orientation (using the midpoint of the rating

scale as a cut-off for ‘‘gay’’ versus ‘‘straight’’ ratings), 81% of

all targets were accurately judged based on only a few

seconds of observation of each. The raters’ own sex and

sexual orientation had only minor influences on the accuracy

of their assessments. Furthermore, assessments of sexual

orientation were related to the targets’ self-reported sex

atypicality.

Several components hypothesized to be gaydar signals

seem to have helped observers to accurately judge targets’

sexual orientation: the targets’ movement, speech, appear-

ance, and, to a lesser degree, their stated interests (Fig. 1).

These results confirm previous findings, specifically the

1

4

7

1

4

7

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

d o o h d l i h C

* * * ) 7 5 . ( 4 . 1

* * * ) 3 6 . ( 9 . 1

d o o h t l u d A

) 8 2 . ( 7 . 0

) 5 1 . ( 3 . 0

s t s e r e t n I

) 9 2 . ( 7 . 0

* ) 7 3 . ( 8 . 0

self-

repo

rted

fem

ale

sex

atyp

ical

ity

self-

repo

rted

mal

e se

x at

ypic

ality

e t i s o p m o C

* ) 3 4 . ( 1 . 1

* * ) 6 4 . ( 2 . 1

l a u x e s - o m o h - o r e t e h

Fig. 2 Self-reported sex atypicality of 25 heterosexual and 25 homo-

sexual male targets, and 22 heterosexual and 23 homosexual female

targets. The three self-report measures are childhood and adulthood sex

atypicality, and interests in sex-atypical hobbies and occupations. For

each measure, points represent the average scores of individual targets.

The fourth measure is a composite (average) of the three self-reported

measures. Lines are 95% confidence intervals. On the Y-axis, 1 is the

most sex-typical and 7 the most sex-atypical score. Numbers are effect

sizes expressed as Cohen’s d’s and, in parentheses, as correlation

coefficients (rs) � p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

Table 1 Intercorrelations among observer-rated sexual orientation and self-reported sex atypicality across all targets (N = 95)

Measure Observer-rated Self-report

Overall Movement Speech Appearance Interests Childhood Adulthood Interests Composite

Observer-rated

Overall .67*** .78*** .70*** .41*** .56*** .50*** .47*** .56***

Movement .57*** .50*** .72*** .13 .48*** .46*** .38** .52***

Speech .69*** .35** .43*** .41*** .52*** .43*** .40*** .56***

Appearance .56*** .60*** .23* .14 .43*** .42*** .40*** .49***

Interests .38** .05 .38** .04 .16 .26* .25* .26*

Self-report

Childhood .29* .28* .29* .15 .05 .53*** .60*** .84***

Adulthood .48*** .42*** .38** .38** .23* .52*** .59*** .84***

Interests .37** .29* .38** .30* .21* .54*** .57*** .86***

Composite .46*** .40*** .43*** .34** .20* .80*** .85*** .85***

Note: Numbers above the diagonal are simple correlations. Numbers below the diagonal are partial correlations, after partialling out the effects of

sexual orientation and sex. * p \ .05; ** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

132 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

assessment of sexual orientation based on movement

(Ambady et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2007) and speech (e.g.,

Bailey, 2003; Gaudio, 1994; Linville, 1998). To our knowl-

edge, however, the present research is the first to investigate

these different components within a single study, and to

establish that assessments of sexual orientation based on

these different gaydar signals were generally correlated

(Table 2). That is, for example, if raters judged a target as

especially likely to be homosexual based on his or her speech,

they were also more likely to do so based on movement and

appearance. Thus, gaydar may be based on similar informa-

tion coming from different channels.

To be sure, our analyses have some limitations. For ex-

ample, although we tried to reduce information about physi-

cal appearance in the videos used to rate movement, we did

not eliminate such information completely. Thus, raters may

have relied to some extent on targets’ appearance while

making their judgments. It is unclear from our data how well

movement alone worked as a gaydar signal. A recent study,

however, found that sexual orientation could be judged from

movement alone (Johnson et al., 2007).

There was no consistent evidence that certain groups of

raters had superior gaydar. In contrast to some other studies

(Ambady et al., 1999; Berger et al., 1987; Sylva et al., 2007),

homosexual raters were not generally more accurate. As we

noted, however, the accuracy advantage of homosexual rat-

ers found in those studies was modest and somewhat incon-

sistent. If homosexual and heterosexual people have similar

levels of gaydar ability, this suggests that gaydar does not rely

much on information more available to homosexual people.

We note, however, that our heterosexual raters were college

students from a city with a large gay community. Thus, they

may have had more exposure to homosexual people com-

pared with most heterosexual people. It therefore remains

unclear how much familiarity with homosexuality enhances

gaydar.

What precise information do people rely on for gaydar? In

our study, observer-rated sexual orientation was related to

self-reported sex atypicality (Table 2), which, in turn, was

related to self-identified sexual orientation (Fig. 2). Sex

atypicality may also be expressed through people’s ob-

servable behavior (Bailey, 2003; Lippa, 1998; Rieger et al.,

2008). Thus, it may have been the sex atypicality of targets’

movement, speech, appearance, and, to a lesser extent,

interests, that enabled observers to infer their sexual orien-

tation with such high accuracy. If so, then perceived sexual

orientation should be correlated with perceived sex atypi-

cality. We assessed this relationship in Study 2.

Study 2

The second study focused on the relationship of observer-

rated sex atypicality with observer ratings of sexual orien-

tation obtained in Study 1. We employed a second group of

raters in this study, separate from those used in Study 1, in

order to avoid contamination effects. Study 2 also explored

the relationship of observer-rated sex atypicality with the

targets’ self-identified sexual orientation, as well as the

intercorrelations among different measures of sex atypi-

cality.

Method

Participants

Target participants for Study 2 were the same as in Study 1.

However, a new set of raters participated. Ten homosexual

men and 11 homosexual women who were recruited via the

same media as described in Study 1, and 16 heterosexual men

and 21 heterosexual women who were undergraduate stu-

dents in an introductory psychology class, rated targets on

several components of sex atypicality. Mean ages of raters

were 22.1 (4.2), 23.2 (3.6), 19.6 (1.3), and 19.0 (1.2) years,

respectively. Homosexual raters were older than the hetero-

sexual raters, p \ .0001, b = .57. Because judgments of the

four groups of raters correlated with each other and barely

differed (see below), differences in age did not seem to have

Table 2 Correlations of observer-rated sexual orientation with the respective measures of observer-rated sex atypicality

Measure All targets

(N = 95)

Heterosexual men

(n = 25)

Homosexual men

(n = 25)

Heterosexual women

(n = 22)

Homosexual women

(n = 23)

Overall .75*** .77*** .79*** .68** .76***

Movement .91*** .89*** .89*** .94*** .93***

Speech .77*** .81*** .94*** .57* .61*

Appearance .89*** .77*** .90*** .92*** .93***

Interests .70*** .95*** .91*** .42* .16

Note: Correlation coefficients are shown for all targets (after partialling out the effects of sexual orientation and sex), and separately for heterosexual

and homosexual men and women. * p \ .05; ** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 133

123

an important influence on ratings. Fifty-three percent of the

raters were Caucasian. This proportion did not significantly

differ across the groups, v2(3) \ 1. Nineteen percent were

Hispanic and the remainder identified as Asian, African-

American, or ‘‘other.’’

Procedure

The procedure for Study 2 was identical to the procedure for

Study 1, except that in Study 2 raters assessed how sex typical

or sex atypical the targets were (instead of rating target’s

sexual orientation, as in Study 1). For example, after each

video showing figural outlines of a male target, raters were

asked ‘‘whether this man gestures, moves, or sits in a more

masculine or feminine manner.’’ For male targets, a score of 1

was labeled more masculine, 4 was labeled average, and 7

was labeled more feminine. A reversed scale was used for

ratings of female targets. Thus, for both sexes and across

stimuli, a score of 7 represented maximum sex atypicality.

Results and Discussion

Inter-rater Consistency

Within each target sex and for each observer-rated measure,

ratings by the four groups (heterosexual and homosexual men

and women) were correlated; the median r was .77, and the

range was from .40 (for heterosexual men and homosexual

women rating stated interests of women) to .96 (for hetero-

sexual men and heterosexual women rating the appearance of

women). Across all raters, inter-rater reliability (a) was equal

to or exceeded .80 for each measure. Thus, in subsequent

analyses, we used each target’s average score (averaged

across all raters) for each of the observer-rated measures.

Are Perceptions of Sexual Orientation and Sex Atypicality

Related?

We computed correlations of observer-rated sexual orien-

tation (the ratings analyzed in Study 1) with observer-rated

sex atypicality. Observer ratings of targets’ sexual orienta-

tion based on targets’ overall presentation were correlated

with observer ratings of sex atypicality based on overall pre-

sentation; corresponding correlations were computed for

movement, speech, appearance, and stated interests. These

correlations were computed across all targets, after partial-

ling the effects of target sexual orientation and sex, to show

their magnitude independent of target group. Correlations

were also calculated separately for heterosexual and homo-

sexual men and women. As is evident in Table 2, correla-

tions were generally positive and large. An exception was the

correlation for stated interests of women, especially homo-

sexual women, which was notably lower than the same

correlation for males. The median of the correlation coeffi-

cients calculated for each target group (.85) also indicated a

generally strong relationship.

Thus, for both unedited videos and for most components,

targets whose presentations were rated as more sex atypical

were also those who presentations were judged to be more

indicative of homosexuality. Correspondingly, those who

were seen as more sex typical were also rated as ‘‘more

straight.’’ Perhaps, then, it is the sex atypicality of targets’

behavior that enables observers to judge their sexual orien-

tation with high accuracy. This is consistent with earlier

findings that homosexual people are, on average, sex atypical

in their observable behaviors (Bailey, 2003; Johnson et al.,

2007; Rieger et al., 2008).

Are Homosexual People Perceived to be More Sex

Atypical?

The above argument suggests that self-identified homosexual

people will be perceived by others as more sex atypical. In-

deed, homosexual men and women were generally judged to

be more sex atypical than heterosexual targets, both in their

overall presentation and for several observer-rated compo-

nents (Fig. 3).

As was the case for observer-rated sexual orientation

in Study 1, homosexual targets showed more variation in

observer-rated sex atypicality, as compared to the hetero-

sexual targets (Fig. 3). The sexual orientation difference in

variance was significant for movement, speech, and appear-

ance, p = .0002, b = .38, p = .003, b = .30, and p = .04,

b = .21, respectively. The sexes did not significantly differ

for these effects (ps between .12 and .64, bs between -.10

and .14). Thus, heterosexual targets were generally rated as

sex typical (though not necessarily extremely so) with respect

to both overall presentation and the separate components, but

perceptions of homosexual targets ran the gamut from quite

sex typical to quite sex atypical.

Some other research has also found greater variability in

sex atypicality among homosexual people than among het-

erosexual people, both when measured by self-report (Lippa,

2005b) and by observer ratings (Rieger et al., 2008).

Admittedly, the present study found this pattern only for

observer ratings but not for self-report. Nevertheless, the

general finding across all these studies is that homosexual

people show more variability. Lippa (2005b) argued that both

biological and social factors might contribute to this differ-

ence. For example, the predominant pressure towards typical

sex-role socialization may make some homosexual individ-

uals behave in a sex-typical manner. At the same time, bio-

logical predispositions and counteractive influences against

stereotypical sex-typed behaviors within the gay and lesbian

community may make other individuals more likely to be-

have in a sex-atypical manner.

134 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

A comparison of Figs. 1 and 3 indicates another interest-

ing pattern. For male targets, observer-ratings of both sexual

orientation and sex atypicality showed the largest sexual

orientation differences when based on targets’ full presen-

tation, rather than on just one channel (i.e., movement, speech

patterns, appearance, or stated interests). It seems reasonable

that raters would distinguish more between the two groups of

targets when they had the most information about them. In

contrast, however, ratings of female targets based just on

appearance yielded stronger sexual orientation differences

than ratings based on the full presentation; this was true for

ratings of both sexual orientation and sex atypicality. Perhaps

appearance is the best indicator of sexual orientation and sex

atypicality in women. Information conveyed by appearance

alone can then be obscured if behavioral information is also

available, due to overweighting of the latter. Future research

should investigate this possibility.

How Closely Related are Different Measures of Sex

Atypicality?

In Study 1, we found that the different measures of observer-

rated sexual orientation tended to be intercorrelated, as well

as related to self-reported sex atypicality (Table 1). Given the

high correlations between observer-rated sexual orientation

and observer-rated sex atypicality (Table 2) it seemed likely

that the different measures of observer-rated sex atypicality

would also be intercorrelated and, in addition, related to self-

reports. We computed the partial correlations among the five

observer-rated measures and the three self-reported measures

of sex atypicality (controlling for sexual orientation and sex).

All of the partial correlations were positive and most were

significant (Table 3, below the diagonal).

Similar to Study 1, a set of regression analyses found four

group differences for these correlations. However, these did

not demonstrate consistent sex or sexual orientation differ-

ences. For the majority of the correlations shown in Table 3,

heterosexual and homosexual men and women did not sig-

nificantly differ. In general, then, targets who were rated as

more sex atypical based on one type of stimulus (e.g., speech)

tended to be rated as more sex atypical based on the other

stimuli (e.g., movement or appearance), and further, those

who were rated by observers as more sex atypical also tended

to report more sex atypicality themselves.

General Discussion

Results of Study 1 suggest that observers can detect others’

sexual orientations with high accuracy based on short

audiovisual recordings. Thus, some aspects of people’s

behavior and appearance serve as effective gaydar signals.

These signals may include movement and speech, as well as

some appearance cues evident in still photographs. Study 2

showed that observers’ ratings of targets’ sexual orientation

1

4

7

lauxes-omoh-oreteh

lauxes-omoh-oreteh

lauxes-omoh-oreteh

lauxes-omoh-oreteh

1

4

7

tnemevoM stseretnIecnaraeppAhceepS

*)83.( 0.1

*)54.( 0.1

**)64.( 4.1 )80.( 0.0*)92.( 7.0

***)36.( 8.1*)24.( 1.1***)45.( 8.1

llarevO

***)46.( 7.1

-omoh-oreteh

***)95.( 6.1

lauxes

obse

rver

-rat

ed fe

mal

ese

x at

ypic

ality

obse

rver

-rat

ed m

ale

sex

atyp

ical

ity

Fig. 3 Observer-rated sex atypicality of 25 heterosexual and 25

homosexual male targets, and 22 heterosexual and 23 homosexual

female targets. The five measures are ratings of sex atypicality from

visual and sound recordings: overall presentation, movement, speech,

appearance, and stated interests. Points represent the scores of

individual targets, averaged across raters. Lines are 95% confidence

intervals. On the Y-axis, 1 is the most sex-typical and 7 the most sex-

atypical score. Numbers are effect sizes expressed as Cohen’s d’s and, in

parentheses, as correlation coefficients (rs) � p \ .10; * p \ .05;

** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 135

123

corresponded closely with their ratings of targets’ sex atyp-

icality. Thus, our results were consistent with the hypothesis

that gaydar signals derive their information from sex

atypicality.

We also found that different measures of sex atypicality,

including observer ratings and self-reports, tended to be

correlated with sexual orientation (Figs. 2, 3) and with each

other (Table 3). Similar convergence of measures of sex-

typed behavior and sexual orientation has been previously

reported (Lippa, 1998; Rieger et al., 2008). This increases

confidence in the construct validity of relevant measures

because it suggests that their association is due to an under-

lying factor of sex typicality versus atypicality (alternatively,

masculinity–femininity). Lippa (2005a) has hypothesized

that there is a core to masculinity–femininity, which includes

sex-typed interests, appearance, mannerisms, nonverbal

behaviors, and possibly sexual orientation. To our knowl-

edge, ours is the first study to investigate associations among

all these variables within a single study, and one of the first to

provide direct support for the idea that gaydar signals reflect

masculinity and femininity.

Our results were consistent with some stereotypes about

differences between heterosexual and homosexual people.

For example, homosexual men are believed to have more

feminine mannerisms and ‘‘gay sounding’’ voices. Lesbians

are believed to ‘‘look butch’’ (e.g., Kite & Deaux, 1987).

Despite their support for stereotypes, our results also showed

that perceived behavior was an imperfect predictor of sexual

orientation. Most of the variation in targets’ self-identified

sexual orientation could not be explained by the raters’

judgments based on the targets’ overall presentation

(R2 = .40 for ratings of sexual orientation; R2 = .37 for

ratings of sex atypicality). Thus, although the average het-

erosexual and homosexual persons confirmed stereotypes

about differences between the groups, some individuals de-

fied the stereotypes. This was most common among homo-

sexual targets, some of whom behaved quite ‘‘straight’’ or

sex-typically.

Etiology and Development of Sexual Orientation

The general finding that homosexual orientation is associated

with sex atypicality suggests that at least some homosexual

individuals have atypical psychological sexual differentia-

tion. Much research suggests that this occurs by childhood

(e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1995; Rieger et al., 2008). Although

in principle this could reflect either nature or nurture, or both,

we agree with those who have surveyed relevant research and

found innate explanations to be more promising (e.g., Bell,

Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Lippa, 2005a; Rahman &

Wilson, 2003). More specifically, biological factors affecting

sexual differentiation include the effects of prenatal sex

steroid hormones.

Male and female sexual orientation had similar correlates

in our study, with respect to both self-reported and observed

sex atypicality, although there were some differences. This

suggests that at least some of the causes of sexual orientation

are symmetric between men and women. Recent research has

focused attention on ways that male and female sexual ori-

entations appear quite different (e.g., Chivers, Rieger, Latty,

& Bailey, 2004; Diamond, 2008). Results such as ours sug-

gest that there may also be ways in which they are funda-

mentally similar.

Social Implications

The present findings suggest that many homosexual people

may be seen as relatively sex atypical and thus likely to be

Table 3 Intercorrelations among observer-rated and self-reported sex atypicality across all targets (N = 95)

Measure Observer-rated Self-report

Overall Movement Speech Appearance Interests Childhood Adulthood Interests Composite

Observer-rated

Overall .71*** .62*** .65*** .26* .55*** .49*** .39** .56***

Movement .63*** .48** .69*** .18 .53*** .43*** .38** .53***

Speech .50*** .37** .35** .37** .50*** .34** .39** .49***

Appearance .61*** .60*** .26* .20* .43*** .46*** .40*** .51***

Interests .16 .06 .31* .10 .30* .39** .46*** .45***

Self-report

Childhood .30* .37** .33** .25* .21* .53*** .60*** .84***

Adulthood .48*** .38** .28* .44*** .35** .52*** .59*** .84***

Interests .26* .29* .30* .34** .43*** .54*** .57*** .86***

Composite .41*** .41*** .36** .42*** .41** .80*** .85*** .85***

Note: Numbers above the diagonal are simple correlations. Numbers below the diagonal are partial correlations, after partialling out the effects of

sexual orientation and sex. * p \ .05; ** p \ .001; *** p \ .0001

136 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

homosexual. These evaluations happen quickly, within sec-

onds. To our knowledge, social consequences of these

judgments have not been systematically studied. However, it

is plausible that being initially judged as sex atypical or

‘‘gay’’ can influence how a person will be treated, because

first impressions seem important for subsequent interactions

(e.g., Jones, 1990).

Sex-atypical people suffer from social disadvantages.

Stigmatization of sex atypicality can occur at an early age.

Sex-atypical children are sometimes treated negatively

by parents and peers, probably because they violate ex-

pected gender norms (Beard & Bakeman, 2000; Carter &

McCloskey, 1983; Fagot, 1977, 1985; Landolt et al., 2004;

Maccoby, 1998; Rieger et al., 2008; Saghir & Robins, 1973;

Smith & Leaper, 2006; Tauber, 1979; Zucker, Wilson-Smith,

Kurita, & Stern, 1995). Furthermore, problems due to child-

hood sex atypicality may persist into adulthood. Homo-

sexual men who reported having been more sex atypical as

children were more likely to report dysfunctional relation-

ships with parents, particularly fathers (Beard & Bakeman,

2000; Freund & Blanchard, 1983), as well as problematic

attachments to others (Landolt et al., 2004). Furthermore,

although our results suggest that sex atypicality is especially

common among homosexual people, homosexual people

also appear to be somewhat intolerant of sex atypicality.

Homosexual men are especially likely to report that they

dislike sex-atypical people (Skidmore, Linsenmeier, &

Bailey, 2006), and that they find them less attractive as

potential romantic partners (e.g., Bailey, Kim, Hills, &

Linsenmeier, 1997; Laner, 1978; Laner & Kamel, 1977).

Given these stressors, it is plausible that sex-atypical

people experience more psychological distress. Consistent

with this hypothesis, sex-atypical homosexual men report

lower self-esteem (Harry, 1983a), more depression and

anxiety (Skidmore et al., 2006; Weinrich et al., 1992), and

higher suicidal risks (Harry, 1983b; Remafedi, French, Story,

Resnick, & Blum, 1998), compared with sex-typical homo-

sexual men. Notably, the link between sex atypicality and

distress is less robust in women than in men (Aube &

Koestner, 1992; Harry, 1983b; Skidmore et al., 2006).

Many studies of the correlates of sex atypicality involve

ongoing relationships with, for example, parents and peers

who have repeated opportunities to judge the degree to which

a person’s behavior, appearance, and interests are sex atyp-

ical. Future research should investigate whether socially

relevant consequences of sex atypicality can result from first

impressions based on ‘‘thin slices’’ of behavior.

Limitations

The present study has some important methodological limi-

tations. These include the correlational nature of the data; the

inability to establish clear correlations between some

observer-rated measures; the brevity of video clips, possibly

leading to unreliable observer ratings; the operationalization

of judged sexual orientation for one of our analyses; and

possible volunteer bias of both targets and raters due to small,

self-selected, and non-representative study samples.

Correlational Results

One interpretation of our results is that raters first judged

some targets as sex atypical and consequently classified them

as likely to be gay. Given that these results were based on

correlations, there is no evidence that the raters’ assessments

did indeed follow this process. It is possible, for example, that

raters judged some targets to be sex atypical because they

appeared to be gay rather then the reverse. Or, they may have

rated some targets as homosexual for other reasons than their

apparent sex atypicality. For example, homosexual targets

may have been, on average, more comfortable participating

in a study on sexual orientation than heterosexual targets and,

thus, more relaxed and expressive in front of the camera. Our

scales may have forced raters to judge the more expressive

style of homosexual targets as ‘‘gay’’ or sex atypical because

these were the only choices available. To test this assump-

tion, an independent group of raters judged the expressive-

ness of targets. Ratings of expressiveness were unrelated to

ratings of sexual orientation and sex atypicality; r’s = .03

and .04. Thus, raters did not seem to be influenced by the

targets’ expressive style. Still, future research should inves-

tigate whether there is a causal link between judgments of sex

atypicality and of sexual orientation. Future research should

also examine the extent to which observer ratings of other

personality traits (e.g., anxiety and extroversion) relate to

self-reported and observer-rated sexual orientation.

Correlations Among Measures

The correlations between some of the observer-rated mea-

sures could have been enhanced by overlapping cues. In

particular, as noted before, the correlation of observer-rated

movement and appearance could have been enhanced be-

cause raters of movement had some information on appear-

ance. This weakens our interpretation that the association of

these measures reflects an underlying factor of sex atypical-

ity. We note, however, that for the correlations between other

measures, in particular for speech ratings with ratings of

movement and appearance, no such confounds were possible.

Raters of speech had no information on the other components

and vice versa, but the correlations between these measures

were significant (Tables 1 and 3). In addition, observer rat-

ings were correlated with self-reports of sex atypicality. This

increases our confidence in the conclusion that there is a core

factor of sex atypicality. Nevertheless, future research should

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 137

123

employ more precise methodologies for establishing these

intercorrelations.

Brief Behavioral Samples

We used video clips that were at most 10 seconds long to

assess sex atypicality. Ratings based on such short samples

are likely to contain measurement error. Thus, the true dif-

ferences in presentation between heterosexual and homo-

sexual people may be larger than those reported here.

Furthermore, the correlations between several observer-

rated measures may be underestimated by our method.

Operationalization of Judged Sexual Orientation

For one analysis of rater accuracy, we used the midpoint of

the 7-point rating scale as a cut-off to classify judgments as

‘‘gay’’ versus ‘‘straight.’’ This approach ignores the fact that

raters were somewhat uncertain about many targets and thus

judged them, for example, ‘‘somewhat more gay’’ than

average rather than simply ‘‘gay.’’ Different operationaliza-

tions (e.g., requiring raters to make discrete guesses about

sexual orientation) might yield different results.

We also note that unlike the present research, some

researchers have assessed masculinity and femininity as

separate dimensions (e.g., Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich,

1978). The use of a two-dimensional conceptualization of

masculinity and femininity, like the use of a different ap-

proach to assessing perceived sexual orientation, might have

yielded somewhat different results than those reported here.

However, we believe that a unidimensional model of mas-

culinity–femininity is currently the most scientifically

promising (see Lippa, 2005a).

Representativeness of Samples

Targets were a self-selected group, which might have re-

sulted in some sampling bias. For example, the majority of

homosexual targets were openly homosexual. It is possible

that more sex-atypical homosexual people are more likely to

be ‘‘out,’’ perhaps because their presentation makes it harder

for them to be closeted about their sexual orientation. If this is

true, our sample of homosexual people may have been gen-

erally biased towards sex atypicality.

Some evidence consistent with this possibility comes from

inspection of effect sizes in our data. For self-reported

childhood sex atypicality (Fig. 2), the effect sizes of sexual

orientation for both male targets (d = 1.9) and female targets

(d = 1.4) were somewhat larger than the effect sizes reported

in the meta-analysis by Bailey and Zucker (1995; respective

d’s = 1.3 and 1.0). If the homosexual targets in the current

study recalled higher levels of childhood sex atypicality than

most homosexual people report, this would make our sample

unusual. It is also possible, however, that homosexual par-

ticipants have become more willing to report higher levels of

childhood sex atypicality since the meta-analysis was pub-

lished in 1995. Some indication for this comes from a recent

study on twins, including thousands of participants (Bailey,

Dunne, & Martin, 2000). In this study, the respective d’s were

approximately 1.8 for both men and women.

Finally, both targets and raters came from a large, North

American urban area with a noticeable gay community. It is

possible that under such conditions, people with the same

sexual orientation tend to display certain behaviors because

of a shared social environment. Furthermore, increased

familiarity with homosexuality may enable both heterosex-

ual and homosexual people alike to more accurately judge

sexual orientation. In other words, both heterosexual and

homosexual people may learn how a typical person of their

sexual orientation behaves in their environment, and this may

make them more likely to behave in such ways themselves.

Both may also learn what behaviors are typical for those of

the other orientation. This knowledge could then enhance

their ability to identify people from either group. We note,

however, that even if our participants were atypical because

they had unusual knowledge about sexual orientation, this

would still imply that there is validity to the notion that

gaydar signals distinguish homosexual and heterosexual

individuals.

Future Directions

As pointed out earlier, future research should investigate

whether social consequences can result from initial impres-

sions that a person is ‘‘gay’’ or sex atypical. For example,

people may be rejected or judged as unattractive based on

‘‘thin slices’’ of behavior indicating sex atypicality. Future

studies should also look at whether such initial evaluations

are related to subsequent social interactions and to the level of

psychological distress experienced by the person who was

judged.

Further studies should also explore the considerable var-

iation in sex-atypical behavior of homosexual people. Some

homosexual people appear quite sex typical and are thus ‘‘off

the gaydar.’’ One possible explanation is that due to stig-

matization, some homosexual people may conceal behaviors

that signal their sexual orientation. Studies could investigate

how well homosexual people can conceal their sex atypical

behavior and if they can more effectively control the degree

of sex-atypicality displayed through some channels (e.g.,

movement) than through others (e.g., voice). Alternatively,

differences in sex atypicality may reflect different pathways

to becoming homosexual. Developmental research might

address this hypothesis.

Ability to conceal cues to sexual orientation might depend

not only on the channel involved, but also on the context. If

138 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123

concealment of cues to sexual orientation is a possible but

effortful process, then ability to conceal should be decreased

when people are engaged in other cognitively demanding

tasks (e.g., Gilbert & Osborne, 1989). This, too, might be

addressed by future research.

Finally, we propose a cross-cultural study on the accuracy

of gaydar and the nature of gaydar signals. Raters of different

cultures could judge the sexual orientation and sex atypicality

of targets of their own and other cultures. At least three

questions could be addressed with this design. First, is gaydar

based on the same underlying dimension, that is, sex atypi-

cality, across the different cultures? Second, are the exact

gaydar signals similar across cultures? For example, do

similar ways of moving distinguish heterosexual from

homosexual people? Third, do the cultural backgrounds of

either targets or raters influence the accuracy of judgments of

sexual orientation?

Such a study could provide insight into how social factors

influence the codevelopment of sex atypicality and sexual

orientation. For example, if cultures differ substantially in

which behaviors let observers distinguish heterosexual from

homosexual people, and to what extent, then the development

of these behaviors and their association with sexual orienta-

tion may have social influences. If, however, sex-atypical

behaviors and their relation with sexual orientation are sim-

ilar across cultures, other factors may influence their code-

velopment. These factors may, for example, be genetic

predispositions or early exposure to different levels of go-

nadal hormones (for reviews on this topic, see Rahman &

Wilson, 2003; Wilson & Rahman, 2005).

Similarly, investigating the ability to differentiate be-

tween heterosexual and homosexual people across different

cultures may indicate to what degree judgments of sexual

orientation are influenced by social factors. It is possible, for

example, that observers can judge sexual orientation best if

they evaluate people of their own culture, with whose

behaviors they are most familiar. However, it is also possible

that similar behaviors are relevant across cultures, again

suggesting biological influences. Such research might also

provide insight into the origins of stereotypes of heterosexual

and homosexual people.

Further research on gaydar and the roles of sex-typed

behaviors may, thus, illuminate the determinants and con-

sequences of being judged as gay or sex atypical. It may also

have implications for our understanding of the co-develop-

ment of masculinity–femininity and sexual orientation.

References

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 SocialPsychology, 32, 201–271.

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.

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior

as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.

Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1992). Gender characteristics and adjustment:

A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 63, 485–493.

Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science ofgender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph

Henry Press.

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and

environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in

an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78, 524–536.

Bailey, J. M., Finkel, E., Blackwelder, K., & Bailey, T. (1995).

Masculinity, femininity, and sexual orientation. Unpublished

manuscript.

Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997).

Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men

and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

960–973.

Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and

sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review.

Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.

Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., Steele, D. L., Meeler, M. E.,

& Mills, J. R. (1979). Sex role motor behavior: A behavioral

checklist. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 119–138.

Beard, A., & Bakeman, R. (2000). Boyhood gender nonconformity:

Reported parental behavior and the development of narcissistic

issues. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 4, 81–97.

Bell, A., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexualpreference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Berger, G., Hank, L., Rauzi, T., & Simkins, L. (1987). Detection of

sexual orientation by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal ofHomosexuality, 13, 83–100.

Carter, D., & McCloskey, L. A. (1983). Peers and the maintenance of

sex-typed behavior: The development of children’s conceptions of

cross-gender behavior in their peers. Social Cognition, 2, 294–314.

Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex

difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. PsychologicalScience, 15, 736–744.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity–femininity: An exception to a

famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407.

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s loveand desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fagot, B. I. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in

preschool children. Child Development, 48, 902–907.

Fagot, B. I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step

toward understanding sex role development. DevelopmentalPsychology, 21, 1097–1104.

Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1983). Is the distant relationship of fathers

and homosexual sons related to the sons’ erotic preference for male

partners, or to the sons’ atypical gender identity, or to both? Journalof Homosexuality, 9, 7–25.

Gaudio, R. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gayand straight men. American Speech, 69, 30–57.

Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140 139

123

Gilbert, D. T., & Osborne, R. E. (1989). Thinking backward: Some

curable and incurable consequences of cognitive busyness. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 940–949.

Harry, J. (1983a). Defeminization and adult psychological well-being

among male homosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 1–19.

Harry, J. (1983b). Parasuicide, gender, and gender deviance. Journal ofHealth & Social Behavior, 24, 350–361.

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 SocialPsychology, 93, 321–334.

Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H.

Freeman.

Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality

and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly,11, 83–96.

Landolt, M. A., Bartholomew, K., Saffrey, C., Oram, D., Perlman, D., &

Bartholomew, K. (2004). Gender nonconformity, childhood

rejection, and adult attachment: A study of gay men. Archives ofSexual Behavior, 33, 117–128.

Laner, M. R. (1978). Media mating II: ‘‘Personals’’ advertisements of

lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 41–61.

Laner, M. R., & Kamel, G. L. (1977). Media mating I: Newspaper

‘‘personals’’ ads of homosexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 3,

149–162.

Linville, S. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual

sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logo-paedica, 50, 35–48.

Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diag-

nosticity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across

domains, and relationship to the big five. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 61, 1000–1011.

Lippa, R. (1995a). Do sex differences define gender-related individual

differences within the sexes? Evidence from three studies.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 349–355.

Lippa, R. (1995b). Gender-related individual differences and psycho-

logical adjustment in terms of the big five and circumplex models.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1184–1202.

Lippa, R. (1998). The nonverbal display and judgment of extraversion,

masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: A lens model

analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 80–107.

Lippa, R. A. (2000). Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women,

and heterosexual men and women: The virtual identity of

homosexual–heterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity.

Journal of Personality, 68, 899–926.

Lippa, R. A. (2005a). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lippa, R. A. (2005b). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Reviewof Sex Research, 16, 119–153.

Lippa, R. A. (2006, April). Childhood gender nonconformity and adultpersonality in heterosexual and homosexual men and women.Paper presented at the Gender Development Conference, San

Francisco, CA.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, comingtogether. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context

and consequences. Ethology & Sociobiology, 6, 237–247.

Moore, M. M. (2002). Courtship communication and perception.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 97–105.

Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among

gay men and lesbians. Sexuality & Culture, 8, 60–86.

Pierrehumbert, J. B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A. R., & Bailey, J.

M. (2004). The influence of sexual orientation on vowel produc-

tion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 1905–

1908.

Rahman, Q., & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of

human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences,34, 1337–1382.

Remafedi, G., French, S., Story, M., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. (1998).

The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation:

Results of a population-based study. American Journal of PublicHealth, 88, 57–60.

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.

Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: Acomprehensive investigation. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Skidmore, C. W., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., & Bailey, J. M. (2006). Gender

nonconformity and psychological distress in lesbians and gay men.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 685–697.

Smith, T. E., & Leaper, C. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and

the peer context during adolescence. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 16, 91–103.

Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., & Rogers, H. (2003). Male voices and perceived

sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach.

Language in Society, 32, 329–350.

Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. (1995). Masculinity and femininity:

Defining the undefinable. In P. J. Kalbfleisch & M. J. Cody (Eds.),

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships (pp.

105–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Theirpsychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Sylva, D., Sell, L., & Bailey, J. M. (2007). An audible minority:Homosexuality and speech. Unpublished manuscript.

Tauber, M. A. (1979). Sex differences in parent–child interaction styles

during a free-play session. Child Development, 50, 981–988.

Weinrich, J. D., Grant, I., Jacobson, D. L., Robinson, S. R., McCutchan,

J. A., & HNRC. (1992). Effects of recalled childhood gender

nonconformity on adult genitoerotic role and AIDS exposure.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 559–585.

Wilson, G. D., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born gay? The psychobiology ofsex orientation. London: Peter Owen.

Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Zucker, K. J., Wilson-Smith, D. N., Kurita, J. A., & Stern, A. (1995).

Children’s appraisals of sex-typed behavior in their peers. SexRoles, 33, 703–725.

140 Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:124–140

123