Perceptions of Sexual Identity Based Upon Physical Cues

Nichole Austin

Lindsey Wolf

Michelle Yount

• Stereotyping– exceedingly prevalent in our society– based on visual cues

• categorization– mentally group different objects (including people)

– based on shared characteristics (Herek, 1995)

Introduction

• Hypothesis• We hypothesize that participants will assess the sexual identity

of the target individuals solely through visual cues– masculine appearance perceived as lesbian– feminine appearance perceived as straight

• Manipulation of target– Pictures Masculinity/Femininity Lesbian/Heterosexual

Introduction Continued…

MethodParticipants

• 110 Participants

• Number per condition:

-27 Feminine Heterosexual

-28 Feminine Lesbian

-27 Masculine Heterosexual

-28 Masculine Lesbian

• Random assignment

MethodMaterials

• Packet– Picture – questionnaire

• 4 Target Pictures– Masculine or Feminine appearance– Identify as Straight or Lesbian– 4 combinations of appearance/identity

Table 1

Target PicturesTarget Appearance

Masculine Feminine

Target

Identity

Lesbian

Straight

Method Continued…• Target Description

– Balance of masculine, feminine, and non-gender-specific traits

• 20-question Questionnaire- 3 Category Questionnaire:- 6 questions on dating style, 7 questions on sports, and 7

questions on organizational membership- 3 questions were used to form our dependent variable, score.- 7 point scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not likely at all Possible Very likely

MethodProcedure

- Consent form - Packets distributed

random assignment to 1 of 4 conditions

picture face-down

- Participant view picture

read description answer questionnaire

- Packets collected - Debriefing statement distributed - Results coded

appearance: 1=feminine, 2=masculine identity: 1=straight, 2=lesbian

- Conditions: 1,1 1,2 2,12,2

Results

Dependent variableperceived social activities of target1 to 7 continuum

1=Not likely 4=possible7=very likely

scores statistically analyzed

• Hypothesis– Main effect for appearance– No main effect for identity– No interaction effect

• Perceived identity analyzed– two-way ANOVA– independent groups design

Table 2Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived T Sexual Identity (N=41)

Target

Appearance

Target Identity Mean SD N

Feminine Lesbian

Heterosexual

Total

8.4643

9.0741

8.7636

2.65946

3.08752

2.86721

28

27

55

Masculine Lesbian

Heterosexual

Total

15.5000

14.5185

15.0182

3.03681

2.75081

2.91542

28

27

55

Total Lesbian

Heterosexual

Total

11.9821

11.7963

11.8909

4.53869

3.99235

4.26065

56

54

110

Appearance vs. Score

• Feminine M=11.982• Masculine M=15.009• F(1, 106)=128• p < .001• significant!

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Feminine Masculine

Identity vs. Score

• Lesbian M=11.982

• Straight M=11.796

• F(1, 106)=.114

• p > .05

• insignificant

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Lesbian Straight

Appearance * Identity

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Feminine Masculine

LL S S

Appearance

Feminine Masculine

Identity

Lesbian 8.4643 15.5000

Straight 9.0741 14.5185

F(1, 109)=2.085 p > .05 insignificant!

Discussion• Findings

– Main effect of appearance (as expected)– No identity main effect (as expected)– No interaction (as expected)

• Consistent with past research– Appearance influences judgments of sexual identity

• Stereotyped traits, such as high masculinity in lesbian women and high femininity in heterosexual women affect participant perception of sexuality

– Herek, 1995; Bohan, 1996

But…there’s always room for improvement!

• Experimental significance may increase

by:

- Obtaining more participants

- Testing in better controlled settings

- Utilizing more questions for the composite score

More Problems- Some of the questions may have been leading,

particularly in combination with certain pictures- A few participants remained apprehensive of

categorizing our target individuals, as they did not want to appear “shallow”

HOWEVER…

This occurred ONLY in the masculine conditions. Participants in the feminine conditions did not vocalize any issues with categorizing the targets.

And here’s the biggie…

“possible” = BAD IDEA

- Participants frequently answered questions with a 4 (possible), because, as so many of them said, “anything’s possible”.

- This was both annoying and unanticipated. Though it did not interfere with our obtaining significant results, it provided participants with an easy out.

Implications For Future Research

• Since our results were consistent with past research (Carpenter et al, 1999; Taylor, 1983; Bohan; 1996), we were able to witness stereotyping first-hand.

• Important Elements of this type of research: -Deception -Participant comfort -Consistency -Wording (descriptions, scale, etc)

THE END.