1. Perceptions of Sexual Identity Based Upon Physical Cues Nichole Austin Lindsey Wolf Michelle Yount

2. Stereotyping –exceedingly prevalent in our society –based on visual cues categorization –mentally group different objects (including people) –based on shared characteristics (Herek, 1995) Introduction

3. 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…

4. Method Participants 110 Participants Number per condition: -27 Feminine Heterosexual -28 Feminine Lesbian -27 Masculine Heterosexual -28 Masculine Lesbian Random assignment

5. Method Materials Packet –Picture –questionnaire 4 Target Pictures –Masculine or Feminine appearance –Identify as Straight or Lesbian –4 combinations of appearance/identity

6. Table 1 Target Pictures Target Appearance MasculineFeminine Target Identity Lesbian Straight

7. 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

8. Method Procedure - Consent form - Packets distributed random assignment to 1 of 4 conditions picture face-down - Participant view picture read description answer questionnaire

9. - Packets collected - Debriefing statement distributed - Results coded appearance: 1=feminine, 2=masculine identity: 1=straight, 2=lesbian - Conditions: 1,1 1,2 2,1 2,2

10. Results Dependent variable perceived social activities of target 1 to 7 continuum 1=Not likely 4=possible 7=very likely scores statistically analyzed

11. Hypothesis –Main effect for appearance –No main effect for identity –No interaction effect Perceived identity analyzed –two-way ANOVA –independent groups design

12. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived T Sexual Identity (N=41) Target Appearance Target IdentityMeanSDN FeminineLesbian Heterosexual Total 8.4643 9.0741 8.7636 2.65946 3.08752 2.86721 28 27 55 MasculineLesbian Heterosexual Total 15.5000 14.5185 15.0182 3.03681 2.75081 2.91542 28 27 55 TotalLesbian Heterosexual Total 11.9821 11.7963 11.8909 4.53869 3.99235 4.26065 56 54 110

13. Appearance vs. Score Feminine M=11.982 Masculine M=15.009 F(1, 106)=128 p <.001 significant!

14. Identity vs. Score Lesbian M=11.982 Straight M=11.796 F(1, 106)=.114 p >.05 insignificant

15. Appearance * Identity LLSS Appearance FeminineMasculine Identity Lesbian8.464315.5000 Straight9.074114.5185 F(1, 109)=2.085p >.05insignificant!

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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)

21. THE END.