Children are often taught that you can’t judge a book by its cover. But, in a way that’s not far off from stereotyping, many people believe they can intuit someone else’s sexual orientation from minimal clues.
These hunches are sometimes called “gaydar.” But is gaydar real? And if so, what are the criteria that determine its validity?
Handheld Buzzer
There was a brief flurry of interest in handheld electronic devices designed to help identify gay men. Using technology similar to a walkie-talkie, the device would send a signal to other Gay Radar users within fifty feet. When it detects a potential match, the device would respond with a vibration, beep or flash, alerting its user that someone like-minded was nearby.
The ability to recognize other people as homosexual or bisexual is known as “gaydar.” Research has shown that many of the same nonverbal and verbal clues that can be used to determine sexual orientation are also used by gay men to identify other gay men. These include clothing style, overt rejections of traditional gender roles, grooming habits and even the sound of a person’s voice.
Appearance Cues
If you’re a gay man, then it’s probably no surprise to you that most straight people have “gaydar.” In a series of experiments, researchers found that after just a blink of an eye, observers were able to accurately guess someone’s sexual orientation based on the way they looked. This is known as the “gay-or-straight” paradigm.
This was true even when participants were exposed to images of male faces that had been digitally altered to remove brows, glasses and jewelry. And even when the face was cropped down to just the outer canthi, observers were still able to correctly identify a male as homosexual.
However, more research is needed to understand what factors influence gaydar judgments and whether a person’s orientation can be discerned through visual and vocal cues independently. For example, studies have shown that people who hold anti-gay views perform worse in gaydar studies; while sexual minorities and those with more familiarity tend to perform better.
Voice Cues
While most scientific studies of gaydar focus on visual cues, some have also focused on the way a person’s voice sounds. Researchers have found that people can detect sexual orientation by listening to short audio recordings and even from still images that appear on a computer screen for a fraction of a second.
In one study, participants were asked to identify gay and straight speakers by comparing their audio recordings of their speech to recordings of heterosexual speakers. In this case, participants were correct more than half the time. They also reported their own gaydar beliefs, indicating how difficult or easy they thought it would be to make SO judgments based on vocal cues.
In some studies, gaydar accuracy was linked to LGB participants’ engagement in criterion shifts, a pattern of being less restrictive in categorizing other people as homosexual or straight. However, these findings have not always been replicated. Future research will need to clarify what factors contribute to criterion shifts and the degree of gaydar accuracy (see Miller, 2018).
Social Cues
Researchers use the term gaydar to describe people’s ability to quickly identify sexual orientation based on a person’s appearance, body language, or interactions. This type of social judgment — sometimes called a “vibe” — is based on stereotypes about how gay men dress, talk, walk, and move. These cues can also be influenced by social and cultural norms, as well as the expectations of friends, family members, and colleagues.
Studies have shown that people can accurately judge someone’s sexual orientation after seeing their face for less than a blink of an eye. Gaydar is also more accurate when a person is ovulating or at peak fertility, and it seems to be especially effective when the faces being judged are those of women.
However, this ability to detect sexual orientation may be more a function of the subconscious than a conscious decision. Participants in some experiments were able to improve their accuracy when they tried not to make a snap judgment, which suggests that the way we use gaydar is more automatic than intentional.