Perceptions of Sexual Identity Based Upon Physical Cues Nichole Austin Lindsey Wolf Michelle Yount.
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
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)