School of Psychology, University of Surrey, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
School of Psychology, University of Surrey, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
J Voice. 2024 Jan;38(1):246.e1-246.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.08.016. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
This research investigates voice-based categorization of speakers' sexual orientation, the so-called 'auditory gaydar', while considering stimuli length and the type of measures assessing gaydar judgments. In Study 1 (N = 80), heterosexual individuals listened to gay and heterosexual male speakers in short (single word), medium (single sentence), or long (two sentences) recordings. Next, they guess the speakers' sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like and binary choice. Participants were overall inaccurate in recognizing gay speakers when gaydar judgments were provided on a binary choice. Gay speakers were rated as more gay on a Kinsey-like scale than their heterosexual counterparts, but only when short and medium recordings were listened to. Study 2 (N = 149) examined gaydar accuracy for both male and female speakers by using the same procedure. Gaydar judgments were overall inaccurate for gay and lesbian speakers. For male speakers, a difference between the perceived sexual orientation of gay and heterosexual speakers emerged when stimuli were long. For female speakers, such a difference occurred only in the short and medium recording conditions. Study 3 (N = 137) examined gaydar judgments for male and female speakers when stimuli length was manipulated as the number of words progressively presented in a sentence: short (article), medium (article + first word), long (sentence) stimulus. Overall, gaydar judgments were inaccurate. Gay and lesbian (vs. heterosexual) speakers tended to be rated as more gay on the Kinsey-like scale in the medium stimulus condition. These findings suggest that gaydar judgments can be influenced by the type of measure and stimuli.
本研究调查了基于声音的说话者性取向分类,即所谓的“听觉性取向探测”,同时考虑了刺激长度和评估性取向探测判断的度量类型。在研究 1(N=80)中,异性恋个体听取了同性恋和异性恋男性说话者的短(单个单词)、中(单个句子)或长(两个句子)录音。接下来,他们根据金赛量表和二元选择猜测说话者的性取向。当提供二元选择的性取向探测判断时,参与者整体上无法准确识别同性恋说话者。与异性恋者相比,当听到短和中录音时,同性恋说话者在金赛量表上的评分更高,但他们被评为更同性恋。研究 2(N=149)通过使用相同的程序检查了男性和女性说话者的性取向探测准确性。对于男同性恋和女同性恋说话者,性取向探测判断整体上不准确。对于男性说话者,当刺激物较长时,同性恋和异性恋说话者的感知性取向之间出现差异。对于女性说话者,只有在短和中录音条件下才会出现这种差异。研究 3(N=137)在刺激物长度被操纵为句子中逐字呈现的单词数量时,检查了男性和女性说话者的性取向探测判断:短(文章)、中(文章+第一个单词)、长(句子)刺激。总体而言,性取向探测判断不准确。在中刺激条件下,同性恋和女同性恋(与异性恋)说话者往往被评为更同性恋的金赛量表评分更高。这些发现表明,性取向探测判断可能会受到度量类型和刺激的影响。