Perceptions of Sexual Identity Based Upon Physical CuesIntroductionIntroduction Continued…Method ParticipantsMethod MaterialsPowerPoint PresentationMethod Continued…Slide 8Slide 9ResultsSlide 11Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived T Sexual Identity (N=41)Appearance vs. ScoreIdentity vs. ScoreAppearance * IdentityDiscussionBut…there’s always room for improvement!More ProblemsAnd here’s the biggie…Implications For Future ResearchTHE END.Perceptions of Sexual Identity Based Upon Physical CuesNichole AustinLindsey WolfMichelle 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/HeterosexualIntroduction Continued…MethodParticipants• 110 Participants • Number per condition: -27 Feminine Heterosexual-28 Feminine Lesbian-27 Masculine Heterosexual-28 Masculine Lesbian• Random assignmentMethodMaterials•Packet–Picture –questionnaire•4 Target Pictures–Masculine or Feminine appearance–Identify as Straight or Lesbian–4 combinations of appearance/identityTable 1 Target PicturesTarget AppearanceMasculine FeminineTargetIdentityLesbianStraightMethod 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 likelyMethodProcedu re - 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 2,12,2ResultsDependent variableperceived social activities of target1 to 7 continuum1=Not likely 4=possible7=very likelyscores statistically analyzed•Hypothesis–Main effect for appearance–No main effect for identity–No interaction effect•Perceived identity analyzed–two-way ANOVA–independent groups designTable 2Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived T Sexual Identity (N=41)TargetAppearanceTarget Identity Mean SD NFeminine LesbianHeterosexualTotal8.46439.07418.76362.659463.087522.86721282755Masculine LesbianHeterosexualTotal15.500014.518515.01823.036812.750812.91542282755Total LesbianHeterosexualTotal11.982111.796311.89094.538693.992354.260655654110Appearance vs. Score•Feminine M=11.982•Masculine M=15.009•F(1, 106)=128•p < .001•significant!0246810121416Fe minine MasculineIdentity vs. Score•Lesbian M=11.982•Straight M=11.796•F(1, 106)=.114•p > .05•insignificant024681012Lesbian StraightAppearance * Identity0246810121416Fe minine MasculineLL S SAppearanceFeminine MasculineIdentityLesbian 8.4643 15.5000Straight 9.0741 14.5185F(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, 1996But…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 scoreMore 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