How women's sexual orientation guides accuracy of interpersonal judgements of other women

Sexual Orientation Affects Neural Responses to Subtle Social Aggression Signals

The current series of studies are the first to examine brain responses to social aggression signals as a function of male and female sexual orientation. For the first set of studies (1a, 1b), axillary sweat had been collected from 17 heterosexual men and 17 heterosexual women aggressively responding to frustrating opponents (aggression condition) and while playing a construction game (control condition). Sweat samples were pooled according to sex and condition, and presented via a constant flow olfactometer to 17 gay and 23 heterosexual men (Study 1a), and 19 lesbian and 25 heterosexual women (Study 1b). Ongoing EEG was recorded from 61 scalp locations, chemosensory event-related potentials (CSERPs; P2, P3-1, P3-2) were analyzed, and neuronal sources calculated (low resolution electromagnetic tomography). Within the second set of studies (2a, 2b), pictures of males' and females' weak angry and neutral facial expressions were presented to 21 gay and 23 heterosexual men (Study 2a), and 19 lesbian and 26 heterosexual women (Study 2b), and ERPs (N170, P3) were analyzed. Gay men showed larger P3-1 amplitudes than heterosexual men upon presentation of male aggression sweat, accompanied by activation of the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG, BA 10). Gay men also displayed longer N170 latencies in response to men's compared to women's angry facial expressions, while heterosexual men did not. In women, sexual orientation did not affect the processing of aggression sweat or anger expressions. Gay men showed preferential processing of chemosensory aggression signals (P3-1 amplitudes), indicating fine-tuned socioemotional sensitivity, related to activation of brain areas involved in emotion regulation (IFG). They further process the relative relevance of visual aggression signals (N170 latency). These results were in line with theories proposing a common evolutionary pathway for same-sex attraction and traits easing social integration.

Who Has a Better Auditory Gaydar? Sexual Orientation Categorization by Heterosexual and Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people are supposed to be better at gaydar than heterosexual. Across two studies we examined auditory gaydar performed by LGB and heterosexual listeners. In Study 1 participants (n = 127) listened to male and female speakers (n = 10) and judged their sexual orientation on a binary choice (gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual). In Study 2, participants (n = 192) judged speakers' (n = 31) sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like scale (1 = exclusively heterosexual, 7 = exclusively gay/lesbian). Results showed gaydar judgments differences in relative terms that did not indicate an overall gaydar accuracy. Moreover, LGB participants were not better at gaydar than heterosexual participants but rather showed a shift in criterion when making auditory gaydar judgments, namely they report a weaker straight categorization bias. Overall, these findings contribute to the understanding of sexual orientation categorization among heterosexual majority and LGB minority groups.

Mu-Suppression as an Indicator of Empathic Processes in Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Adults

Self-reported empathy differs with gender and sexual orientation. The current study investigated whether mu-suppression, reflecting brain activity especially related to state empathy, also is modulated by gender and sexual orientation. Pictures of painful and non-painful actions were presented to 20 lesbians, 20 gay men, 20 heterosexual men and 20 heterosexual women, while EEG was recorded. Individual peak frequencies of mu-activity (electrodes C3, C4) were detected within the 6-11 Hz band for each participant, and mu-suppression indices were calculated. Further, verbal indicators of state empathy (pain ratings) and compassion were assessed. Only heterosexual individuals showed the typical pattern of enhanced mu-suppression in response to painful relative to non-painful pictures. Lesbian women and gay men did not show a differential mu-response. Moreover, they felt less compassion compared to heterosexual individuals. In line with this finding, the more compassion the participants reported, the stronger the mu-suppression in response to painful relative to non-painful pictures was. Pain ratings did not vary with sexual orientation. The lesser compassion reported by lesbian women and gay men is discussed as a mediator of their non-differential mu-suppression response. It is hypothesized that this pattern might relate to gay men and lesbian women tending to perceive the anonymous depicted actors as outgroup members, hence showing less compassion and reduced mu-suppression. As empathy is often related to negative feelings (empathic stress), a clear distinction between individuals to empathize with versus individuals not to emphasize with may well be an adaptive feature in same-sex oriented individuals.

How Do Different Ways of Measuring Individual Differences in Zero-Acquaintance Personality Judgment Accuracy Correlate With Each Other?

OBJECTIVE

This research compares two different approaches that are commonly used to measure accuracy of personality judgment: the trait accuracy approach wherein participants discriminate among targets on a given trait, thus making intertarget comparisons, and the profile accuracy approach wherein participants discriminate between traits for a given target, thus making intratarget comparisons. We examined correlations between these methods as well as correlations among accuracies for judging specific traits.

METHOD

The present article documents relations among these approaches based on meta-analysis of five studies of zero-acquaintance impressions of the Big Five traits.

RESULTS

Trait accuracies correlated only weakly with overall and normative profile accuracy. Substantial convergence between the trait and profile accuracy methods was only found when an aggregate of all five trait accuracies was correlated with distinctive profile accuracy. Importantly, however, correlations between the trait and profile accuracy approaches were reduced to negligibility when statistical overlap was corrected by removing the respective trait from the profile correlations. Moreover, correlations of the separate trait accuracies with each other were very weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Different ways of measuring individual differences in personality judgment accuracy are not conceptually and empirically the same, but rather represent distinct abilities that rely on different judgment processes.