BIDAR: Can Listeners Detect if a Man Is Bisexual from His Voice Alone?

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of participant characteristics.

		Target speakers				Listeners/Raters
	Sexual orientation	Gay (n = 20)	Bisexual (n = 20)	Straight (n = 20)	Sex	Female (n = 42)	Male (n = 28)
Age
		27.75 (9.60)	28.30 (10.14)	27.9 (9.36)		20.38 (5.7)	20.35 (1.96)
Ethnicity
	Caucasian	17	16	17		29	18
	Asian	1	2	0		8	7
	Hispanic	1	0	0		0	0
	Middle Eastern	0	0	0		1	1
	Other/Mixed	0	2	3		4	1
Religion
	Christian	5	5	5		15	2
	Judaism	5	0	1		1	0
	Buddhism	0	0	1		0	1
	Hinduism	0	0	0		2	1
	Islam	0	0	0		0	2
	Atheist/No Religion	13	12	13		22	20
Sexual orientation (9-point)	Other	28.80 (.52)	35.30 (.1.93)	01.00 (.00)		2 n/a	2 n/a

Figure 1. Illustration of the number of correctly identified gay, bisexual, and straight voices out of 1,400 judgments. The horizontal line indicates the frequency expected due to chance.

Table 2. Mean proportion (and standard deviations) of correct sexual orientation judgments by sexual orientation of stimulus and distribution of voice ratings.

Speaker sexual orientation	Gay (n = 20)	Bisexual (n = 20)	Straight (n = 20)
Proportion correctly identified	.385ab (.106)	.334ac (.102)	.464bc (.115)
Distribution of voice ratings
Rated gay	508	283	299
Rated bisexual	479	460	451
Rated straight	401	657	650

Different subscripts in a row indicate significant difference, p < .001.

Figure 2. Mean Kinsey ratings of gay, bisexual, and straight voices. Note due to the within-subjects nature of the design, the 95% CI should be interpreted with caution. See Franz & Loftus (2012) for review.

Figure 3. Ratings of femininity-masculinity by sexual orientation of speaker. Note due to the within-subjects nature of the design, the 95% CI should be interpreted with caution. See Franz and Loftus (2012) for review.

Figure 4. Mean Kinsey rating of gay and straight voices, as well as the three subtypes of bisexual voices. Note due to the within-subjects nature of the design, the 95% CI should be interpreted with caution. See Franz & Loftus (2012) for review.

Figure 5. Ratings of femininity-masculinity by sexual orientation of speaker (inclusive of gay, straight, and three subtypes of bisexual voices). Note due to the within-subjects nature of the design, the 95% CI should be interpreted with caution. See Franz and Loftus (2012) for review.