Gaydar:

Visual Detection of Sexual Orientation

Among Gay and Straight Men
Scott G. Shelp, RN CEN BA
California State University, Northridge

ABSTRACT. Currently, American gay people believe they have a unique

ability to pick each other out in a crowd (often termed “gaydar” [“gay” + “ra-
dar”]). This was established through a nationwide Internet-mediated survey
(n = 460). To test for the presence of this ability in gay men, the researcher
asked self-identified gay and straight male participants to view a series of un-
familiar men on videotape and determine the sexual orientation of each. The
higher overall accuracy of gay men demonstrated a trend level difference
from their straight cohorts although falling short (primarily due to small sam-
ple size) of the p < 0.05 level. A theory for the emergence of this skill (termed
“Adaptive Gaydar” by the author) as a unique perceptual ability/coping
mechanism unique among gay people is also presented. [Article copies avail-
able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.
E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Scott G. Shelp is a graduate student and Marriage and Family Trainee at California
State University, Northridge (CSUN). He currently practices as a board-certified emer-
gency nurse in Los Angeles and is Executive Director of the CSUN HelpLine. This re-
search was completed while he was an undergraduate in the Department of Psychology
at CSUN. The author wishes to thank Dr. Howard B. Lee, Dr. Russell Hunter, Dr. Gary
Katz, Dr. Bill Mochon, Marine Kalamdaryan, Tony Hillbruner, and “Tommy” for their
assistance and support. Correspondence may be addressed: 16867 Kingsbury St.,
#142, Granada Hills, CA 91344-6406 (E-mail: scottcsunmft@aol.com).
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 44(1) 2002
http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J082
 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
2 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

KEYWORDS. Homosexuality-male, gaydar, gadar, detection-visual, per-

son-perception, sexual-orientation, gay-men, gay, radar, sexuality

Can you tell if a man is gay just by looking at him? Most gay men
think they can pick each other out in a crowd. This special ability is com-
monly referred to as “gaydar” (“gay” + “radar”). This slang term is used by
lesbians and others as well; however, this study focuses on gay men.
Gaydar has appeared in popular gay literature. According to the hu-
morous book The Unofficial Gay Manual (DiLallo & Krumholtz,
1994), “gaydar” is defined as:

gay-dar [gay + radar]: the instinctual ability [of gay men] to ascer-
tain that another guy is gay, even in the absence of telltale signs.
(p. 218)

In Cassell’s Queer Companion–A Dictionary of Lesbian and Gay Life

and Culture (Stewart 1995), this entry appears:

gadar [sic] From gay and radar. The intuitive force that allows gay
men to recognize one another. . . . (p. 94)

TOWARD A THEORY OF GAYDAR

Despite the tongue-in-cheek manner in which “gaydar” is often dis-

cussed informally, there may be some truth to this notion. For purposes
of discussing the theory behind gaydar, a more specific definition is
suggested: “A special intuitive or perceptual sensibility (sense-ability)
of gay people to detect subtle identifying characteristics in other gay
people, the development of which is motivated by the desire to remove
feelings of isolation many have experienced growing up gay, and the
basic human need for association with like others.” Distinguish this
“Adaptive Gaydar” from the general notion of being able to look and
tell who is gay (“generic gaydar”). The basics of learning to pick out
certain clues to gayness may be learned by anyone, not just gay people.
However, the major distinction here is the motivation behind the devel-
opment of the skill among gay and lesbian people and (presumably)
their higher acuity as well.
This report will present a case for this “Adaptive Gaydar” among gay
men by illustrating the following points:
 Scott G. Shelp 3

1. There exist subtle differences in gay and straight men, in general.

2. There are strong psychological motivations for gay people to de-
velop a perceptual skill to detect these differences.
3. Gay men as a group believe they have this skill and they see it as
quite accurate.
4. A carefully designed test may demonstrate a unique ability among
gay men to determine the sexual orientation of strangers.
5. In the future, similar studies may further examine this and related
phenomena.

Gay Men and Straight Men: Same or Different? Is there really any
significant difference in gay and straight men for gaydar to detect? A
number of researchers have begun to demonstrate that, although there
are generally no obvious outward distinctions between gay and straight
men, certain distinctive physical and personality characteristics are of-
ten shared by many gay men.
Bogaert and Blanchard’s (1996) study revealed no relation between
sexual orientation and left- or right-handedness. However, Bogaert and
Hershberger (1999) found significant differences in penile size. Like-
wise, Linville (1998) in her study demonstrated measurable (objective)
and recognizable (subjective) differences in the speech patterns of gay
men.
Nieto’s (1996) study “Who is the male homosexual?” identified cer-
tain general characteristics of gay men:

(1) relative abstention from tobacco, alcohol, and drug use, (2) rel-
atively high educational attainment, and (3) personality character-
istics which tend to be other-oriented and reflective of keen
awareness of and sensitivity to relationships. (p. 120)

More germane to the present study, however, may be his finding that a
disproportionate number of gay men were identified as belonging to two
of the 16 personality types as evaluated with the Myers-Briggs Personal-
ity Type Indicator (MBTI). These were “Extroversion-iNtuitor-Feel-
ing-Perception” (ENFP) “The Champion” and “Extroversion-iNtuitor-
Feeling-Judgment” (ENFJ) “The Teacher.” Nieto noted that 14.8% and
14.5% of gay men fall into each of these two type categories (respec-
tively) compared to the 5% for each type found in the general popula-
tion. In fact, when the frequency distributions of all 16 possible MBTI
personality types of the gay men in this study were plotted in descend-
4 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

ing order and compared to the general population, Nieto revealed a

nearly perfect negative correlation (r = ⫺ 0.9) (p. 111).
Could these people give clues to their personalities in everyday inter-
actions? Could someone learn to pick out individuals with these person-
ality types by watching and listening to them?
It is also worth noting that these two types also comprise 29.3% of
gaydar targets and users. Nieto (1996) mentions outstanding abilities in
the area of intuition and awareness of others in his descriptions of
ENFJs and ENFPs. He characterizes ENFPs as “brilliantly percep-
tive,” and of ENFJs: “[Their] intuition tends to be well developed . . .
Generally, they . . . can read other people with outstanding accuracy . . .
(p. 115).” And so it seems nearly a third of gay men have not only the
basic desires and unique life experiences which create fertile ground for
the growth of gaydar, but a personality which includes a bent toward the
intuitive as well.
Gaydar as a Child of the Need for Association and Belonging. Gay
people as much as anyone else need association with others to survive
and thrive. One clue to this value can be found in the slang that gay peo-
ple often use to refer to each other. Casually, a gay person may ask if
some person is gay by saying, “Is so-and-so ‘family’?” The use of the
term “family” reveals the value gay people place on fellow members of
their “tribe.” As an invisible minority, gay people must actively seek
out those like them or continue to feel isolated.
In our society, isolation is a common theme in the growing up experi-
ences of many gay people. These feelings of isolation during childhood
and adolescence arise as an individual realizes that his or her sexuality
deviates from the norm. (Although many report not knowing what was
different about them as children, only that they were “different some-
how.”) Clark (1998) describes it this way:

Whatever the age of awareness [of one’s gayness] (and for most it
is quite young) there follows a long period of quiet, internal, emo-
tional struggle. It is a lonely secret. Consciously or not, you be-
come an alert gatherer of information. You listen for news of
others who have the same feelings, and most of the available news
is bad. Rarely is there a truly respected friend of the family or truly
loved relative who is openly Gay [Clark’s capitalization]. There
are few, if any, apparent respectable models. You feel caught,
pulled in the direction of your impulses and feelings, yet held by
the repugnance of becoming an outcast. (p. 84)
 Scott G. Shelp 5

Clark describes a self-protecting mechanism (probably a close rela-

tive to gaydar) that develops in the psyche of gay people. He calls it the
“Gay Early Warning System.” It keeps watch for signs of hostility
against gay people in others’ actions, words and body language. His
comments seem to support the theory for the development of gaydar:
“[The Gay Early Warning System] provides plenty of practice in notic-
ing words chosen, posture, voice intonation, and facial expression”
(p. 108). These may well serve as the seeds of Adaptive Gaydar, the
skill needed in order to find “others like me” and remove the pain of
lonely feelings.
This was echoed in the results of The Internet Coming Out Survey
(ICOS) conducted by this author which found 72.3% of gay men re-
ported they felt isolated during the time they first realized they were gay
(n = 83). Of these, 96.4% felt lonely at least some of the time, 62.7% of-
ten or very much.
The need for association is well accepted within psychology.
Baumeister and Leary (1995) reviewed the literature to lend empirical
support to what we all know to be true: that people need people. Their
“belongingness hypothesis” characterizes belonging as a basic human
need, and is supported by their findings that “social bonds are formed
very readily, . . . broken down with great reluctance, and . . . the exis-
tence of or potential for social relationships shapes cognition and emo-
tion, and that suggests that the need to belong is indeed fundamental and
pervasive” (Manstead, p. 240).
How much more true, then, for members of a stigmatized and invisi-
ble minority! This can be evidenced by results of the ICOS where less
than half (41%) of gay men personally knew another gay or lesbian per-
son. Of those who did not, 90.3% wished at least some of the time that
they knew someone else who was lesbian or gay. Of those who did,
81.1% wished at least some of the time they knew more gay or lesbian
people. Did these men act on this desire to connect with others like
them? Twenty-nine percent said they sought and found other gays,
27.7% quietly kept an eye open for these others, 18.1% wanted to, did
not know how, 15.1% wanted to but were afraid of being found out
themselves. Only 4.6% said they felt no need to seek out others and a
very small minority–2.4%–reported they actually avoided known gay
and lesbian people.
While not mentioning gaydar or gay people in particular, Manstead
(1997) recognizes that “if [Baumeister and Leary’s] belongingness hy-
pothesis is correct, then the need to form and maintain social bonds is
6 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

likely to be a motivational force at the heart of many social-psychologi-

cal phenomena” . . . and “those who for one reason or another find it dif-
ficult to form or maintain relationships will suffer as a result of the
non-fulfillment of the fundamental need to belong (p. 241).”
It is also clear why straight people would not have Adaptive Gaydar.
First, they do not experience the isolation from being stigmatized as is
the case for many gay and lesbian people. In addition, the courtship and
mate-finding rituals are well established in all cultures for heterosexu-
als. Further, homosexuality has long been taboo in the Western world;
straight people would hesitate to even mention it, much less try to guess
who “is.” In such a society, there is no need for heterosexuals to have a
heightened ability to distinguish gay from straight strangers.
In summary, the presence of subtle differences in gay and straight
men, the natural distaste for loneliness and need for association among
gay men spawn this unique perceptive ability designated as “Adaptive
Gaydar” that straight people do not and need not possess. This is illus-
trated in Figures 1 and 2.
Extension of this line of thinking gives rise to some interesting no-
tions. For instance, one would expect a more finely-tuned gaydar in
those gay people who report particularly lonely and isolated grow-
ing-up experiences, or that those who live in areas of large, visible gay
populations (West Hollywood, San Francisco, Greenwich Village)
would have a less-developed skill (since there is greater ease of finding
other gay people in these places). These notions significantly impact the
interpretation of results from the present study and are discussed in
more detail later.
Gaydar, a Part of Gay Culture. Saghir and Robins (1973) found that
71% of gay men and 41% of lesbians believed they were able to recog-
nize other gay people of the same gender in casual encounters. These
data are considerably lower than the findings of the Internet Gaydar
Survey (IGS) which was conducted by this author to verify the presence
of gaydar as a cultural phenomenon among gay men in preparation for
the present empirical investigation.
The IGS revealed that 94% of gay men respondents (n = 249) had
heard of “gaydar” and 86.7% stated they had it themselves. Sev-
enty-nine percent of gay men in the survey believed straight people are
capable of having gaydar too: 23.7% said gay and straights were equal
in their skills, 54.6% stated gays were better. Another 16.1% thought
only gays could possess this skill. Results of this author’s second survey
(the ICOS) are similar: 91.6% say they can tell when someone else is
gay at least sometimes. Perhaps this concept is more recent than 1973
 Scott G. Shelp 7

FIGURE 1. Model “Adaptive Gaydar”

Motivating Factors
for Gay/Lesbian Feelings of
People Loneliness &
Isolation

Desire to Remove
Stigma against Basic Need for
Lonely/Isolated
Homosexuality Belongingness
Feelings
General Invisibility
of Gay/Lesbian
People as a Attempts to
Minority Social Interactions
Determine Sexual with Gay/Lesbian
Orientation of
Subtle Differences Strangers People
Between Gay &
Straight People

Improved Gaydar
Identification of Accuracy and
Aspects of the Other Gay Increased Confidence
Social Environment People in One’s Own Gaydar
Ability
Relevant to the
Development of
Ultimate Goal:
Gaydar Mitigation of
Isolation /
Loneliness

when Saghir and Robins ran their study. Nonetheless, gaydar exists
now in the minds of gay people.
Testing for Gaydar: The 1987 Berger Study. The work done in 1987
by Berger, Hank, Rauzi, and Simkins (1987) is the only published re-
search similar to the present study. This study at the University of Mis-
souri, Kansas City attempted to test gay and straight men and women in
their abilities to detect the sexual orientation of 24 target persons pre-
sented on videotape. Eighty percent of the 143 participants scored no
better than chance levels on this task. The research team concluded that
no one group was particularly skilled in this task (p. 83).
Further, they investigated the cues used to make such determinations.
They observe that “there is a paucity of empirical data on the behavioral
cues that may be associated with the reliable detection of sexual orienta-
tion in casual or brief encounters” (Berger, p. 84). To do this, partici-
pants were asked to report the primary reason they decided as they did
and these responses were compared. The only significant predictor vari-
8 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

FIGURE 2. Comparison Model of “Generic Gaydar”

What are the

Motivating Factors
for Straights?

Desire to
Understand Gay/Lesbian
Stigma against Friends, Family,
Homosexuality Co-workers?
???
General Invisibility
of Gay/Lesbian
People as a Attempts to
Minority Determine Sexual Social Interactions
Orientation of with Gay/Lesbian
Subtle Differences Strangers People
Between Gay &
Straight People
Improved Gaydar
Identification of Accuracy and
Aspects of the Other Gay Increased Confidence
Social Environment in One’s Own Gaydar
People Ab i l i t y
Relevant to the
Development of
Gaydar
Ultimate Goal:
???

able identified was the “No Reason” response given by female partici-
pants. This was incorrectly interpreted to mean that “there was . . . a lot
of guessing involved” (p. 97). It would appear the researchers failed to
appreciate the complexity of the gaydar mechanism. A person assesses
and weighs many factors before an attribution of sexual orientation is
made.
An alternative, multiple-cue approach to studying this phenomenon
was used in the IGS. Respondents were asked to rate each cue they used
in determining the sexual orientation of someone they did not know.
Each item was scaled from zero “gives virtually no information about
sexual orientation” to five “could almost be used independently to de-
termine sexual orientation.” Twenty-seven items were listed and re-
spondents were asked to write in any others they wished. Few additional
cues were offered. The mean scores for each item were ranked and com-
pared for the different sexual orientation groups (gay, straight and bi-
sexual men and women). The highest-ranked item for all groups was the
 Scott G. Shelp 9

presence of a gay pride button or symbol on a person’s clothing. Be-

yond this, the next four items differed qualitatively for the different
groups. Straight people seemed to use common stereotypes to detect
sexuality: (in order for straight women [n = 51]) how a person talks,
dresses, walks, and gestures; (and for straight men [n = 15]): how a per-
son walks, talks, gestures and dresses. Contrast this with gay men’s (n =
249) next four highest rated cues: where a person’s eyes seem to roam,
something intangible–a “twinkle” in a person’s eye, the subjects a per-
son discusses or avoids and how a person talks. Lesbians (n = 73)
ranked cues in this order: how a person dresses, a person’s haircut, the
“twinkle” in a person’s eye, the topics a person discusses or avoids. This
difference in the cues used to evaluate the sexual orientation of a
stranger may reflect the different experience gay and straight people
have in performing this task (more often for gay than straight people)
and the different motivations behind their doing so. Clearly, attempting
to identify one “primary reason” for attributing a sexual orientation to
someone in a brief encounter is naive.
The design of the UMKC study differed from the present empirical
study in several important ways. The stimulus in the UMKC study was
a series of semi-structured interviews. The participants viewed a target
entering a room, getting a cup of coffee, lighting a cigarette and answer-
ing several personal questions. While having the opportunity to observe
targets demonstrating gross motor behaviors (as opposed to the “stand
and talk” scenes used the present study) may enhance ecological valid-
ity, the type of information revealed in the interview portion clearly
contaminated the results of the study.
Targets were asked “How long have you lived in Kansas City?”; “Is
there anything you especially like or dislike about the city?”; “What is
your favorite book, movie and vacation spot?”; “Do you have any par-
ticular hobbies?” (p. 85). These questions invite the target person to re-
veal personal information that may make it fairly easy to determine his
or her sexual orientation if the observer is familiar with gay and lesbian
culture. It was to avoid just such interference that the present study dis-
allowed self-disclosing information from the targets. The UMKC study
may have actually measured the participants’ cultural literacy regarding
gay and lesbian culture and not their perceptual ability (i.e., can partici-
pants recognize the names of well-known gay authors, vacation spots
and the issues important to gay and lesbian people about the city in
which they live if they were mentioned by the targets).
Testing for Gaydar: The Present Study. The purpose of the present
study was to detect evidence that gay men have a unique ability to detect
10 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

the sexual orientation of unfamiliar men using only visual input. That is,
they are more accurate than their non-gay cohorts. Visual detection is an
integral part of this phenomenon known as “gaydar” since people gen-
erally see each other before hearing or interacting with them. Linville
(1998) and other similar studies have already supported the notion that
voice characteristics carry useful information about the speaker’s sex-
ual orientation. In light of this, auditory input was eliminated from the
stimulus used here. A comparison was made between gay and straight
participants to determine if gay participants were more skilled at this
perceptual task. Care was taken to design as valid a study as practical to
test this perceptual or “intuitive” skill in isolation.

METHOD

Participant Selection. The participants were 15 self-identified gay men

and 12 self-identified straight men living in the Los Angeles area at the time
of the study. Gay men ranged in age from 19 to 47 (mean = 32.9), straight
men ranged in age from 18 to 48 (mean = 32.1).
Each participant was asked to self-identify as “gay,” “straight,” or “other”
confidentially on the questionnaire. Since this study compares the abilities of
gay vs. straight men. Any information from participants who indicated
“other” was removed from the sample.
Participants were also asked if he knew or recognized any of the men
shown in the stimulus video. Any familiarity with those men in the video
would have biased the results. Any participant who indicated they knew one
or more stimulus video models had his responses removed from the sample.
Deaf participants were disqualified since it is reasonable to believe those
who rely heavily on their vision may also develop a keener sense of reading
faces for a variety of subtle cues, including those that suggest sexual orienta-
tion. Blind participants were disqualified categorically.
One respondent to the IGS commented that his gaydar seemed not to
work well when observing foreign men. This could be explained by the dif-
ferences in personal space, mannerisms and acceptable patterns of touching
within different cultures. Participants for this study were chosen from the
population of American men to exclude the possibility that cultural distance
between participants and the models interfered in the evaluating of the im-
ages. That is to say, participants and models were from the same culture.
 Scott G. Shelp 11

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS STUDY

Gay: sexually attracted to those of the same sex (in this case, men).
Synonyms: homosexual, homo-affectional.
Straight: sexually attracted to those of the opposite sex (in this case,
women). Synonym: heterosexual.
Bisexual: sexually attracted to both men and women alternately or si-
multaneously (not included in this study).
American: an individual who has grown up in the continental United
States, speaks English as a primary language and has not studied overseas
before the age of eighteen.
Apparatus and Materials. The stimulus video tape was produced
specifically for this study. It depicted seven men, from the waist-up,
speaking into the camera for 45 seconds each. Although there was no
audio, the men were in fact describing the basic plot of a movie (a
non-sexual, non-self-disclosing topic). No personal information about
the models was ever disclosed (name, age, sexual orientation, marital
status, where he was from or where he lived). This gave the participants
the opportunity to observe the models’ general appearance, gestures
and eye and body movement.
The video included instructions for the study at the beginning and a
debriefing at the end. During the stimulus portion of the tape, the model
number (1-7) appeared just before each model to aid the participants in
keeping track of which man they were evaluating. Participants viewed
the stimulus material in color on television screens no smaller than 13”
diagonally.

PROCEDURE

Participants were asked to identify the sexual orientation (gay or

straight) of each of the seven men they would see on the videotape. They
were informed that each man had self-identified as one or the other (i.e.,
there were no bisexual men involved in this study). Participants were
shown the video only once and were allowed to write down their own re-
sponses as well as demographic information about themselves. Each par-
ticipant was studied alone. This was to allow participants to make
determinations on their own without pressure, influence or input from
other people. To maintain confidentiality, the true sexual orientations of
the videotaped models were never revealed to the participants, nor was
the nature of the participants’ responses revealed to the models.
12 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

RESULTS

In comparison, the mean percentage of correct identifications given

by gay men participants was higher (i.e., more accurate) than that of the
straight men participants (64.22% for gay, 53.50% for straight). Stan-
dard deviations were similar (17.765 for gay, 17.016 for straight). How-
ever, when subjected to an independent two-sample t-test, t = 1.661, there
was no statistical significance at the p = .05 level. The calculated p =
.0769.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The present evidence that gaydar is a unique perceptual ability is at the

trend level (p < .08). This may be explained by participant recruitment tech-
niques. In this study, the majority of participants were solicited in public in
West Hollywood, California. The large gay population of this area was a
ready source of gay participants but may have provided atypical straight par-
ticipants. Straight men who live in a “gay area” such as West Hollywood cer-
tainly have much more experience interacting with a variety of gay men and
are probably more able to identify them on sight (generic gaydar) than
straight men from other areas. Their unexpectedly high accuracy could have
biased the results and may account for the lack of statistical significance of
the data. The gay men of West Hollywood may also be a less-than-typical
subject pool for such a study. As suggested earlier, the ease of identifying
other gay people in such an area as this may decrease the need for a height-
ened ability to detect them (gaydar).
However, if one chooses to see this study as the test of the two least likely
subject groups, any significance found is likely to be amplified among more
typical participants. That is, if the gay men of West Hollywood (arguably the
gay men with the worst Adaptive Gaydar) can show more ability compared
to the straight men of West Hollywood (arguably the straight men with the
best generic gaydar), such findings are strong evidence that such a special
ability exists between the “average” gay and straight male populations.
Second, it was noted that gay men scored more accurately than their
straight counterparts in evaluating the two straight models. Future stimuli
should include more than these two since it is equally, if not more important
to determine who is not gay as who is. (Violence has been known to occur
when a gay man has made advances toward a straight man. The most recent
publicized example of this is the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyo-
ming. His accused killer raised the defense that Matthew had made unwel-
 Scott G. Shelp 13

come sexual advances towards him that evening [Cullen, 1998]. This author
also once personally knew a man in rural Missouri whose stabbing death was
rumored to have been precipitated by just such a lapse in judgment [a lapse in
gaydar?].)
Also, gay target models in future study of this sort should be less “ob-
vious” than some of those used. Those men who display obvious
stereotypically gay mannerisms are easier for everyone–gay and
straight–to identify, requiring no special perceptual ability. To test for this
unique skill, models should be selected to avoid such “giveaways.” Obvi-
ously gay targets were correctly identified as such by the vast majority of
both gay and straight participants.
There is another aspect of the whole phenomenon of gaydar that is worth
considering. Aside from the difference in gay and straight men’s accuracy rat-
ings, the more interesting distinction may be that gay men attempt to make
such a determination much more frequently for the reasons theorized above.
Most people probably assume strangers are straight until given a reason to
think otherwise (since most people are heterosexual). In a real-life situation, a
given participant would have probably assumed the person (target) was
straight (although sometimes incorrectly) unless he was given reason to
“question his sexuality” (such as being asked by a researcher). He would
probably not have considered sexual orientation in his process of per-
sonal social attribution. To pose the question to him is rather artificial.
Perhaps to capture this aspect of the gay male psyche, the participants
should have been asked, “Is there anything that makes you think that
Man #1 is not straight?” or “Man #1 is straight. True or false?” Or par-
ticipants could be shown a small number of men and then afterwards be
asked if they noticed that any of the men they saw were gay. The hy-
pothesis would then be that straight men would show they do not rou-
tinely think about the issue and tend to say something like, “Oh, I didn’t
really notice” while gay men would reveal that the issue is always in the
back of their minds by saying something to the effect of, “Yeah, I was
wondering about that one guy (suspecting he might be gay) . . .” Such an
alternative design would focus not on how accurately gay men can de-
termine sexual orientation of strangers more accurately than straight
men, but on how much more often the question is raised in their minds.
The present study can certainly serve as a platform from which to launch
further study of gaydar. The possibilities for future study on this phenom-
enon are numerous. They may seek to answer questions such as:

• Is the accuracy of gaydar effected when evaluating people of

another culture or of the other sex?
14 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

• How do all six sexual orientation groups (gay, straight and bisex-
ual men and women) compare in their gaydar abilities and the cues
they use?
• What is the relative strength of auditory versus visual cues?

as well as the other aspects of this phenomenon just outlined. Studies such as
these would serve to focus the picture of gaydar we have begun to sketch.
If gaydar can be supported by future study, its existence would be a sig-
nificant part of an overall understanding of the experience of gay people,
their need for association, their struggles with finding “others like me” and
the adaptive strategies they use, including the development of a complex
sensory/perceptual survival skill to help them meet their basic need for asso-
ciation.

REFERENCES
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
495-529.
Berger, G., Hank, L., Rauzi, T. and Simkins, L. (1987). “Detection of sexual orienta-
tion by heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 13(4). 83-100.
Bogaert, A. F. & Blanchard, R. (1996). Handedness in homosexual and heterosexual
men in the Kinsey interview data. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 373-378.
Bogaert, A. F. & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and
penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 213-221.
Clark, D. (1998). Loving someone gay, revised and updated. Berkeley, CA: Celestial
Arts.
Cullen, D. (1998). Gay panic [Web page]. Salon.com, San Francisco. Retrieved No-
vember 27, 1999 from the World Wide Web: www.salon.com/news/feature/
1999/10/26/trial/index.html.
DiLallo, K. & Krumholtz, J. (1994). The unofficial gay manual. New York:
Doubleday.
Linville, S. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation
in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35-48.
Manstead, A.S.R. (1997). Attribution and attachment. In McGarty, C. & Haslam,
S.A., (Eds.), The message of social psychology, perspectives on mind in society.
(pp. 240-241). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Nieto, D. S. (1996). Who is the male homosexual? A computer-mediated exploratory
study of gay male bulletin board system (BBS) users in New York City. Journal of
Homosexuality, 30, 97-124.
Saghir, M.T. & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality. Baltimore: Wil-
liams & Wilkins.
Stewart, W. (1995). Cassell’s queer companion, A dictionary of lesbian and gay life
and culture. London: Cassell.