↓ Skip to main content

Accurate Identification of a Preference for Insertive Versus Receptive Intercourse from Static Facial Cues of Gay Men

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
74 X users
weibo
1 weibo user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Accurate Identification of a Preference for Insertive Versus Receptive Intercourse from Static Facial Cues of Gay Men
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10508-013-0092-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantin O. Tskhay, Nicholas O. Rule

Abstract

In intercourse between men, one of the partners typically assumes the role of an insertive partner (top) while the other assumes a receptive role (bottom). Although some research suggests that the perceptions of potential partners' sexual roles in gay men's relationships can affect whether a man will adopt the role of top or bottom during sexual intercourse, it remains unclear whether sexual roles could be perceived accurately by naïve observers. In Study 1, we found that naïve observers were able to discern men's sexual roles from photos of their faces with accuracy that was significantly greater than chance guessing. Moreover, in Study 2, we determined that the relationship between men's perceived and actual sexual roles was mediated by perceived masculinity. Together, these results suggest that people rely on perceptions of characteristics relevant to stereotypical male-female gender roles and heterosexual relationships to accurately infer sexual roles in same-sex relationships. Thus, same-sex relationships and sexual behavior may be perceptually framed, understood, and possibly structured in ways similar to stereotypes about opposite-sex relationships, suggesting that people may rely on these inferences to form accurate perceptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 52 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 38%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Linguistics 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2020.
All research outputs
#471,494
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#271
of 3,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,164
of 213,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.