4.4 Article

Interest, Personality, and Sexual Traits That Distinguish Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Individuals: Are There Two Dimensions That Underlie Variations in Sexual Orientation?

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 607-622

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01643-9

关键词

Sexual orientation; Sex drive; Sociosexuality; Gender-related interests; Masculinity-femininity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A diverse U.S. sample comprising 1437 men and 1474 women was assessed on sexual orientation, masculinity-femininity of occupational preferences (MF-Occ), self-ascribed masculinity-femininity (Self-MF), Big Five personality traits, sex drive, and sociosexuality (positive attitudes toward uncommitted sex). Discriminant analyses explored which traits best distinguished self-identified heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals within each sex. These analyses correctly classified the sexual orientation of 55% of men and 60% of women, which was substantially better than a chance rate (33%) of assigning participants to one of three groups. For men, MF-Occ and Self-MF distinguished heterosexual, bisexual, and gay men, with heterosexual men most gender typical, gay men most gender atypical, and bisexual men intermediate. Independently, higher sex drive, sociosexuality, and neuroticism and lower conscientiousness distinguished bisexual men from other groups. For women, gender-related interests and Self-MF distinguished lesbians from other groups, with lesbians most gender atypical. Independently, higher sociosexuality, sex drive, and Self-MF distinguished non-heterosexual from heterosexual women. These findings suggest that variations in self-reported sexual orientation may be conceptualized in terms of two broad underlying individual difference dimensions, which differ somewhat for men and women: one linked to gender typicality versus gender atypicality and the other linked to sex drive, sociosexuality, and various personality traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据