See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5657573

Sexual Orientation and Childhood Gender Nonconformity: Evidence From

Home Videos

Article  in  Developmental Psychology · February 2008

DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.46 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
187 4,635

4 authors, including:

Gerulf Rieger J. Michael Bailey

University of Essex Northwestern University
71 PUBLICATIONS   1,641 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   7,707 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Michael Bailey on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Developmental Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 44, No. 1, 46 –58 0012-1649/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.46

Sexual Orientation and Childhood Gender Nonconformity: Evidence From

Home Videos

Gerulf Rieger and Joan A. W. Linsenmeier Lorenz Gygax

Northwestern University Swiss Federal Veterinary Office

J. Michael Bailey
Northwestern University

Homosexual adults tend to be more gender nonconforming than heterosexual adults in some of their
behaviors, feelings, and interests. Retrospective studies have also shown large differences in childhood
gender nonconformity, but these studies have been criticized for possible memory biases. The authors
studied an indicator of childhood gender nonconformity not subject to such biases: childhood home
videos. They recruited homosexual and heterosexual men and women (targets) with videos from their
childhood and subsequently asked heterosexual and homosexual raters to judge the gender nonconfor-
mity of the targets from both the childhood videos and adult videos made for the study. Prehomosexual
children were judged more gender nonconforming, on average, than preheterosexual children, and this
pattern obtained for both men and women. This difference emerged early, carried into adulthood, and was
consistent with self-report. In addition, targets who were more gender nonconforming tended to recall
more childhood rejection.

Keywords: sexual orientation, development, sex-typed behavior, behavioral observation

On average, gay men tend to be somewhat more feminine, and
lesbians somewhat more masculine, compared with heterosexual
people of their own sex. That is, homosexual people tend to be
relatively gender nonconforming. These tendencies do not occur
for all possible gender-related traits (e.g., Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, &
Gladue, 1994), but they do occur for a range of behaviors, feelings,
and interests (e.g., Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999; Bailey,
2003; Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Bailey, Finkel, Black-
welder, & Bailey, 1995; Gaudio, 1994; Johnson, Gill, Reichman,
& Tassinary, 2007; Lippa, 2000, 2002).
Many studies have also shown large differences between homo-
sexual and heterosexual people in their memories of how gender
nonconforming they were as children (see the review by Bailey &
Zucker, 1995). However, retrospective reports may be subject to
various biases, and this has provoked skepticism regarding the
validity of the association between sexual orientation and child-
hood gender nonconformity (e.g., Gottschalk, 2003). We investi-
gated the difference in childhood gender nonconformity between
homosexual and heterosexual people using a method not suscep-
tible to memory bias: blind ratings of childhood home videos. We
Gerulf Rieger, Joan A. W. Linsenmeier, and J. Michael Bailey, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Northwestern University; Lorenz Gygax, Swiss Fed-
eral Veterinary Office, Agroscope Tänikon, Ettenhausen, Switzerland.
We thank Shannon Summerfield, Debbie Zutty, Noah Metz, Stella
Fayman, Sarah Kate McGowan, Tamar Carmel, Tom Grant, Ashley Ma-
son, and Evan Drake for their assistance in this research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerulf
Rieger, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheri-
dan Road, Swift Hall #102, Evanston IL 60208. E-mail:
gerulf@northwestern.edu
subsequently examined whether ratings of videos were correlated
with self-reports of gender nonconformity, the relation between
childhood and adult gender nonconformity, and whether the ex-
pression of gender nonconformity was related to reports of past
social treatment.
Masculinity, Femininity, Gender Conformity, and Gender
Nonconformity: Concepts and Terminology
Psychological study of masculinity and femininity has a long,
controversial history (see Lippa, 2005a, Chapter 2). Some of this
controversy concerns terminology, and some of the controversy is
conceptual. A brief review is useful for understanding both the
conceptual background and the methodological limitations of our
study.
Suppose that one assessed men and women on all psychological
traits that differ, on average, between the sexes. If one subse-
quently conducted factor analyses of these traits within each sex,
one would not obtain a general factor of Masculinity–Femininity.
This is so because some traits that differ between the sexes are
uncorrelated within the sexes. This fact motivated interest in
two-factor conceptions of masculinity and femininity by Bem
(1974) and others (e.g., Spence & Helmreich, 1978). As Spence
(1993) and others have noted, however, there is no reason to limit
gender to just two dimensions; it is multifactorial.
Masculine and feminine are, of course, words commonly used
not only in the psychological literature but also in everyday dis-
course. Although each term represents a complex composite of
characteristics and those characteristics most closely associated
with masculinity may not always be exact opposites of those
associated with femininity, people tend to employ these terms in a

46
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY
way that suggests a single dimension. That is, when laypeople rate
others on the traits masculine and feminine, they tend to use these
terms as opposite poles of the same dimension (e.g., Pedhazur &
Tetenbaum, 1979). In the study described herein, we asked some
of our participants to compare other participants to the average
person of the same sex using the terms more masculine and more
feminine as endpoints on a single dimension. Ratings were based
on 10- to 30-s video excerpts. Thus, we did not obtain sophisti-
cated assessments of targets’ personality based on rich samples of
their attitudes, interests, and behaviors but rather measured quick
impressions based on very brief behavior samples. Our index of
interrater reliability (see the Results section) suggests that raters’
quick impressions had a high degree of agreement.
In this article, rather than using the words masculine and femi-
nine, we often use the terms gender nonconforming and gender
conforming. By gender nonconforming we mean men and boys
who are relatively feminine or relatively unmasculine compared
with other men and boys, as well as women and girls who are
relatively masculine or relatively unfeminine compared with other
women and girls. By gender conforming we mean men and boys
who are relatively masculine or relatively unfeminine compared
with other men and boys, as well as women and girls who are
relatively feminine or relatively unmasculine compared with other
women and girls. By our usage, then, an individual who is ex-
tremely gender conforming, like one who is extremely gender
nonconforming, is unusual for his or her sex. Although we write
most often about the origins, development, and measurement of
gender nonconformity, our study is just as much about the origins,
development, and measurement of gender conformity.
Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Sexual Orientation
Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men tend to
recall that during childhood they were more feminine with respect
to their interests, behavior, and self-concepts (see the review by
Bailey & Zucker, 1995). Analogously, homosexual women recall
that they were relatively masculine girls. These differences are
large; effect sizes (Cohen’s ds) are approximately 1.3 for men and
1.0 for women. Specific childhood characteristics that tend to be
gender nonconforming in homosexual people include frequency of
rough play, toy and activity preference, clothing preference, and
role-playing behavior. Retrospective studies have often defined
childhood as before puberty, so their results suggest that these
childhood differences in gender nonconformity emerge before
individuals have developed an adult sexual orientation. However,
an important limitation of these studies is their reliance on self-
report. Memories can be biased or distorted. For example, homo-
sexual adults may be more likely than heterosexual adults to
acknowledge past gender nonconformity. It is thus uncertain how
much researchers can trust these recollections of childhood behav-
iors (Gottschalk, 2003; but see Zucker, 2005).
A few prospective studies have also assessed the link between
childhood gender nonconformity and sexual orientation (see
Bailey & Zucker, 1995). The most extensive study to date fol-
lowed two groups of boys into adulthood (Green, 1987). One
group included 66 boys who showed pronounced gender-
nonconforming behaviors, such as cross-dressing. The other group
consisted of 56 typical boys. For two thirds of each group, sexual
orientation was assessed in or after adolescence. About 75% of the
47
formerly gender-nonconforming boys but none of the typical boys
reported a bisexual or homosexual orientation. Similar findings
were recently reported for 25 very gender-nonconforming girls,
who were more likely than the typical girls to report a bisexual or
homosexual orientation in adulthood (Drummond, Peterson-
Badali, & Zucker, 2008). However, even though prospective stud-
ies have shown that children with objectively pronounced gender-
nonconforming behaviors were likely to become homosexual, it is
unclear how much the findings generalize to the development of
most homosexual people. Children with extreme gender noncon-
formity are rare, and it is at least conceivable that most homosex-
ual people showed minimal gender nonconformity during child-
hood.
Although both retrospective and prospective studies have limi-
tations, they converge on the conclusion that there is a strong link
between sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity.
However, it is clearly desirable to investigate this association in
ways that avoid the aforementioned limitations. Home videos of
prehomosexual children (i.e., children who later identified as ho-
mosexual in adulthood) provide a relatively objective behavior
sample that can be rated blindly with respect to adult sexual
orientation. Such videos can provide a measure of childhood
gender nonconformity not subject to the recall bias that may affect
retrospective studies based on self-report, and they can also be
obtained from a more representative sample compared with the
prospective studies of very gender-nonconforming children.
Consistency Among Measures of Gender Nonconformity
Homosexual people not only tend to report more gender non-
conformity in their childhood; they also tend to be more gender
nonconforming as adults in some respects, including their self-
concepts (Bailey et al., 1995, 2000), their occupational and recre-
ational interests (see the review by Lippa, 2005b), their move-
ments (Ambady et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2007), and their speech
patterns (e.g., Gaudio, 1994). However, the degree to which child-
hood gender nonconformity predicts adult gender nonconformity
is unclear, and in the current study we tried to estimate this
relationship.
A second question involving consistency of measures has to do
with the use of self-reports versus ratings by observers. Most
studies of gender nonconformity and sexual orientation have used
self-report measures of gender nonconformity. Because behaviors
displayed in videos can be rated by others, they allow investigation
into the reliability and validity of such self-reports. This, too, was
addressed in our study.
Social Correlates of Childhood Gender Nonconformity
Reactions of others to gender-nonconforming children tend to
be negative. Parents do not generally encourage gender noncon-
formity in their children (e.g., Caldera, Huston, & O’Brien, 1989;
Jacklin, DiPietro, & Maccoby, 1984; Langlois & Downs, 1980;
Tauber, 1979). Peers are especially discouraging of gender-
nonconforming behaviors; in particular, boys discourage such be-
havior in other boys (e.g., Carter & McCloskey, 1983; Fagot,
1977, 1985; Langlois & Downs, 1980). Consequently, homosexual
men who were more gender-nonconforming boys recall more
rejection by their parents and peers (Landolt et al., 2004) and recall
48 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY
being treated more negatively by their peers (Saghir & Robins,
1973). Perhaps because of this social pressure, many gender-
nonconforming boys who become homosexual men seem to sup-
press or lose their gender nonconformity as they grow up (Bell,
Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Harry, 1982).
Childhood rejection may have long-term psychological conse-
quences. For example, family problems because of childhood
gender nonconformity may persist into adulthood; these include
problematic relationships with parents, particularly with one’s
father (Beard & Bakeman, 2000; Freund & Blanchard, 1983).
Other studies found negative correlations of childhood gender
nonconformity with psychological well-being in adulthood (Harry,
1983a, 1983b; Skidmore, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2006; Weinrich
et al., 1992). Landolt et al. (2004) suggested that the link between
childhood gender nonconformity and psychological well-being in
adulthood is mediated by childhood rejection by parents and peers.
The present study also explored the correlations of recalled child-
hood rejection with measures of gender nonconformity based on
both observer ratings of videos and self-reports.
The Present Study
We recruited homosexual and heterosexual adults who had
videos from their childhood (i.e., from ages 0 to 15 years), and we
also videotaped them during an interview. We then asked partic-
ipants to recall their degree of gender nonconformity during child-
hood and during adulthood and to recall treatment by others during
childhood. Subsequently, we recruited homosexual and heterosex-
ual adults to rate the degree of gender nonconformity from both the
childhood and the adult video clips. We focused on four main
questions. First, do videos reveal increased gender nonconformity
in the prehomosexual children? Second, does gender nonconfor-
mity persist from childhood into adulthood? Third, do self-reports
of childhood and adult gender nonconformity correspond with
observer ratings? Finally, do individuals who are more gender
nonconforming, both in their childhood and in adulthood, recall
that others treated them more negatively as children?
Method
Recruitment and Participants
Targets as adults. We placed advertisements in an urban al-
ternative newspaper (The Chicago Reader) and an alternative Web
site (chicago.craigslist.org), which are read by both heterosexual
and homosexual people in the greater Chicago area. Advertise-
ments were placed in the classified sections under miscellaneous
job opportunities. Four different advertisements were placed, one
for gay men, one for lesbians, one for straight men, and one for
straight women. For example, one ad read, “Gay men wanted who
have home videos from their childhood and are willing to be
interviewed for a study on child development and sexual orienta-
tion.” Participants who contacted the lab were encouraged to bring
into the lab all available home videos of their childhood, regardless
of their context and number of recordings. They were also told that
we would like to videotape them during a casual interview to have
some record of how they were as adults. Sexual orientation was
assessed by self-identification as gay or straight.
Recruited participants included 21 homosexual men, 20 homo-
sexual women, 23 heterosexual men, and 26 heterosexual women.
Mean ages were 28.6 years (SD ⫽ 7.9), 23.8 years (SD ⫽ 5.3),
25.0 years (SD ⫽ 5.9), and 24.6 years (SD ⫽ 7.4), respectively.
Ages did not significantly differ between groups ( p ⫽ .13; ␤ ⫽
⫺.16, confidence interval [CI] ⫽ ⫺.37 to .05). (The effect size
beta is, throughout this article, the standardized regression coeffi-
cient as derived from multiple regression analyses. Also given is
the 95% CI of the effect. We estimated all group differences by
calculating the main effects of sex, sexual orientation, and their
interaction effect—the combination of sex and sexual orientation.)
Eighty-two percent of targets were Caucasian, and this percentage
did not significantly differ across groups, ␹2(3, N ⫽ 90) ⫽ 2.8, p ⫽
.42. No other demographic information besides age and ethnicity
was collected.
Targets as children. Some targets provided home videos from
only one age period, but others had videos from several ages. For
each target we selected one childhood video clip from each age
represented, which resulted in one to six clips per target (details of
this selection process are given below). The average number of
clips per child was 2.4 (SD ⫽ 1.5), 2.3 (SD ⫽ 1.5), 2.6 (SD ⫽ 1.6),
and 2.3 (SD ⫽ 1.2) for homosexual men, homosexual women,
heterosexual men, and heterosexual women, respectively. Mean
ages represented in the clips were 4.6 years (SD ⫽ 3.6), 5.4 years
(SD ⫽ 3.9), 5.5 years (SD ⫽ 3.6), and 5.5 years (SD ⫽ 3.6),
respectively. These ages were not significantly different between
groups ( p ⫽ .44; ␤ ⫽ .09, CI ⫽ ⫺.13 to .30).
Raters. Twenty homosexual men and 20 homosexual women,
who were recruited via the same media as target participants, and
20 heterosexual men and 22 heterosexual women, who were un-
dergraduate students in an introductory psychology class, rated
video clips from targets. Mean ages of raters were 28.3 years
(SD ⫽ 12.5), 26.4 years (SD ⫽ 7.1), 18.9 years (SD ⫽ 1.2), and
18.4 years (SD ⫽ 0.7), respectively. Homosexual raters were older
than the heterosexual raters ( p ⬍ .0001; ␤ ⫽ .53, CI ⫽ .38 to .69).
The proportion of Caucasians was higher among women (81%)
than among men (50%), ␹2(1, N ⫽ 82) ⫽ 8.4, p ⫽ .004. Because
judgments of the four groups of raters correlated highly with each
other and barely differed (see below), differences in age and
ethnicity did not seem to have important influences on ratings.
Self-Report Measures
Gender nonconformity. Childhood gender nonconformity was
assessed with the Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale (Bailey
et al., 1995), with 7 statements for each sex. Sample items are “As
a child I often felt that I had more in common with [the opposite
sex]” and “I preferred playing with girls rather than boys.” Adult
gender nonconformity was measured with the Continuous Gender
Identity Scale (Bailey et al., 1995), with 10 items for each sex.
Examples include “I feel as if part of me is male and part of me is
female” and “It would be fun to go to a costume party dressed as
[the opposite sex].” Participants rated their agreement with each
item using a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the child-
hood scale was .89 and .91 for men and women, respectively. For
the adult scale the respective numbers were .78 and .83. Responses
to different items were averaged, and higher scores represented
greater gender nonconformity. Items differed somewhat between
the sexes. Hence, targets’ scores for childhood and adult gender
nonconformity were standardized within sex to allow correlational
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY
analyses across the sexes. Similar scales of childhood and adult
gender nonconformity have demonstrated substantial sexual ori-
entation differences (see Bailey et al., 2000). Please see the Ap-
pendix for a complete list of scale items.
Past parental and peer treatment. A 40-item version of the
Recollection of Early Childrearing Scale (Ross, Campbell, &
Clayer, 1982), which is the English version of the Swedish EMBU
(Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran; see Gerlsma, Emmelkamp,
& Arrindell, 1990), was used to assess past rejection versus ac-
ceptance by mothers and by fathers. Sample statements are “My
[father/mother] would punish me hard, even for little things” and
“I think that my [father/mother] wished I had been different in
some way.” Ten items of the Mother–Father–Peer Scale were used
to assess former peer reactions (Epstein, 1983). Sample statements
are “When I was a child, other children picked on me and teased
me” and “Other children were often unfair to me.” These items
were rated on a 7-point scale, and higher numbers indicated more
rejection. Across targets, item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) ex-
ceeded .90 for all three scales. These scales have been used in
other research assessing correlations between self-reported child-
hood gender nonconformity and recalled childhood treatment
(Landolt et al., 2004).
Procedure
Target interviews. We videotaped targets for 20 min, during a
casual interview. Targets sat in a chair in front of a digital camera,
which captured their entire body. For analyses, we used targets’
responses to a question asking them to describe winters in the
Midwest. We used the first complete sentences produced by the
targets within the first 30 s of their answer. Selected videos of all
targets were at least 10 s long. Previous research indicates that
from such short video clips raters can, on average, very reliably
distinguish heterosexual from homosexual targets (Ambady et al.,
1999). Thus, for the purpose of the current study, 10-s videos
seemed a sufficient minimum length. After the interview, targets
completed the questionnaire battery.
Selecting childhood videos. Targets watched their childhood
videos together with the experimenter and identified themselves on
the footage. For each age for which a target had a video sample, we
selected the first scene in which the target was seen for at least
10 s. When possible, we selected clips in which the target child
was alone and spoke or made some other sound. We excerpted a
maximum of 30 s. We then forwarded to the next available scene
in which the child was least a year older and excerpted another 10
to 30 s of material, and so forth until all included ages (0 to 15
years) were covered.
The context of the selected clips varied. The most popular
scenes were simple close-ups of the child, followed by holiday and
birthday parties and family trips to amusement parks. Specific
activities of children also varied across clips, including singing,
dancing, acting, playing, walking, biking, and playing various
sports. The activities depicted in the video, specifically whether
they were activities more commonly performed by boys or by
girls, seemed likely to affect ratings of gender nonconformity. This
was expected because interest in gender-typical activities repre-
sents an important aspect of gender conformity and nonconformity
(Lippa, 2005b). Thus, if, for example, prehomosexual boys were
more likely than preheterosexual boys to engage in female-typical
49
activities, this would contribute to orientation differences in gender
nonconformity ratings. However, behavioral style (i.e., manner of
performing a given activity) could affect ratings, too, and we
attempted to distinguish these effects from effects of activity
differences in our analyses.
Editing videos. Childhood videos came in different formats—
for example, VHS tapes, Video 8 tapes, and DVDs of original
8-mm films. All selected footage was converted into digital files
via the Apple program iMovie.
Rating videos. Equal numbers of raters from each group (het-
erosexual and homosexual men and women) watched each of four
video sets (female child targets, male child targets, female adult
targets, and male adult targets). Each rater first watched children of
one sex and then watched adults of the other sex. Within each set,
videos were presented in random order. Raters indicated their
impression of each target’s appearance or behavior on a 7-point
scale. For example, after each video clip of a boy, the rater was
asked to indicate “whether this boy appeared or behaved in
a more masculine or feminine way.” The score of 1 was
labeled more masculine, 4 was labeled average, and 7 was
labeled more feminine. A reversed scale was used for ratings
of women and girls. Thus, for both sexes 7 represented maxi-
mum gender nonconformity.
Raters received no explicit information about the targets’ sexual
orientation. We asked them to compare each target to the average
person of the same sex and age. We encouraged raters to rate each
video independently, even if they recognized the same child in
more than one video. Each rater was limited to 1 hr of rating
videos.
Descriptions and ratings of childhood activities. Two research
assistants, who had no explicit information about the targets’
sexual orientation, independently watched the selected childhood
videos and wrote down descriptions of each child’s activity. They
were instructed to focus on the activity and ignore physical ap-
pearance, mannerisms, and voice patterns. They then compared
their transcripts; with one exception, they had described identical
activities for each clip. The exception was resolved by discussion
of the two raters. Examples of activities performed by boys are
“5-year-old boy imitating fighting moves with small swords” and
“11-year-old boy dancing to 80’s music, female vocalist.” Exam-
ples of activities performed by girls are “4-year-old girl in tutu
outfit, demonstrating ballet moves” and “7-year-old girl putting
together electric train.”
Six graduate students read the written activity descriptions and
rated them for gender nonconformity using a 7-point scale. Ratings
were completed for one sex of target and then for the other. The
order of sex was random, and, within each sex activity, descrip-
tions were presented in random order.
Results
Interrater Consistency
Within each Target Sex ⫻ Age (i.e., childhood vs. adulthood)
combination, video ratings of the four groups (heterosexual and
homosexual men and women) were highly correlated, with all
correlations exceeding .80. Across all raters, interrater reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha) exceeded .90 within each combination. For
childhood gender nonconformity, the four groups of raters did not
50 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY

differ significantly in how closely their ratings were related to
target’s sexual orientation ( p ⫽ .56; ␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, CI ⫽ ⫺.09 to .05).
For adulthood gender nonconformity, judgments of both male and
female homosexual raters were more closely linked to the targets’
sexual orientation than were judgments of male and female het-
erosexual raters ( p ⫽ .008; ␤ ⫽ .12, CI ⫽ .09 to .15). However,
this effect was relatively small, and the correlations between
groups of raters were strong (according to the criteria suggested by
Cohen, 1988). Thus, in subsequent analyses we used each target’s
average score (averaged across all raters) for childhood and adult
gender nonconformity.
Regarding descriptions of childhood activities, interrater reli-
ability (Cronbach’s alpha) of gender nonconformity ratings ex-
ceeded .88 for both male and female children. For analyses, we
used each target’s average score (across raters) for gender non-
conformity of childhood activities.
Are Prehomosexual Children More Gender
Nonconforming?
We compared the gender nonconformity ratings of videos of
preheterosexual and prehomosexual children. Some children were
repeatedly rated at different ages, and we accounted for these
repeated judgments by using a mixed-effects model that treated
children as a random effect (e.g., Zar, 1999). Other predictors of
childhood gender nonconformity included targets’ sexual orienta-
tion and sex. We also tested for a curvilinear effect of age to
examine possible nonlinear effects. Finally, we included all inter-
actions between sex, sexual orientation, and age (and its curvilin-
ear effect) as predictors to test whether any difference in gender
nonconformity between prehomosexual and preheterosexual chil-
dren depended on sex, age, or the combination of sex and age.
For both sexes, prehomosexual children were significantly more
gender nonconforming than preheterosexual children ( p ⬍ .0001;
␤ ⫽ .38, CI ⫽ .23 to .53). This effect was moderated by an
interaction between sexual orientation and the linear effect of age
( p ⬍ .0001; ␤ ⫽ .32, CI ⫽ .20 to .45). Figure 1 shows that
preheterosexual children were rated as somewhat less gender non-
conforming than average (a score of 4) across most ages, while
prehomosexual children increased in their gender nonconformity
with age. Thus, as children grew older, the sexual orientation
difference in gender nonconformity became more pronounced.
This interaction did not significantly differ between the sexes ( p ⫽
.57; ␤ ⫽ ⫺.04, CI ⫽ ⫺.17 to .09). Note in Figure 1 that for both
sexes the prehomosexual and preheterosexual groups’ CIs sepa-
rated between ages 3 and 4, and thus the sexual orientation
effect became significant during that interval. The interaction
between sexual orientation and the curvilinear effect of age was
not significant.
The finding that preheterosexual children were somewhat less
gender nonconforming than average needs elaboration (see Figure
1). Ratings were done within each target sex, and raters were asked
to compare each child to an average child of his or her age and sex.
The fact that the average child was very likely a preheterosexual
child might explain why ratings of preheterosexual children were
close to the average on the scale. Nevertheless, both prehetero-
sexual boys and preheterosexual girls tended to be less gender
nonconforming (or more gender conforming) than the average
score of 4, as suggested by one-sample t tests ( p ⫽ .01, d ⫽ ⫺0.8,
CI ⫽ ⫺1.0 to ⫺0.5; and p ⬍ .0001, d ⫽ ⫺1.2, CI ⫽ ⫺1.4 to ⫺0.9,
respectively).
Figure 1 also depicts one outlying data point, which came from
the oldest prehomosexual girl, who was also relatively gender
conforming. This data point had high residual and leverage value
and relatively high influence on the shape of the estimated inter-
action effects between sexual orientation and age. To avoid unre-
liable estimates, we have excluded this data point from analyses
(see Judd & McClelland, 1989). The significance of the main
effect of sexual orientation was barely influenced by inclusion or
exclusion of this data point ( p ⬍ .0001, ␤ ⫽ .41, CI ⫽ .21 to .54,
vs. p ⬍ .0001, ␤ ⫽ .38, CI ⫽ .23 to .53, respectively).
We finally investigated whether the relationship between adult
sexual orientation and observer-rated childhood gender noncon-

7
Gender Nonconformity
Observed

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Age of Boys Age of Girls

Figure 1. Observer ratings of gender nonconformity from childhood videos of 23 heterosexual and 21
homosexual male targets and 26 heterosexual and 20 homosexual female targets. Target scores were averaged
across raters. The higher lines represent homosexual targets. Dashed lines are the curves’ 95% confidence
intervals. The asterisk indicates an outlying data point from a homosexual woman that was excluded from
analyses. The x-axis represents children’s age. On the y-axis, 1 is the least gender-nonconforming score, and 7
is the most gender-nonconforming score.
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY 51

formity was influenced by the children’s activities (as opposed to
other aspects of the video, e.g., the manner in which the children
moved and spoke). Descriptions of childhood activities were rated
as significantly more gender nonconforming in homosexual targets
( p ⬍ .0001; ␤ ⫽ .36, CI ⫽ .22 to .49), regardless of their sex ( p ⫽
.17; ␤ ⫽ .03, ⫺.10 to .17). We then computed the same mixed-
effects model as described earlier, except that we now controlled
for the degree of gender nonconformity in the children’s activities.
In this model, the relationship between sexual orientation and
observer-rated childhood gender nonconformity was somewhat
smaller than in the original model ( p ⫽ .0002, ␤ ⫽ .27, CI ⫽ .13
to .41, vs. p ⬍ .0001, ␤ ⫽ .38, CI ⫽ .23 to .53, respectively). In
addition, gender nonconformity of described activities was posi-
tively related to observer-rated childhood gender nonconformity
( p ⬍ .0001; ␤ ⫽ .33, CI ⫽ .22 to .44). Differences between
prehomosexual and preheterosexual children in the gender non-
conformity of specific activities did thus contribute to the finding
that prehomosexual children were more gender nonconforming
than preheterosexual children. Nevertheless, the orientation differ-
ences in rated gender nonconformity did not appear to reflect
exclusively those activity differences and might also have de-
pended on more stylistic aspects of behavior, such as motor be-
havior.
How Closely Related Are Different Measures of Gender
Nonconformity?
We investigated the degree to which observer ratings and self-
reports of childhood and adult gender nonconformity were corre-
lated with sexual orientation and with each other. To simplify
analyses, we used each child’s average gender nonconformity
score from videos across all available ages. This strategy is useful
to the extent that gender nonconformity is stable across the ages.
In this case, averaging ratings across ages yielded a more reliable
estimate compared with ratings at a single age. To validate this
decision, we examined the degree of correlation between gender
nonconformity across three age categories: 0 to 3 years, 4 to 6
years, and 7 to 15 years. Within each age category, gender non-
conformity was averaged within children if they were shown in
more than one clip. Not every target contributed a video clip from
each age category. Gender nonconformity was positively, although
not always significantly, correlated across age categories; p ⫽ .23,
r(27) ⫽ .23 (CI ⫽ ⫺.22 to .68) for the first and second category;
p ⫽ .01, r(15) ⫽ .62 (CI ⫽ .26 to .97) for the first and third
category; and p ⫽ .003, r(17) ⫽ .67 (CI ⫽ .35 to .98) for the
second and third category. It seemed that children displayed de-
grees of gender nonconformity that persisted, on average, over
time. Thus, estimating an overall child gender nonconformity
score by averaging gender nonconformity across ages seemed
reasonable.
Next we correlated sexual orientation with observer-rated
and self-reported childhood and adult gender nonconformity.
On all measures, homosexual targets were more gender non-
conforming than heterosexual targets (see Figure 2). None of
these sexual orientation effects significantly differed between
the sexes (significance levels between .15 and .78, betas be-
tween ⫺.03 and ⫺.12). This suggests that increased gender

7
Gender Nonconformity
Male

1 1.0 (.45)* 1.5 (.61)*** 2.3 (.74)*** 0.9 (.42)*

Childhood Adulthood Childhood Self- Adulthood Self-

Observed Observed Report Report
7
Gender Nonconformity
Female

1 1.2 (.53)** 1.6 (.61)*** 1.1 (.49)** 0.8 (.36)*

hetero- homo- hetero- homo- hetero- homo- hetero- homo-
sexual sexual sexual sexual

Figure 2. Observer ratings and self-reports of the gender nonconformity of 23 heterosexual and 21 homosexual
male targets and 26 heterosexual and 20 homosexual female targets. Points represent the scores of individual
targets, averaged across raters. Lines are the means’ 95% confidence intervals. On the y-axis, 1 is the least
gender-nonconforming and 7 the most gender-nonconforming score. Numbers are effect sizes expressed as
Cohen’s ds and, in parentheses, as correlation coefficients. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .001. ***p ⬍ .0001.
52 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY

nonconformity of homosexual targets is general across age and
type of measure.
We note in Figure 2 the high variability in some of the groups,
which shows that not all homosexual individuals were gender
nonconforming, nor were all heterosexual individuals gender con-
forming. For two measures, significant group differences in vari-
ability were found. A Levene test for unequal variance (which
compares the magnitude of absolute residuals between groups)
indicated that for observer-rated adult gender nonconformity, ho-
mosexual targets of either sex showed more variability than did
heterosexual targets of either sex ( p ⫽ .0003; ␤ ⫽ .37, CI ⫽ .18
to .56). Furthermore, for self-reported childhood gender noncon-
formity, heterosexual male targets showed less variability than all
other groups ( p ⫽ .02; ␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, CI ⫽ ⫺.33 to ⫺.14). Across all
measures (i.e., by taking their average), we found no significant
group differences in variability ( p ⫽ .59; ␤ ⫽ ⫺.06, CI ⫽ ⫺.43
to .32). Still, the aforementioned results may indicate that, for
some indexes of gender nonconformity, variation could be related
to sex and sexual orientation.
We then computed correlations among the various measures of
childhood and adult gender nonconformity. To give our analyses
more power, we first computed correlations between measures of
gender nonconformity across all targets. Specifically, we com-
puted the partial correlations controlling for both sexual orienta-
tion and sex (both converted into a numeric 2-point scale). All of
the partial correlations were significant (see Table 1, below the
diagonal). Thus, for both sexes and sexual orientations, individuals
who were relatively gender-nonconforming children tended to
become relatively gender-nonconforming adults, and those who
rated themselves as relatively gender nonconforming were rated by
others as being relatively gender nonconforming as well. Table 1
also shows the first-order correlations between measures of gender
nonconformity across all targets. These were generally stronger
than the respective partial correlations because sexual orientation
had an additional influence on their magnitude (homosexual tar-
gets were generally more gender nonconforming; see Figure 2).
We then computed correlations between measures of gender
nonconformity separately for heterosexual and homosexual men
and women. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, in each group the large
majority of these correlations were positive, although many of
them were not significant (because of a loss of power). However,
the average of these correlations was positive in all groups: .32
(SD ⫽ .30), .24 (SD ⫽ .30), .46 (SD ⫽ .15), and .25 (SD ⫽ .21)
for all homosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual men,
and heterosexual women, respectively. Single-sample t tests sug-
gested that in most groups these average correlations reliably
exceeded zero, the expected chance value ( p ⫽ .05, d ⫽ 1.1, CI ⫽
0.0 to 2.0, for homosexual men; p ⫽ .11, d ⫽ 0.8, CI ⫽ ⫺0.3 to
1.9, for homosexual women; p ⫽ .0007, d ⫽ 3.1, CI ⫽ 2.0 to 4.3,
for heterosexual men; and p ⫽ .03, d ⫽ 1.2, CI ⫽ 0.1 to 2.2, for
homosexual women). Furthermore, there were no significant group
differences for these correlations ( p ⫽ .52; ␤ ⫽ .14, CI ⫽ ⫺.29 to
.56), and across all groups the average correlation, .32, also sig-
nificantly exceeded zero ( p ⬍ .0001; d ⫽ 1.3, CI ⫽ 0.8 to 1.7).
These additional results support the hypothesis that within each
sex and sexual orientation, measures of gender nonconformity tend
to be correlated.
Note in Tables 2 and 3 that the magnitude of some correlations
differed considerably between the groups. For example, the cor-
relations of observer-rated childhood and observer-rated adult gen-
der nonconformity were stronger for heterosexual targets than for
homosexual targets. However, a subsequent regression analysis
did not reveal a significant sexual orientation difference for this
effect ( p ⫽ .25; ␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, CI ⫽ ⫺.33 to .86). The relationship of
observer-rated childhood gender nonconformity and self-reported
adult gender nonconformity was, though, stronger for male targets
than for female targets ( p ⫽ .02; ␤ ⫽ .28, CI ⫽ .07 to .53). In
particular, this relationship was positive and significant for male
targets ( p ⫽ .004; ␤ ⫽ .56, CI ⫽ .25 to .87), while it was
nonsignificant for female targets ( p ⫽ .95; ␤ ⫽ .01, CI ⫽ ⫺.35 to
.34). The meaning of this sex difference is unclear, however. For
all other relationships between measures of gender nonconformity,
their moderations by the targets’ sex and sexual orientation (and
their combination) were insignificant (significance levels between
.13 and .98, betas between ⫺.01 and .18). Hence, for the majority
of the correlations as shown in Table 1, heterosexual and homo-
sexual men and women did not significantly differ.
How Is Gender Nonconformity Related to Past Treatment
by Parents and Peers?
For each target, we computed three average scores, representing
degree of childhood rejection by father, mother, and peers. Across
all targets, parental and peer rejection were significantly correlated
( ps ⬍ .01, correlations between .35 and .41). Next we computed
correlations of parental and peer rejection with self-rated and
observer-rated childhood and adult gender nonconformity. Only 4
out of 12 effects were significant (see Table 4). With respect to
parental rejection, we found only one significant correlation out of
six. Nevertheless, past rejections from peers tended to correlate
significantly with both childhood and adult gender nonconformity.
If this peer rejection experienced by more sex-atypical targets was,

Table 1
Intercorrelations Among Measures of Gender Nonconformity Across All Targets (N ⫽ 90).

Measure Childhood observed Adulthood observed Childhood self-report Adulthood self-report

Childhood observed .48*** (.30, .67) .43*** (.24, .63) .40** (.21, .60)
Adulthood observed .25* (.05, .46) .49*** (.30, .68) .47*** (.29, .66)
Childhood self-report .20* (.01, .39) .22* (.01, .43) .64*** (.47, .80)
Adulthood self-report .25* (.04, .46) .31* (.11, .51) .56*** (.38, .73)

Note. Numbers above the diagonal are simple correlations. Numbers below the diagonal are partial correlations, after the effects of sexual orientation and
sex were partialled out. Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .001. *** p ⬍ .0001.
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY 53

Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Measures of Gender Nonconformity Across Heterosexual Male Targets (n ⫽ 23) and Homosexual Male
Targets (n ⫽ 21)

Measure Childhood observed Adulthood observed Childhood self-report Adulthood self-report

Childhood observed .57* (.20, .94) .31 (⫺.12, .74) .53* (.15, .92)
Adulthood observed .08 (⫺.40, .56) .26 (⫺.18, .70) .64* (.29, .99)
Childhood self-report .60* (.22, .98) ⫺.10 (⫺.57, .38) .46* (.06, .86)
Adulthood self-report .51* (.09, .92) .18 (⫺.29, .65) .62* (.25, .99)

Note. Heterosexual male targets are shown above the diagonal, and homosexual male targets are shown below the diagonal. Numbers in parentheses are
95% confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients.
*
p ⬍ .05.

in fact, elicited by their gender nonconformity, it would suggest
that gender nonconformity persisted into adulthood despite past
negative social reactions.
Measures of gender nonconformity tended to be correlated
across all targets (see Table 1). Thus, we subsequently performed
multiple regressions, using the targets’ average gender nonconfor-
mity score across all four measures as a predictor of parental
rejection, maternal rejection, and peer rejection. Other variables
included as predictors were the targets’ sex and sexual orientation
and their interactions with average gender nonconformity. With
these interactions, we tested whether the relationship between
gender nonconformity and rejection depended on the target’s sex,
sexual orientation, or their combination. Targets who were more
gender nonconforming tended to report more paternal, maternal,
and peer rejection ( p ⫽ .09, ␤ ⫽ .25, CI ⫽ ⫺.04 to .55; p ⫽ .04,
␤ ⫽ .30, CI ⫽ .01 to .59; and p ⫽ .02, ␤ ⫽ .34, CI ⫽ .06 to .61,
respectively). These effects were not significantly moderated by
targets’ sex, sexual orientation, or their combination (significance
levels between .20 and .93, betas between ⫺.19 and .12).
Discussion
Raters who were blind to the adult sexual orientation of targets
evaluated brief samples of their childhood behavior. Those targets
who, as adults, identified themselves as homosexual were judged
to be more gender nonconforming as children. Thus, our analysis
of childhood videos from homosexual and heterosexual individu-
als confirmed the findings of many studies based on retrospective
self-reports: Children who subsequently identified as homosexual
in adulthood tended to be more gender nonconforming than chil-
dren who subsequently identified as heterosexual adults. This is
consistent with the possibility that factors causing people to differ
in sexual orientation as adults are already influential in child-
hood and contribute to a corresponding difference in gender
nonconformity.
The current study yielded three other main findings. More
gender-nonconforming children tended to become more gender-
nonconforming adults. Further, self-report of gender nonconfor-
mity was generally confirmed by observer ratings. In addition,
gender-nonconforming individuals did not report that their parents
or peers were especially tolerant; to the contrary, they recalled
increased childhood rejection, probably especially from peers,
compared with gender-conforming individuals.
Convergence Among Measures of Gender Nonconformity
and Sexual Orientation
In the current study, most measures of gender nonconformity
were significantly correlated with sexual orientation and each
other (see Figure 2 and Table 1). Overall, these correlations
support the validity of all measures in the sense that they seemed
to measure a general factor of gender nonconformity, which was
more common in homosexual people. Furthermore, relatively high
levels of gender nonconformity during childhood tended to predict
high levels of gender nonconformity during adulthood, suggesting
that gender nonconformity can be a stable trait. We admit that one
of these correlations (between observer-rated childhood gender
nonconformity and self-reported adulthood gender nonconformity)
was only significant in men, not in women. However, all other
correlations between measures of childhood and adult gender
nonconformity were not substantially influenced by the targets’
sex or sexual orientation, suggesting that, in general, the relation
between childhood and adult behavior was similar for all groups.
Finally, the finding that self-reports were substantially related to

Table 3
Intercorrelations Among Measures of Gender Nonconformity Across Heterosexual Female Targets (n ⫽ 26) and Homosexual Female
Targets (n ⫽ 20)

Measure Childhood observed Adulthood observed Childhood self-report Adulthood self-report

Childhood observed .43* (.09, .83) .09 (⫺.35, .53) .09 (⫺.36, .53)
Adulthood observed .07 (⫺.42, .55) .11 (⫺.32, .54) .20 (⫺.22, .63)
Childhood self-report ⫺.03 (⫺.52, .47) *
.52 (.10, .95) .55* (.19, .91)
Adulthood self-report ⫺.12 (⫺.61, .37) .40† (⫺.05, .85) .59* (.20, .99)

Note. Heterosexual female targets are shown above the diagonal, and homosexual female targets are shown below the diagonal. Numbers in parentheses
are 95% confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients.
†
p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05.
54 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY

Table 4
Correlations Between Measures of Gender Nonconformity and Measures of Rejection Across All Targets (N ⫽ 90)

Measure Childhood observed Adulthood observed Childhood self-report Adulthood self-report

Paternal rejection .16 (⫺.05, .38) ⫺.08 (⫺.29, .14) .04 (⫺.17, .26) .12 (⫺.09, .34)
Maternal rejection ⫺.01 (⫺.23, .21) ⫺.09 (⫺.30, .12) .10 (⫺.11, .32) .25* (.04, .45)
Peer rejection .32* (.12, .53) .13 (⫺.09, .34) .35* (.11, .32) .29* (.09, .50)

Note. Numbers in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients.
*
p ⬍ .05.

observer ratings supports the use of self-report measures in re-
search on gender nonconformity. This is valuable because self-
reports are easier to obtain than other people’s ratings of videos.
Our findings of convergence among various measures of gender
nonconformity, and between these measures and sexual orienta-
tion, are consistent with those of other researchers. For example,
Lippa (1991, 1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2005a, 2005b) has shown that
gender-related occupational and recreational interests show large
sex differences and are also correlated with other aspects of
personality and behavior often thought to reflect masculinity and
femininity, such as sexual orientation. He wrote,
Is there in fact a core to masculinity and femininity? My hunch is that
there is and that it is to be found in gender-related interests (occupa-
tional preferences, hobbies, and everyday activities), gender-related
appearances (nonverbal mannerisms, dress, grooming), and perhaps
sexuality (sexual orientation). (Lippa, 2005a, p. 67)
This is the view of masculinity and femininity that motivated our
research, and our findings provide further confirmation for it.
Sexual Orientation Differences in Variability of Gender
Nonconformity
For one measure, observer-rated adult gender nonconformity,
homosexual targets showed greater variability than heterosexual
targets (see Figure 2). The pattern of greater variation for homo-
sexual participants was not found for other measures. Neverthe-
less, some previous research has shown that homosexual adults
show greater variability in gender nonconformity than heterosex-
uals, when measured both by self-report and by observer ratings
(Lippa, 2005b; Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, Garcia, & Bailey,
2007). Lippa (2005b) argued that both biological and social factors
might contribute to this difference; for example, the predominant
pressure toward typical gender-role socialization may make some
homosexual individuals behave in a gender-conforming manner.
At the same time, biological predispositions and counteractive
influences against stereotypical gender-role behaviors within the
gay and lesbian community may make other individuals behave in
a gender-nonconforming manner. Whatever the causes, these re-
sults demonstrate that not all homosexual people are more gender
nonconforming than all heterosexual people. In fact, Figure 2
suggests that for some measures a few of the most gender-
conforming targets were homosexual.
Similarities Between Heterosexual and Homosexual
People
Results of our study suggest not only differences between peo-
ple with different sexual orientations but also certain similarities.
First, as described above, both homosexual and heterosexual sam-
ples varied substantially in their degree of gender nonconformity;
there was considerable overlap in the distributions of the two
groups.
Second, sexual orientation differences in gender nonconformity
became pronounced between ages 3 and 4 and subsequently in-
creased (see Figure 1). This result mirrors previous findings re-
garding important sex differences (based primarily on studies of
children who grew up to be heterosexual). Some key differences
between boys and girls in gender-typical behavior, including pref-
erences for gender-typed play activities and for male versus female
playmates, become pronounced between ages 2 and 4 (e.g., Fagot,
1985; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Maccoby, 1990), and the magni-
tude of these sex differences tended to increase with age (e.g.,
Maccoby, 1998; Trautner, 1992). This general observation pro-
vides some support for the notion that the causes of gender
nonconformity are also the causes of gender conformity—for
example, the expression of feminine behaviors in prehomosexual
boys and femininity in preheterosexual girls might reflect the same
processes. We speculate below about the nature of these causes.
Other similarities between the sexual orientations concern the
computed correlations. We found no substantial sexual orientation
differences for the correlations between measures of gender non-
conformity. Thus, the finding that targets who were more gender
nonconforming (or more gender conforming) on one measure
tended to be more gender nonconforming (or more gender con-
forming) on others applied generally to both heterosexual and
homosexual participants. Similarly, the correlations between past
childhood rejection and gender nonconformity were not signifi-
cantly different for the sexual orientations. Thus, if gender-
nonconforming individuals experienced more negative past social
treatment, this effect may be independent of whether they became
heterosexual or homosexual.
Possible Developmental Implications
The present study was not specifically designed to provide
evidence concerning the development of gender-nonconforming
and gender-conforming behavior, but, arguably, its results are
more consistent with some possibilities than with others. One
hypothesis is that gender development is caused by socialization
(e.g., Bem, 1983; Bussey & Bandura, 2004; Lott & Maluso, 2001).
Socialization may explain not only differences between men and
women but also gender-related differences within each sex. One
possible socialization mechanism leading to gender nonconformity
is the encouragement of gender-nonconforming behavior. Our
results, however, suggest otherwise; gender nonconformity
emerged early and persisted despite the fact that gender-
nonconforming individuals tended to recall more rejection, prob-
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY
ably especially from peers. This suggests, then, that gender non-
conformity emerged or persisted not because of encouragement
but because of other factors.
We emphasize, however, that our argument is speculative. Our
relevant data are based on a crude self-report measure of childhood
rejection (i.e., we used measures of general rejection by parents
and peers across the several years of childhood and adolescence).
Furthermore, the data are correlational, and not all correlations
were significant (see Table 4). Additionally, although gender-
nonconforming people reported greater childhood rejection, we do
not know for certain that they actually experienced more rejection,
nor that any such childhood rejection was due to gender noncon-
formity. It is also possible that social influences other than accep-
tance versus rejection of gender nonconformity influence the de-
velopment of these behaviors. For example, degree of gender
nonconformity could reflect, in part, the availability of gender-
nonconforming role models.
The relative early onset of gender nonconformity in prehomo-
sexual children (and of gender conformity in preheterosexual chil-
dren) found in our study could, in part, be explained by innate
influences. Much past research suggests that early exposure to
different levels of gonadal hormones can influence the develop-
ment of gender-typed behaviors (Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek,
& Berenbaum, 2005; Collaer & Hines, 1995) and sexual orienta-
tion (Ellis & Ames, 1987) and can account for the covariation of
gender nonconformity and sexual orientation (Bailey & Zucker,
1995). Bailey and Zucker also speculated that the variation of
gender nonconformity within each sexual orientation could be
influenced by prenatal hormonal factors. However, they also ac-
knowledged that within-orientation differences in gender noncon-
formity are consistent with the hypothesis of multiple etiological
routes to a homosexual orientation, including noninnate factors.
Limitations
This study had important methodological limitations, some of
which we have already mentioned. These include lack of standard-
ization of childhood videos; the brevity of video clips, possibly
leading to unreliable measures of the underlying trait of gender
nonconformity; possible volunteer biases of a small, self-selected,
and restricted sample; self-report measures of childhood treatment;
and the correlational nature of the data.
Unstandardized videos. Childhood videos varied in context, in
contrast to the video samples of adults. For example, the activities
engaged in by different children were not the same. It is unlikely
that differences in context spuriously enhanced the effect of sexual
orientation, however. Clips were chosen in the same manner for
both homosexual and heterosexual targets. This is not to say that
variation in context was irrelevant to the association between
childhood gender nonconformity and sexual orientation. Our anal-
yses suggest that raters relied partially on the children’s activities
when they assessed gender nonconformity, although other infor-
mation also seemed relevant.
Brief behavioral samples. We used video clips that were at
most 30 s long to assess gender nonconformity. Ratings based on
such short samples are likely to contain measurement error. Thus,
the true gender nonconformity differences between heterosexual
and homosexual people may be larger than those reported here.
Furthermore, the associations between observer-rated and self-
55
reported gender nonconformity might have been underestimated
by our method.
Representativeness of samples. Targets were a self-selected
group, which might have resulted in some sampling bias. For
example, the majority of homosexual people were openly homo-
sexual. It is possible that more gender-nonconforming homosexual
people are more likely to be “out,” perhaps because their presen-
tation makes it harder for them to be closeted about their sexual
orientation. If this assumption is true, our sample of homosexual
people might have been generally biased toward gender noncon-
formity.
Some evidence consistent with this possibility comes from
inspection of effect sizes in our data. For self-reported childhood
gender nonconformity (see Figure 2), the effect size of sexual
orientation for male targets (d ⫽ 2.3) was considerably larger than
the effect size reported in Bailey and Zucker’s (1995) review (d ⫽
1.3), whereas the effect sizes for female targets were comparable
(respective ds ⫽ 1.1 and 1.0). If the homosexual male targets in the
current study recalled higher levels of childhood gender noncon-
formity than most homosexual men report, this would make our
sample unusual. It is also possible, however, that homosexual
participants have become more likely or willing to report higher
levels of childhood gender nonconformity since the review was
published in 1995. Some indication for this comes from a recent
study on twins, including thousands of participants (Bailey et al.,
2000). In this study, the respective effect sizes were approximately
1.8 for both men and women.
Our findings could also be biased if participants who were
interested in our study were trying to confirm the stereotype of
their group. Although we told participants to bring all available
videotapes from childhood, and although we did not explicitly tell
them that the study was about sexual orientation and gender
nonconformity, they might have guessed our main hypothesis.
This could have encouraged some participants to select childhood
videos and present themselves in a way that would be consistent
with the hypothesis.
Finally, our sample was restricted to heterosexual and homo-
sexual participants. Future research should address the level of
childhood gender nonconformity among other groups—for exam-
ple, among people who identify as bisexual, questioning, or unla-
beled. Such research could provide insights into how similar—and
different—these groups are from people who use the more com-
mon self-labels straight and gay.
Self-report of past treatment. Measures of childhood rejection
all depended on self-report. Such retrospective measures may be
subject to both unsystematic and systematic measurement error
(see Gerlsma et al., 1990).
Correlational results. We emphasize that ours was a correla-
tional study, with inherent limitations in establishing causation.
For example, as mentioned above, even if we accept that correla-
tions between past rejection and gender nonconformity were valid,
we cannot be sure that children experienced this rejection because
of their gender nonconformity. Future research should therefore
develop more rigorous operationalizations of rejection due to
gender nonconformity. It is also possible that unexplored mediat-
ing factors influenced this association, and these, too, should be
addressed in future research.
56 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY
Conclusion
One should take methodological limitations into account when
considering the results of this study. However, these limitations are
different from the biases that may affect retrospective studies of
heterosexual and homosexual adults using only self-reports or
prospective studies of very atypical children. The convergence of
results from these three research approaches increases our confi-
dence in the validity of their shared conclusion that degree of
gender nonconformity versus gender conformity is a predictor of
future sexual orientation and that gender-nonconforming children
tend to become homosexual adults.
References
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments
of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 538 –547.
Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of
gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry
Press.
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and envi-
ronmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an
Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 524 –536.
Bailey, J. M., Finkel, E., Blackwelder, K., & Bailey, T. (1995). Masculin-
ity, femininity, and sexual orientation. Unpublished manuscript.
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of
gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of
human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 66, 1081–1093.
Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and
sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. De-
velopmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.
Beard, A., & Bakeman, R. (2000). Boyhood gender nonconformity: Re-
ported parental behavior and the development of narcissistic issues.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 4, 81–97.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual
preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child
development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic
society. Signs, 8, 598 – 616.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. Stern-
berg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 92–119). New York:
Guilford Press.
Caldera, Y. M., Huston, A. C., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social interactions
and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine, masculine, and
neutral toys. Child Development, 60, 70 –76.
Carter, D., & McCloskey, L. A. (1983). Peers and the maintenance of
sex-typed behavior: The development of children’s conceptions of cross-
gender behavior in their peers. Social Cognition, 2, 294 –314.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen-Bendahan, C. C. C., van de Beek, C., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2005).
Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior:
Methods and findings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29,
353–384.
Collaer, M. L., & Hines, M. (1995). Human behavioral sex differences: A
role for gonadal hormones during early development? Psychological
Bulletin, 118, 55–107.
Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali, & Zucker (2008). A follow-up
study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology,
44, 34 – 45.
Ellis, L., & Ames, M. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual
orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological
Bulletin, 101, 233–258.
Epstein, S. (1983). The Mother–Father–Peer Scale. Unpublished manu-
script.
Fagot, B. I. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in
preschool children. Child Development, 48, 902–907.
Fagot, B. I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step
toward understanding sex role development. Developmental Psychology,
21, 1097–1104.
Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1989). The young child’s gender schema:
Environmental input, internal organization. Child Development, 60,
663– 672.
Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1983). Is the distant relationship of fathers
and homosexual sons related to the sons’ erotic preference for male
partners, or to the sons’ atypical gender identity, or to both? Journal of
Homosexuality, 9, 7–25.
Gaudio, R. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and
straight men. American Speech, 69, 30 –57.
Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P. M., & Arrindell, W. A. (1990). Anxiety,
depression, and perception of early parenting: A meta-analysis. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10, 251–277.
Gottschalk, L. (2003). Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-
conformity: A spurious connection. Journal of Gender Studies, 12,
35–50.
Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of
homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Harry, J. (1982). Gay children grown up: Gender culture and gender
deviance. New York: Praeger.
Harry, J. (1983a). Defeminization and adult psychological well-being
among male homosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 1–19.
Harry, J. (1983b). Parasuicide, gender, and gender deviance. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 24, 350 –361.
Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing
behavior and sex-typing pressure in child/parent interaction. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 13, 413– 425.
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swag-
ger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion
and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
321–334.
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model-
comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Landolt, M. A., Bartholomew, K., Saffrey, C., Oram, D., Perlman, D., &
Bartholomew, K. (2004). Gender nonconformity, childhood rejection,
and adult attachment: A study of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
33, 117–128.
Langlois, J. H., & Downs, A. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as
socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviors in young children. Child
Development, 51, 1237–1247.
Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnostic-
ity measures: Reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and
relationship to the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 61, 1000 –1011.
Lippa, R. (1998a). Gender-related individual differences and the structure
of vocational interests: The importance of the people–things dimension.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996 –1009.
Lippa, R. (1998b). The nonverbal display and judgment of extraversion,
masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: A lens model analy-
sis. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 80 –107.
Lippa, R. A. (2000). Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women, and
heterosexual men and women: The virtual identity of homosexual-
 SPECIAL SECTION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER NONCONFORMITY
heterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity. Journal of Person-
ality, 68, 899 –926.
Lippa, R. A. (2002). Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual
men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 83–98.
Lippa, R. A. (2005a). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lippa, R. A. (2005b). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of
Sex Research, 16, 119 –153.
Lott, B., & Maluso, D. (2001). Gender development: Social learning. In J.
Worrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender (pp. 537–549). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental ac-
count. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A
theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 996 –1016.
Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. M.
(2007). Gaydar: Thin slices of sexual orientation and masculinity-
femininity. Unpublished manuscript.
Ross, M. W., Campbell, R. L., & Clayer, J. R. (1982). New inventory for
measurement of parental rearing patterns: An English form of the
EMBU. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 66, 499 –507.
Appendix
Gender Nonconformity Scales
Scale Items: Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale
(Men)
As a child I was called a sissy by my peers.
As a child I sometimes wished I had been born a girl
rather than a boy.
As a child I preferred playing with girls rather than boys.
As a child I often felt that I had more in common with
girls than boys.
As a child I sometimes wore feminine clothing (such as
dresses), makeup or jewelry.
As a child I disliked competitive sports such as foot-
ball, baseball and basketball.
I was a feminine boy.
Scale Items: Adulthood Continuous Gender Identity Scale
(Men)
I often wonder what it would be like to be a woman.
(Appendix continues)
57
Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A
comprehensive investigation. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Skidmore, C. W., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., & Bailey, J. M. (2006). Gender
nonconformity and psychological distress in lesbians and gay men.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 685– 697.
Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence
for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 64, 624 – 635.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
Tauber, M. A. (1979). Sex differences in parent-child interaction styles
during a free-play session. Child Development, 50, 981–988.
Trautner, H. M. (1992). The development of sex-typing in children: A
longitudinal analysis. German Journal of Psychology, 16, 183–199.
Weinrich, J. D., Grant, I., Jacobson, D. L., Robinson, S. R., McCutchan,
J. A., & the HNRC Group. (1992). Effects of recalled childhood gender
nonconformity on adult genitoerotic role and AIDS exposure. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 21, 559 –585.
Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Zucker, K. J. (2005). Commentary on Gottschalk’s (2003) “Same-sex
sexuality and childhood gender non-conformity: A spurious connec-
tion.” Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 55– 60.
Several times I have dreamed I was a woman.
I feel like part of me is male and part of me is female.
I don’t feel very feminine.
In many ways I feel more similar to women than to men.
People think I should act more masculine than I do.
It would be fun to go to a costume party dressed as a
woman.
I pride myself on being masculine.
I am much less masculine than the average straight man.
I am much less feminine than the average gay man.
Scale Items: Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale
(Women)
As a child I was called a tomboy by my peers.
As a child I sometimes wished I had been born a boy
rather than a girl.
58 RIEGER, LINSENMEIER, GYGAX, AND BAILEY

As a child I preferred playing with boys rather than girls. I don’t feel very masculine.

As a child I often felt that I had more in common with In many ways I feel more similar to men than to
boys than girls. women.

As a child I usually avoided feminine clothing (such as People think I should act more feminine than I do.
dresses).
It would be fun to go to a costume party dressed as a
As a child I liked competitive sports such as football, man.
baseball and basketball.
I pride myself on being feminine.
I was a masculine girl.
I am much less feminine than the average straight
Scale Items: Adulthood Continuous Gender Identity Scale woman.
(Women)
I am much less masculine than the average lesbian.
I often wonder what it would be like to be a man.

Several times I have dreamed I was a man. Received August 28, 2006
Revision received May 22, 2007
I feel like part of me is male and part of me is female. Accepted May 24, 2007 䡲

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write to the address below. Please note the
following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.

Write to Journals Office, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20002-4242.

View publication stats