(PDF) Relatn Between Language Lateralisatn and Spatial Abily Gay and Straight Women and Men | Domonick Weg

Contents:

• RELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MEN
• CAPE TOWN’S GAY VILLAGE: OM “GAYTRIFIED” TOURISM MEC TO “HETEROSEXUALISED” URBAN SPACE
• RELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MEN

RELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MEN

Acrdg to the cross-sex shift hypothis, gay men are hypothized to perform the directn of heterosexual women and lbian women the directn of heterosexual men on gnive tts. Forty-four heterosexual men, 43 heterosexual women, 39 gay men, and 34 lbian/bisexual women (aged 18–54 years) navigated a sktop VMWM and pleted measur of telligence, handns, and childhood genr nonnformy (CGN). Keywords: Sexual orientatn, Homosexualy, Spatial memory, Morris water maze, Spatial strategiIntroductnSex differenc spatial gnn are well documented.

CAPE TOWN’S GAY VILLAGE: OM “GAYTRIFIED” TOURISM MEC TO “HETEROSEXUALISED” URBAN SPACE

Gay men have lower sr pared to heterosexual men on basic tts of spatial abily, such as mental rotatns and judgment of le orientatn (but are not signifintly different om heterosexual women) (Collaer, Reimers, & Manng, 2007; McCormick & Welson, 1991; Neave, Menaged, & Weightman, 1999; Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Sanrs & Ross-Field, 1986; Sanrs & Wright, 1997; Weg, 1998). Two studi have reported that gay men have lower performance pared to heterosexual men spatial navigatn (one study g a virtual Morris water maze) and are no different to heterosexual women (Cánovas & Cimavilla, 2011; Rahman & Koertg, 2008). There are also ditns that gay men e more landmark-type strategi durg spatial performance although a systematic study of search paths has not yet been nducted (Cánovas & Cimavilla, 2011; Rahman et al., 2005).

Two further studi have found that gay men had greater object lotn memory pared to heterosexual men (and were no different om heterosexual women) (Hassan & Rahman, 2007; Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2003). One large, cross-natnal study has found that some of the gnive differenc were replible non-Wtern groups (Collaer et al., 2007) broad terms, this evince dit that the gnive profil of gay men are “femized” or are “cross-sex shifted. ” That is, where there is a general sex difference a particular gnive abily, gay men will perform, on average, the same directn as heterosexual women.

RELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MENRELATN BETWEEN LANGUAGE LATERALISATN AND SPATIAL ABILY GAY AND STRAIGHT WOMEN AND MEN

Another study reported an associatn between CGN and verbal IQ sr among heterosexual men and women but not gay men (Rahman, Bhanot, Emrh-Small, Ghafoor, & Roberts, 2012).

Based on the existg evince for a cross-sex shift the spatial performance of gay pared to heterosexual men, we predicted that heterosexual men would outperform heterosexual women, gay men, and lbian women on spatial learng and spatial memory durg the VMWM. In addn, we predicted that heterosexual men would e a more “direct” spatial strategy (such as visual snng) durg spatial learng pared to heterosexual women, gay men, and lbian women (who would e more landmark or thigmotaxic strategi). A total of 160 participants (aged 18–54 years) participated this study, cludg 44 heterosexual men, 43 heterosexual women, 39 gay men, and 34 lbian/bisexual women.

Participants were reced through nvenience samplg via electronic and paper-based adverts stunt and muny orientatn was asssed g rpons to a sexual inty label em (heterosexual/straight, bisexual, or gay/lbian) and an em about sexual feelgs (fed as attractns toward same or oppose sex) on a 7-pot Ksey-type sle (0 = exclively heterosexual, 6 = exclively homosexual). For post hoc analysis, LSD tts were ed parg heterosexual men wh heterosexual women; heterosexual men wh gay men; and heterosexual women wh lbian/bisexual women. Table 1Mean sr (and SD) for sample mographic and sexual orientatn characteristics by groupVariableHeterosexual men (N = 44)Heterosexual women (N = 43)Gay men (N = 39)Lbian/bisexual women (N = 34).

Table 2Unadjted mean sr (and SD) for virtual Morris water maze performance out by groupVariableHeterosexual men (N = 44)Heterosexual women (N = 43)Gay men (N = 39)Lbian/bisexual women (N = 34). Table 3Unadjted mean sr (and SD) and equenci (for the probe trial) for spatial strategi ed by groupVariableHeterosexual men (N = 44)Heterosexual women (N = 43)Gay men (N = 39)Lbian/bisexual women (N = 34).

50“Visual sn vers other strategy” is a dichotomized variable (0 = visual sn, 1 = any other strategy)Swim paths for each of the 20 hidn platform (spatial learng) trials and the probe trial for one heterosexual man and one gay man who performed at the median level for their rpective groups. Gay men had longer latenci than the heterosexual male reference group and more feme CGN sr were associated wh longer latenci as was the e of enfiladg.