Perceivers form strong inferences of disposition from others’ facial appearance, and these inferences guide a wide variety of important behaviors. The current research examines the possibility that similar-looking individuals are more likely to form groups with one another. We do so by testing a necessary downstream consequence of this process, examining whether the faces of individuals within groups more physically resemble one another than those in other groups. Across six studies, we demonstrate that individuals’ group membership can be accurately classified both from ratings of members’ faces, and from direct measurement of members’ faces. Results provide insight into how affiliative groups initially form and maintain membership over time, as well as the perception of homogeneity of groups.
AdamsR. B.NelsonA. J.SotoJ. A.HessU.KleckR. E. (2012). Emotion in the neutral face: A mechanism for impression formation?Cognition and Emotion, 26, 431-441. doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.666502
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
3.
AlvarezL.JaffeK. (2004). Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of “self seeking like.”Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 177-194.
4.
AmbadyN.RosenthalR. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.111.2.256
5.
BabyakM. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 411-421.
BerryD. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 298-307. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.298
8.
BrewerM. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In SrullT. K.WyerR. S. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
10.
BrunswikE. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CaspiA.HerbenerE. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250-258. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.250
12.
CikaraM.BotvinickM. M.FiskeS. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306-313. doi:10.1177/0956797610397667
13.
CookE. (1964). Percentage baseball. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
DeBruineL. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1307-1312. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2034
15.
DeeganM. P.HehmanE.GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2015). Positive expectations encourage generalization from a positive intergroup interaction to outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 52-65. doi:10.1177/0146167214556240
16.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.62
17.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.JohnsonC.JohnsonB.HowardA. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510-540. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1331
18.
DryerD. C.HorowitzL. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592
19.
EfronB.GongG. (1983). A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. The American Statistician, 37, 36-48.
20.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
21.
GaertnerL.SchoplerJ. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963-980. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<963::aid-ejsp905>3.0.co;2-s
22.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
23.
GrayK.RandD. G.ErtE.LewisK.HershmanS.NortonM. I. (2014). The emergence of “us and them” in 80 lines of code: Modeling group genesis in homogeneous populations. Psychological Science, 25, 982-990. doi:10.1177/0956797614521816
24.
HalberstadtJ.JacksonJ. C.BilkeyD.JongJ.WhitehouseH.McNaughtonC.ZollmannS. (2016). Incipient social groups: An analysis via in-vivo behavioral tracking. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149880
25.
HehmanE.CarpinellaC. M.JohnsonK. L.LeitnerJ. B.FreemanJ. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 815-824. doi:10.1177/1948550614534701
26.
HehmanE.LeitnerJ. B.DeeganM. P.GaertnerS. L. (2015). Picking teams: When dominant facial structure is preferred. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 51-59. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.007
27.
HehmanE.LeitnerJ. B.FreemanJ. B. (2014). The face-time continuum: Lifespan changes in facial width-to-height ratio impact aging-associated perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1624-1636. doi:10.1177/0146167214552791
28.
HehmanE.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Where the division lies: Common ingroup identity moderates the cross-race facial-recognition effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 445-448. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.008
29.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374-386. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
30.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948-958. doi:10.1177/01461672002610005
31.
JenkinsR.WhiteD.Van MontfortX.BurtonA. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313-323. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001
32.
JuddC. M.ParkB. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778-788. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.778
33.
JussimL.CrawfordJ. T.RubinsteinR. S. (2015). Stereotype (in)accuracy in perceptions of groups and individuals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 490-497. doi:10.1177/0963721415605257
34.
KennyD. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155-163. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.98.2.155
35.
KennyD. A.AlbrightL. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 390-402.
36.
KubotaJ. T.BanajiM. R.PhelpsE. A. (2012). The neuroscience of race. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 940-948. doi:10.1038/nn.3136
37.
LeeR. Y.BondM. H. (1998). Personality and roommate friendship in Chinese culture. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 179-190. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00012
38.
LenzG. S.LawsonC. (2011). Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 574-589.
39.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1998). Small groups. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 415-469). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
41.
MackinnonS. P.JordanC. H.WilsonA. E. (2011). Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 879-892. doi:10.1177/0146167211402094
42.
McPhersonM. (1983). An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48, 519-532.
43.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
44.
MorrisonD. G. (1969). On the interpretation of discriminant analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 156-163.
45.
MoskowitzD. S. (1990). Convergence of self-reports and independent observers: Dominance and friendliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1096-1106. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.1096
46.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
47.
NeubergS. L.FiskeS. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444.
48.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 11087-11092. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805664105
49.
ParkB.JuddC. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173
50.
RatnerK. G.AmodioD. M. (2013). Seeing “us vs. them”: Minimal group effects on the neural encoding of faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 298-301. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.017
51.
RuleN. O.KrendlA. C.IvcevicZ.AmbadyN. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409-426. doi:10.1037/a0031050
StolierR. M.FreemanJ. B. (2016). Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories. Nature Neuroscience, 19, 795-797. doi:10.1038/nn.4296
54.
SutherlandC. A. M.OldmeadowJ. A.SantosI. M.TowlerJ.Michael BurtD.YoungA. W. (2013). Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition, 127, 105-118. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.001
55.
SutherlandC. A. M.YoungA. W.MootzC. A.OldmeadowJ. A. (2014). Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter-stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. British Journal of Psychology, 106, 186-208. doi:10.1111/bjop.12085
56.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589
57.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2014). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 1-27. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
58.
TodorovA.PorterJ. M. (2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25, 1404-1417 doi:10.1177/0956797614532474
59.
TodorovA.UlemanJ. S. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1051-1065. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1051
60.
TodorovA.UlemanJ. S. (2004). The person reference process in spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 482-493. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.482
61.
Van BavelJ. J.CunninghamW. A. (2009). Self-categorization with a novel mixed-race group moderates automatic social and racial biases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 321-335. doi:10.1177/0146167208327743
62.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. New York, NY: Springer.
63.
WillenbockelV.SadrJ.FisetD.HorneG. O.GosselinF.TanakaJ. W. (2010). Controlling low-level image properties: The SHINE toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 671-684. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.671
ZebrowitzL. A.FellousJ.-M.MignaultA.AndreolettiC. (2003). Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 194-215.
66.
ZebrowitzL. A.McDonaldS. (1991). The impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
