Being able to identify trustworthy strangers is a critical social skill. However, whether such impressions are accurate is debatable. Critically, the field currently lacks a quantitative summary of the evidence. To address this gap, we conducted two meta-analyses. We tested whether there is a correlation between perceived and actual trustworthiness across faces, and whether perceivers show above-chance accuracy at assessing trustworthiness. Both meta-analyses revealed significant, modest accuracy (face level, r = .14; perceiver level, r = .27). Perceiver-level effects depended on domain, with aggressiveness and sexual unfaithfulness having stronger effects than agreeableness, criminality, financial reciprocity, and honesty. We also applied research weaving to map the literature, revealing potential biases, including a preponderance of Western studies, a lack of “cross-talk” between research groups, and clarity issues. Overall, this modest accuracy is unlikely to be of practical utility. Moreover, we strongly urge the field to improve reporting standards and generalizability of the results.
BerryD. S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence for the kernel of truth hypothesis. Social Cognition, 8(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.4.343
BondC. F.BerryD. S.OmarA. (1994). The kernel of truth in judgments of deceptiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 523–534.
9.
BonnefonJ.-F.HopfensitzA.De NeysW. (2015). Face-ism and kernels of truth in facial inferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(8), 421–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.002
10.
BoscoF. A.AguinisH.SinghK.FieldJ. G.PierceC. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038047
11.
BrambillaM.BiellaM.FreemanJ. B. (2018). The influence of visual context on the evaluation of facial trustworthiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.011
12.
BrambillaM.RusconiP.SacchiS.CherubiniP. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.744
13.
BrandA.BradleyM. T. (2012). More voodoo correlations: When average-based measures inflate correlations. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(4), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.703711
14.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer.
15.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.
16.
BussD. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 459–491.
17.
BzdokD.LangnerR.CaspersS.KurthF.HabelU.ZillesK.LairdA.EickhoffS. B. (2011). ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness. Brain Structure and Function, 215(3–4), 209–223.
18.
CarréJ. M.McCormickC. M.MondlochC. J. (2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02423.x
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
CrookesK.EwingL.GildenhuysJ.KlothN.HaywardW. G.OxnerM.PondS.RhodesG. (2015). How well do computer-generated faces tap face expertise?PLOS ONE, 10(11), Article e0141353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141353
22.
De NeysW.HopfensitzA.BonnefonJ.-F. (2015). Adolescents gradually improve at detecting trustworthiness from the facial features of unknown adults. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.01.002
23.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
24.
EiseneggerC.HaushoferJ.FehrE. (2011). The role of testosterone in social interaction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.008
25.
EndlerJ. A. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press.
26.
FooY. Z.LoncarevicA.SimmonsL. W.SutherlandC. A. M.RhodesG. (2019). Sexual unfaithfulness can be judged with some accuracy from men’s but not women’s faces. Royal Society Open Science, 6(14), Article 181552. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181552
27.
FooY. Z.NakagawaS.RhodesG.SimmonsL. W. (2017). The effects of sex hormones on immune function: A meta-analysis. Biological Reviews, 92(1), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12243
28.
FreemanJ. B.MaY.HanS.AmbadyN. (2013). Influences of culture and visual context on real-time social categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.015
29.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
GelderB.MeerenH. K. M.RighartR.StockJ.van de RietW. A. C.TamiettoM. (2006). Beyond the face: Exploring rapid influences of context on face processing. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 37–48.
32.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
33.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.
HassinR.TropeY. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 837–852.
38.
HehmanE. A.SutherlandC. A. M.FlakeJ. K.SlepianM. L. (2017). The unique contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 513–529. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000090
39.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), Article 29.
40.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
41.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.
KahnemanD.KleinG. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755
44.
KleinR. A.RatliffK. A.VianelloM.AdamsR. B.Jr.BahníkŠ.BernsteinM. J.BocianK.BrandtM. J.BrooksB.BrumbaughC. C.CemalcilarZ.ChandlerJ.CheongW.DavisW. E.DevosT.EisnerM.FrankowskaN.FurrowD.GallianiE. M.. . . NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
45.
LefevreC. E.EwbankM. P.CalderA. J.von dem HagenE.PerrettD. I. (2013). It is all in the face: Carotenoid skin coloration loses attractiveness outside the face. Biology Letters, 9(6), Article 20130633.
46.
LinC.KeleşÜ.AdolphsR. (2021). Four dimensions characterize attributions from faces using a representative set of English trait words. Nature Communications, 12, 5168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25500-y
47.
LombrosoC. (1876). Criminal man (GibsonM.Hahn RaferN.SeymourM., Trans.; 2006 ed.). Duke University Press.
48.
Maynard-SmithM. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press.
49.
Mende-SiedleckiP.SaidC. P.TodorovA. (2013). The social evaluation of faces: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr090
50.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339, Article b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
51.
MoshontzH.CampbellL.EbersoleC. R.IJzermanH.UrryH. L.ForscherP. S.GraheJ. E.McCarthyR. J.MusserE. D.AntfolkJ.CastilleC. M.EvansT. R.FiedlerS.FlakeJ. K.ForeroD. A.JanssenS. M. J.KeeneJ. R.ProtzkoJ.AczelB.. . . ChartierC. R. (2018). The psychological science accelerator: Advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607
52.
NakagawaS.CuthillI. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 82(4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x
53.
NakagawaS.DunnA. G.LagiszM.Bannach-BrownA.GramesE. M.Sánchez-TójarA.O’DeaR. E.NobleD. W. A.WestgateM. J.ArnoldP. A.BarrowS.BethelA.CooperE.FooY. Z.GeangeS. R.HennessyE.MapangaW.MengersenK.MuneraC.. . . HaddawayN. R. (2020). A new ecosystem for evidence synthesis. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(4), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1153-2
54.
NakagawaS.SamarasingheG.HaddawayN. R.WestgateM.O’DeaR. E.NobleD. W. A.LagiszM. (2019). Research weaving: Visualising the future of research synthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34(3), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.007
55.
NakagawaS.SantosE. S. A. (2012). Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evolutionary Ecology, 26, 1253–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5
56.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
57.
OliveiraM.Garcia-MarquesT.Garcia-MarquesL.DotschR. (2020). Good to bad or bad to bad? What is the relationship between valence and the trait content of the Big Two?European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2618
58.
OlivolaC. Y.FunkF.TodorovA. (2014). Social attributions from faces bias human choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.09.007
59.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324.
60.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
61.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
62.
OuzzaniM.HammadyH.FedorowiczZ.ElmagarmidA. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
ParkerT. H.GreigE. I.NakagawaS.ParraM.DalisioA. C. (2018). Subspecies status and methods explain strength of response to local versus foreign song by oscine birds in meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour, 142, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.05.023
65.
Penton-VoakI. S.ChenJ. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.003
66.
Penton-VoakI. S.PoundN.LittleA. C.PerrettD. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24(5), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.5.607
67.
PetersM.SimmonsL. W.RhodesG. (2008). Testosterone is associated with mating success but not attractiveness or masculinity in human males. Animal Behaviour, 76(2), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.008
68.
PoundN.Penton-VoakI. S.SurridgeA. K. (2009). Testosterone responses to competition in men are related to facial masculinity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 276(1654), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0990
69.
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.r-project.org/.
70.
RadM. S.MartinganoA. J.GingesJ. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(45), 11401–11405.
71.
RhodesG.MorleyG.SimmonsL. W. (2013). Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men’s faces. Biology Letters, 9(1), Article 20120908. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0908
72.
RitchieK. L.PalermoR.RhodesG. (2017). Forming impressions of facial attractiveness is mandatory. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 469.
73.
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(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031050
74.
SlepianM. L.AmesD. R. (2016). Internalized impressions: The link between apparent facial trustworthiness and deceptive behavior Is mediated by targets’ expectations of how they will be judged. Psychological Science, 27(2), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594897
75.
SutherlandC. A. M.MartinL. M.KlothN.SimmonsL. W.FooY. Z.RhodesG. (2018). Impressions of sexual unfaithfulness and their accuracy show a degree of universality. PLOS ONE, 13(10), Article e0205716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205716
76.
SutherlandC. A. M.OldmeadowJ. A.SantosI. M.TowlerJ.BurtD. M.YoungA. W. (2013). Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition, 127(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.001
77.
SutherlandC. A. M.OldmeadowJ. A.YoungA. W. (2016). Integrating social and facial models of person perception: Converging and diverging dimensions. Cognition, 157, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.006
78.
SutherlandC. A. M.RhodesG.WilliamsN.ConnaughtonE.EwingL.CaruanaN.LangdonR. (2020). Appearance-based trust processing in schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12234
79.
SutherlandC. A. M.YoungA. W.RhodesG. (2016). Facial first impressions from another angle: Social judgements are influenced by both emotional expression and viewpoint. British Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12206
80.
SuzukiA.TsukamotoS.TakahashiY. (2017). Faces tell everything in a just and biologically determined world: Lay theories behind face reading. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617734616
81.
TodorovA.FunkF.OlivolaC. Y. (2015). Response to Bonnefon et al.: Limited “kernels of truth” in facial inferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(8), 422–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.013
82.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
83.
TodorovA.OosterhofN. N. (2011). Modeling social perception of faces. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2010.940006
84.
TodorovA.PorterJ. M. (2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1404–1417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532474
85.
ToveyD.MacbethF.WebsterA.FoxleeR. (2018). Cochrane’s plans to update its COI policy: Truth and fiction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 111–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000131
VallaJ. M.CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011). The accuracy of inferences about criminality based on facial appearance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099274
88.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
89.
VerplaetseJ.VannesteS.BraeckmanJ. (2007). You can judge a book by its cover: The sequel. A kernel of truth in predictive cheating detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.006
90.
WalkerM.VetterT. (2016). Changing the personality of a face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors modeled in real photographs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000064
WilsonJ. P.RuleN. O. (2017). Advances in understanding the detectability of trustworthiness from the face: Toward a taxonomy of a multifaced construct. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 396–400.
ZebrowitzL. A.CollinsM. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(3), 204–223.
97.
ZupicI.CaterT. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 429–472.
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.
