Recent work showed that the attribution of facial trustworthiness can be influenced by the surrounding context in which a face is embedded: contexts that convey threat make faces less trustworthy. In four studies (N = 388, three preregistered) we tested whether face–context integration is influenced by how faces and contexts are encoded relationally. In Experiments 1a to 1c, face–context integration was stronger when threatening stimuli were attributable to the human action. Faces were judged less trustworthy when shown in threatening contexts that were ascribable (vs. non-ascribable) to the human action. In Experiment 2, we manipulated face–context relations using instructions. When instructions presented facial stimuli as belonging to the “perpetrators” of the threatening contexts, no difference with the control (no-instructions) condition was found in face–context integration. Instead, the effect was reduced when faces were presented as “victims.” We discussed the importance of considering relational reasoning when studying face–context integration.
AmesD. L.FiskeS. T.TodorovA. (2011). Impression formation: A focus on others’ intents. In DecetyJ.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 419–433). Oxford University Press.
2.
AviezerH.HassinR. R.RyanJ.GradyC.SusskindJ.AndersonA.. . .BentinS. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19(7), 724–732.
3.
BarrettL. F.KensingerE. A. (2010). Context is routinely encoded during emotion perception. Psychological Science, 21(4), 595–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363547
4.
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
5.
BrambillaM.CarraroL.CastelliL.SacchiS. (2019). Changing impressions: Moral character dominates impression updating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.01.003
6.
BrambillaM.LeachC. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32(4), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397
7.
BrambillaM.MasiM.MattavelliS.BiellaM. (2021a). Faces and sounds becoming one: Cross-modal integration of facial and auditory cues in judging trustworthiness. Social Cognition, 39(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.3.315
8.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.GoodwinG. (2021b). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 187–262.
9.
CarrollJ. M.RussellJ. A. (1996). Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.205
10.
ChangL. J.DollB. B.van’t WoutM.FrankM. J.SanfeyA. G. (2010). Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.03.001
11.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). Oxford University Press.
12.
De HouwerJ. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learning & Behavior, 37(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.1
De HouwerJ.HughesS. (2016). Evaluative conditioning as a symbolic phenomenon: On the relation between evaluative conditioning, evaluative conditioning via instructions, and persuasion. Social Cognition, 34(5), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2016.34.5.480
15.
DuarteJ.SiegelS.YoungL. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2483. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhs071
FiedlerK.UnkelbachC. (2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.513497
18.
FiskeS. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from Daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.877
19.
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
20.
FreemanJ. B.StolierR. M.BrooksJ. A. (2020). Dynamic interactive theory as a domain-general account of social perception. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 237–287). Academic Press.
21.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
22.
HammondK. R. (2007). Beyond rationality: The search for wisdom in a troubled time. Oxford University Press.
23.
HofmannW.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM.BaeyensF.CrombezG. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018916
24.
HughesS.YeY.Van DesselP.De HouwerJ. (2019). When people co-occur with good or bad events: Graded effects of relational qualifiers on evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218781340
25.
JaegerB.SleegersW. W. A.EvansA. M.StelM.van BeestI. (2019). The effects of facial attractiveness and trustworthiness in online peer-to-peer markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 75, Article 102125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.11.004
26.
JonesA. L.KramerR. S. (2021). Facial first impressions form two clusters representing approach-avoidance. Cognitive Psychology, 126, Article 101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101387
27.
LakensD. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023
28.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
29.
MattavelliS.MasiM.BrambillaM. (2021). Untrusted under threat: On the superior bond between trustworthiness and threat in face-context integration (under review).
30.
MitchellC. J.De HouwerJ.LovibondP. F. (2009). The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 183–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
33.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniG. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519
34.
RezlescuC.DuchaineB.OlivolaC. Y.ChaterN. (2012). Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLOS ONE, 7(3), Article e34293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034293
35.
RighartR.De GelderB. (2006). Context influences early perceptual analysis of faces—An electrophysiological study. Cerebral Cortex, 16(9), 1249–1257. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj066
36.
RighartR.De GelderB. (2008). Recognition of facial expressions is influenced by emotional scene gist. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.3.264
37.
RussellJ. A.BarrettL. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 805–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805
38.
StirratM.PerrettD. I. (2010). Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 21(3), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362647
39.
SutherlandC. A.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
40.
TodorovA.DotschR.PorterJ. M.OosterhofN. N.FalvelloV. B. (2013). Validation of data-driven computational models of social perception of faces. Emotion, 13(4), 724–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032335
41.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589
42.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
43.
VernonR. J.SutherlandC. A.YoungA. W.HartleyT. (2014). Modeling first impressions from highly variable facial images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(32), E3353–E3361. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1409860111
WinstonJ. S.StrangeB. A.O’DohertyJ.DolanR. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5(3), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn816
46.
ZanonR.De HouwerJ.GastA.SmithC. T. (2014). When does relational information influence evaluative conditioning?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2105–2122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.907324
47.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_2
48.
ZebrowitzL. A.MontepareJ. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1497–1517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109
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.
