Impressions of role leaders provide information about anticipated opportunities in a role, and these perceptions can influence attitudes about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. Specifically, the facial structures of role leaders influenced perceived affordances of working with that person, such as the availability of communal and agentic opportunities (e.g., mentorship; achievement). STEM faculty with trustworthy (relative to dominant) faces were seen as valuing communal goals (Studies 1–3), and in turn, perceived as affording both communal and agentic opportunities in their research groups (Studies 2–3b). These heightened goal opportunities aligned with perceptions that trustworthy-faced advisors would enact more group-supportive behaviors (Study 2). Consequently, students anticipated fairer treatment and reported greater interest in labs directed by trustworthy- than dominant-faced leaders (Studies 3a–4a), even when images were accompanied by explicit information about leaders’ collaborative behavior (Study 4b). The faces of leaders can thus function as the “face” of that role and the surrounding culture.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
2.
AmbadyN.HallahanM.ConnerB. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.538
3.
AmbadyN.RosenthalR. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431
4.
BardenJ.MadduxW. W.PettyR. E.BrewerM. B. (2004). Contextual moderation of racial bias: The impact of social roles on controlled and automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.5
5.
BelangerA. L.DiekmanA. B.SteinbergM. (2017). Leveraging communal experiences in the curriculum: Increasing positivity toward engineering by changing stereotypic expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12438
6.
BelangerA. L.JoshiM. P.FuestingM. A.WeisgramE. S.ClaypoolH. M.DiekmanA. B. (2020). Putting belonging in context: Communal affordances signal belonging in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1186–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897181
7.
BiW.ChanH. F.TorglerB. (2020). “Beauty” premium for social scientists but “unattractiveness” premium for natural scientists in the public speaking market. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00608-6
8.
BrownE. R.SteinbergM.LuY.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Is the lone scientist an American dream? Perceived communal opportunities in STEM offer a pathway to closing U.S.–Asia gaps in interest and positivity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703173
9.
BrownE. R.ThomanD. B.SmithJ. L.DiekmanA. B. (2015). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 662–673.
10.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
CrawfordJ. T.JussimL.MadonS.CainT. R.StevensS. T. (2011). The use of stereotypes and individuating information in political person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211399473
DennehyT.DasguptaN. (2017). Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 5964–5969.
15.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
16.
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918.
17.
DiekmanA. B.JoshiM. P.Benson-GreenwaldT. M. (2020). Goal congruity theory: Navigating the social structure to fulfill goals. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 189–244). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.04.003
18.
EllemersN.de GilderD.van den HeuvelH. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.717
19.
EmersonK. T. U.MurphyM. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564969
20.
FergusonH. S.OwenA.HahnA. C.TorranceJ.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C. (2019). Context-specific effects of facial dominance and trustworthiness on hypothetical leadership decisions. PLOS ONE, 14(7), Article e0214261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214261
21.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
22.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857
23.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.BoucherK. L.MurphyM. C.MansonD. L.SaferB. L. (2019). Growing STEM: Perceived faculty mindset as an indicator of communal affordances in STEM. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000154
24.
FukuyamaF. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity (1. Free Press paperback ed.). Free Press.
GheorghiuA. I.CallanM. J.SkylarkW. J. (2017). Facial appearance affects science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 5970–5975. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620542114
27.
GheorghiuA. I.CallanM. J.SkylarkW. J. (2020). A thin slice of science communication: Are people’s evaluations of TED talks predicted by superficial impressions of the speakers?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618810896
28.
HoppC.WentzelD.RoseS. (2020). Chief executive officers’ appearance predicts company performance, or does it? A replication study and extension focusing on CEO successions. The Leadership Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101437
29.
JoshiM. P.DiekmanA. B. (2021). My fair lady? Inferring organizational trust from the mere presence of women in leadership roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211035957
30.
KeatingC. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033782
KrumhuberE.MansteadA. S. R.CoskerD.MarshallD.RosinP. L.KappasA. (2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 7(4), 730–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.730
LittleA. C.RobertsS. C.JonesB. C.DebruineL. M. (2012). The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 65(10), 2018–2032. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.677048
35.
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
36.
McConnellA. R.RydellR. J.StrainL. M.MackieD. M. (2008). Forming implicit and explicit attitudes toward individuals: Social group association cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.792
37.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
38.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
39.
National Science Board. (2020). Science and engineering indicators 2020: The state of science and engineering (NSB-2020-1). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/
40.
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
41.
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
42.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2009). Shared perceptual basis of emotional expressions and trustworthiness impressions from faces. Emotion, 9(1), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014520
Purdie-VaughnsV.SteeleC. M.DaviesP. G.DitlmannR.CrosbyJ. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
45.
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
46.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19(2), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x
47.
SchriesheimC. A.CogliserC. C.NeiderL. L. (1995). Is it “trustworthy”? A multiple-levels-of-analysis reexamination of an ohio state leadership study, with implications for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 111–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90031-4
48.
Shockley-ZalabakP.EllisK.WinogradG. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal; Chesterland, 18(4), 35–48.
49.
StephensN. M.MarkusH. R.FrybergS. A. (2012). Social class disparities in health and education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior. Psychological Review, 119(4), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029028
50.
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
51.
StokerJ. I.GarretsenH.SpreeuwersL. J. (2016). The facial appearance of CEOs: Faces signal selection but not performance. PLOS ONE, 11(7), Article e0159950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159950
52.
ThomanD. B.MuragishiG. A.SmithJ. L. (2017). Research microcultures as socialization contexts for underrepresented science students. Psychological Science, 28(6), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617694865
53.
TodorovA.BaronS. G.OosterhofN. N. (2008). Evaluating face trustworthiness: A model based approach. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn009
54.
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
55.
WalkerM.SchönbornS.GreifenederR.VetterT. (2018). The basel face database: A validated set of photographs reflecting systematic differences in Big Two and Big Five personality dimensions. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0193190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193190
56.
WangH.HahnA. C.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C. (2016). The motivational salience of faces is related to both their valence and dominance. PLOS ONE, 11(8), Article e0161114. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161114
57.
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
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.
