Dominant models of impression formation focus on two fundamental dimensions: a horizontal dimension of warmth/communion/trustworthiness and a vertical dimension of competence/agency/dominance. However, these models have typically been studied using theory-driven methods and stimuli of restricted complexity. We used a data-driven approach and naturalistic stimuli to explore the latent dimensions underlying >300,000 unconstrained linguistic descriptions of 1,000 Facebook profile pictures from 2,188 participants. Via traditional (Exploratory Factor Analysis) and modern (natural language dictionaries, semantic sentence embeddings) approaches, we observed impressions to form with regard to the horizontal and vertical dimensions and their respective facets of sociability/morality and ability/assertiveness, plus the key demographic variables of gender, age, and race. However, we also observed impressions to form along numerous further dimensions, including adventurousness, conservatism, fitness, non-conformity, and stylishness. These results serve to emphasize the importance of high-dimensional models of impression formation and help to clarify the content dimensions underlying unconstrained descriptions of individuals.
AbeleA. E.BruckmüllerS. (2013). The Big Two of agency and communion in language and communication. In ForgasJ.VinczeO.LaszloJ. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 173–184). Psychology Press.
2.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
3.
AbeleA. E.HaukeN.PetersK.LouvetE.SzymkowA.DuanY. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—Communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810
4.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751.
5.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press.
6.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756
7.
AtwoodS.GibsonD. J.Briones RamírezS.OlsonK. R. (2024). Flexibility in continuous judgments of gender/sex and race. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001512
8.
BeckerJ. C.KrausM. W.Rheinschmidt-SameM. (2017). Cultural expressions of social class and their implications for group-related beliefs and behaviors. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12209
9.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.CherubiniP.YzerbytV. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x
10.
CelliF.BruniE.LepriB. (2014, November). Automatic personality and interaction style recognition from Facebook profile pictures. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 1101–1104). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2647868.2654977
11.
ChanW.HoR. M.LeungK.ChanD. K.-S.YungY.-F. (1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4(4), 378–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.4.378
12.
ChapmanH.CofféH. (2016). Changing Facebook profile pictures as part of a campaign: Who does it and why?Journal of Youth Studies, 19(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1083962
13.
CharradM.GhazzaliN.BoiteauV.NiknafsA. (2014). NbClust: An R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software, 61(6), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i06
14.
ClarksonD. B.JennrichR. I. (1988). Quartic rotation criteria and algorithms. Psychometrika, 53(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294136
15.
CollovaJ. R.SutherlandC. A. M.RhodesG. (2019). Testing the functional basis of first impressions: Dimensions for children’s faces are not the same as for adults’ faces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 900–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000167
16.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
17.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
23.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
24.
FiskeS. T.XuJ.CuddyA. C.GlickP. (1999). (Dis) respecting versus (dis) liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00128
25.
GoslingS. D.GaddisS.VazireS. (2007). Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. International Conference on Web and Social Media, 7, 1–4.
26.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
HogartyK. Y.HinesC. V.KromreyJ. D.FerronJ. M.MumfordK. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267287
29.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
30.
HumN. J.ChamberlinP. E.HambrightB. L.PortwoodA. C.SchatA. C.BevanJ. L. (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1828–1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003
31.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
32.
JonesB. C.DeBruineL. M.FlakeJ. K.LiuzzaM. T.AntfolkJ.ArinzeN. C.. . . SirotaM. (2021). To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply?Nature Human Behaviour, 5(1), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01007
33.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899
34.
KlineP. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. Academic Press.
35.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046
36.
KochA.ImhoffR.UnkelbachC.NicolasG.FiskeS.TeracheJ.CarrierA.YzerbytV. (2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, Article 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995
LinC.KelesU.AdolphsR. (2021). Four dimensions characterize attributions from faces using a representative set of English trait words. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25500-y
39.
McCraeR. R.ZondermanA. B.CostaP. T.BondM. H.Jr.PaunonenS. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
40.
MethnerN.BruckmüllerS.SteffensM. C. (2020). Can accepting criticism be an effective impression management strategy for public figures? A comparison with denials and a counterattack. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1754824
41.
MuthukrishnaM.BellA. V.HenrichJ.CurtinC. M.GedranovichA.McInerneyJ.ThueB. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701.
42.
NicolasG. (2022). SADCAT: Dictionary creation with stereotype content dictionaries(R package version 0.1.0). https://github.com/gandalfnicolas/
43.
NicolasG.BaiX.FiskeS. T. (2021). Comprehensive stereotype content dictionaries using a semi-automated method. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2724
44.
NicolasG.BaiX.FiskeS. T. (2022). A spontaneous stereotype content model: Taxonomy, properties, and prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1243–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000312
45.
OhD.DotschR.PorterJ.TodorovA. (2020). Gender biases in impressions from faces: Empirical studies and computational models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000638
46.
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
47.
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
RosenbergS.NelsonC.VivekananthanP. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026086
52.
RoulinN.LevashinaJ. (2016). Impression management and social media profiles. In LandersR.SchmidtG. (Eds.), Social media in employee selection and recruitment: Theory, practice, and current challenges (pp. 223–248). Springer.
53.
SutherlandC. A.LiuX.ZhangL.ChuY.OldmeadowJ. A.YoungA. W. (2018). Facial first impressions across culture: Data-driven modeling of Chinese and British perceivers’ unconstrained facial impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744194
54.
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
55.
SutherlandC. A.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
56.
SutherlandC. A.YoungA. W.MootzC. A.OldmeadowJ. A. (2015). Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter-stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. British Journal of Psychology, 106(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12085
57.
TaylorS. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In HamiltonD. L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 88–114). Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
TodorovA.OhD. (2021). The structure and perceptual basis of social judgments from faces. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 189–245). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.11.004
59.
TweleA. C.MondlochC. J. (2022). The dimensions underlying first impressions of older adult faces are similar, but not identical, for young and older adult perceivers. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1009–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12568
60.
Van der MaatenL.HintonG. (2008). Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(11), 2579–2605.
61.
WhiteD.SutherlandC. A.BurtonA. L. (2017). Choosing face: The curse of self in profile image selection. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0058-3
62.
WidamanK. F. (2018). On common factor and principal component representations of data: Implications for theory and for confirmatory replications. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(6), 829–847.
63.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395.
64.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1139–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.549
65.
YzerbytV. Y.KervynN.JuddC. M. (2008). Compensation versus halo: The unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1110–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318602
66.
YzerbytV. Y.ProvostV.CorneilleO. (2005). Not competent but warm . . . really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speaking world. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205053944
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.
