Impressions of others are formed from multiple cues, including facial features, vocal tone, and behavioral descriptions, and may be subject to multimodal updating. Four experiments (N = 803) examined the influence of a target’s face or voice on impression updating. Experiments 1a-1b examined whether behavior-based impressions are susceptible to updating by incongruent information conveyed by the target’s face, voice, or behavior (within-participant manipulation). Both faces and voices updated impressions with comparable strength, but less than behaviors. Experiment 2, contrasting faces and voices only (between-participants manipulation), showed that voices outperformed faces regardless of how impressions were formed (i.e., via behavioral vs. nonbehavioral information). Experiment 3 found no difference when comparing faces and voices in a within-participant design and controlling for stimulus attractiveness. Our work highlights the importance of multimodal cues for impression updating and shows that the relative power of faces and voices depends on contextual factors.
AmbadyN.BernieriF. J.RichesonJ. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80006-4
BarkerP.ImhoffR. (2021). The dynamic interactive pattern of assimilation and contrast: Accounting for standard extremity in comparative evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104190
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
5.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
6.
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
7.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.GoodwinG. P. (2021). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 187–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.03.001
8.
ConeJ.FergusonM. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000014
9.
ConeJ.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2017). Changing our implicit minds: How, when, and why implicit evaluations can be rapidly revised. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 131–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.03.001
10.
De GelderB.BertelsonP. (2003). Multisensory integration, perception and ecological validity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.014
11.
FasoliF.MaassA.PaladinoM. P.SulpizioS. (2017). Gay-and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
13.
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
14.
FooY. Z.SutherlandC. A. M.BurtonN. S.NakagawaS.RhodesG. (2021). Accuracy in facial trustworthiness impressions: Kernel of truth or modern physiognomy? A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48, 1580–1596.
15.
FreemanJ. B.StolierR. M.BrooksJ. A. (2020). Dynamic interactive theory as a domain-general account of social perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 237–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.005
16.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
17.
GluszekA.DovidioJ. F. (2010). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288
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
HansenK.RakićT.SteffensM. C. (2018). Foreign-looking native-accented people: More competent when first seen rather than heard. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 1001–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732389
22.
JiangZ.LiD.LiZ.YangY.LiuY.YueX.. . . XueP. (2024). Comparison of face-based and voice-based first impressions in a Chinese sample. British Journal of Psychology, 115(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12675
23.
JohnsonK. L.LickD. J.CarpinellaC. M. (2015). Emergent research in social vision: An integrated approach to the determinants and consequences of social categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12147
24.
KlofstadC. A.AndersonR. C.PetersS. (2012). Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1738), 2698–2704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0311
25.
KoS. J.JuddC. M.StapelD. A. (2009). Stereotyping based on voice in the presence of individuating information: Vocal femininity affects perceived competence but not warmth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208326477
26.
KrausM. W. (2017). Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy. American Psychologist, 72(7), 644–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000147
27.
KruseF.DegnerJ. (2021). Spontaneous state inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(4), 774–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000232
28.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LanM.PengM.ZhaoX.ChenH.LiuY.YangJ. (2022). Facial attractiveness is more associated with individual warmth than with competence: Behavioral and neural evidence. Social Neuroscience, 17(3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2022.2069152
LavanN.MilevaM.BurtonA. M.YoungA. W.McGettiganC. (2021). Trait evaluations of faces and voices: Comparing within- and between-person variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(9), 1854–1869. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001019
LiuM.SommerW.YueS.LiW. (2023). Dominance of face over voice in human attractiveness judgments: ERP evidence. Psychophysiology, 60(11), Article e14358. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14358
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.
MasiM.FasoliF. (2022). When fluency matters: The interplay between categorization fluency and gender atypicality on gaydar judgments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(6), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221111382
37.
MasiM.MattavelliS.FasoliF.BrambillaM. (2022). Cross-modal impression updating: Dynamic impression updating from face to voice and the other way around. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(3), 808–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12511
38.
McAleerP.BelinP. (2018). The perception of personality traits from voices. In FruholzS.BelinP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of voice perception (pp. 585–606). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198743187.013.26
39.
McAleerP.TodorovA.BelinP. (2014). How do you say ‘hello’? Personality impressions from brief novel voices. PLoS ONE, 9(3), Article e90779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090779
McCarthyR. J.SkowronskiJ. J. (2011). What will Phil do next? Spontaneously inferred traits influence predictions of behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.015
42.
MilevaM.LavanN. (2023). Trait impressions from voices are formed rapidly within 400 ms of exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 152(6), 1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001325
43.
MilevaM.TompkinsonJ.WattD.BurtonA. M. (2018). Audiovisual integration in social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000439
44.
MilevaM.TompkinsonJ.WattD.BurtonA. M. (2020). The role of face and voice cues in predicting the outcome of student representative elections. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219867965
45.
MoskowitzG. B.Olcaysoy OktenI.SchneidE. (2022). The updating of first impressions. In BalcetisE.MoskowitzG. B. (Eds.), The handbook of impression formation (pp. 348–392). Routledge.
46.
MussweilerT. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472
47.
NewmanL. S. (1996). Trait impressions as heuristics for predicting future behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224006
48.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1
49.
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
50.
RakićT.SteffensM. C.MummendeyA. (2011). When it matters how you pronounce it: The influence of regional accents on job interview outcome. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02051.x
51.
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
52.
RezlescuC.PentonT.WalshV.TsujimuraH.ScottS. K.BanissyM. J. (2015). Dominant voices and attractive faces: The contribution of visual and auditory information to integrated person impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0214-8
53.
RougierM.De HouwerJ. (2024). Updating stereotypical attributions in light of new information: The attractiveness halo effect changes when attractiveness changes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3017
54.
RuleN. O.SutherlandS. L. (2017). Social categorization from faces: Evidence from obvious and ambiguous groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417697970
55.
RuleN. O.TskhayK. O.BrambillaM.RivaP.AndrzejewskiS. A.KrendlA. C. (2015). The relationship between anti-gay prejudice and the categorization of sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 74–80.
56.
SchneidE. D.CrawfordM. T.SkowronskiJ. J.IrwinL. M.CarlstonD. E. (2015). Thinking about other people: Spontaneous trait inferences and spontaneous evaluations. Social Psychology, 46(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000218
57.
ShenX.MaiolatesiA. J.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2023). The Relation between updated implicit evaluations and the Trust Game. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(8), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221141661
58.
ShenX.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2020). Beware a dishonest face? Updating face-based implicit impressions using diagnostic behavioral information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103888
59.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E.HartnettJ. (2008). Spontaneous impressions derived from observations of behavior: What a long, strange trip it’s been (and it’s not over yet). In AmbadyN.SkowronskiJ. J. (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 313–333). Guilford Publications.
60.
SnyderM.StukasA. A.Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.273
61.
SutherlandC. A.YoungA. W. (2022). Understanding trait impressions from faces. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12583
62.
TodorovA. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: An extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.012
63.
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
64.
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(5), 1051–1065. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1051
65.
UlemanJ. S.KresselL. M. (2013). A brief history of theory and research on impression formation. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 53–73). Oxford University Press.
66.
VivesM. L.FrancesC.BausC. (2023). Automating weighing of faces and voices based on cue saliency in trustworthiness impressions. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 20037.
67.
VonkR. (1994). Trait inferences, impression formation, and person memory: Strategies in processing inconsistent information about persons. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 111–149.
YoungA. W.FrühholzS.SchweinbergerS. R. (2020). Face and voice perception: Understanding commonalities and differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.001
ZuckermanM.SinicropiV. (2011). When physical and vocal attractiveness differ: Effects on favorability of interpersonal impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-011-0106-5
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.
