In this review, we ask how looking at people’s faces can influence prosocial behaviors toward them. Components of this process have been studied in two disparate literatures: one focused on the perception of faces and judgments based on them, using both psychological and neuroscience approaches, and a second focused on actual social behaviors as studied in behavioral economics and decision science. Bridging these disciplines requires a mechanistic account of how processing of particular face attributes or features influences social judgments and behaviors. We review these two lines of research and suggest that combining some of their methodological tools may reveal the bridging mechanistic explanations.
AdolphsR. (2008). Fear, faces, and the human amygdala. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 166–172. An article that reviews neuroscientific evidence on the role of the amygdala in face processing and fear perception, and discusses the automatic and nonconscious aspects of these processes.
2.
FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L. (2016). (See References). A review of how rapid face perception can generate biases and stereotypes, and how these might be implemented in the brain.
3.
MaestripieriD.HenryA.NickelsN. (2017). (See References). A clearly written, user-friendly review of prosocial biases (in both real-world and laboratory settings) in favor of attractive faces from various research disciplines.
4.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-Siedlecki. (2015). (See References). A comprehensible, highly accessible overview of the dimensions and features of faces that guide our social judgments about them.
5.
AdolphsR.GosselinF.BuchananT. W.TranelD.SchynsP.DamasioA. R. (2005). A mechanism for impaired fear recognition after amygdala damage. Nature, 433, 68–72.
6.
AdolphsR.NummenmaaL.TodorovA.HaxbyJ. V. (2016). Data-driven approaches in the investigation of social perception. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 371, Article 20150367. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0367
7.
AdolphsR.TranelD.DamasioA. R. (1998). The human amygdala in social judgment. Nature, 393, 470–474.
8.
AdolphsR.TranelD.DamasioH.DamasioA. (1994). Impaired recognition of emotion in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala. Nature, 372, 669–672.
9.
BonnefonJ. F.HopfensitzA.De NeysW. (2013). The modular nature of trustworthiness detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 143–150.
10.
BzdokD.LangnerR.HoffstaedterF.TuretskyB. I.ZillesK.EickhoffS. B. (2012). The modular neuroarchitecture of social judgments on faces. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 951–961.
11.
DeBruineL. (2011). Opposite-sex siblings decrease attraction, but not prosocial attributions, to self-resembling opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 11710–11714.
12.
FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L. (2016). More than meets the eye: Split-second social perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 362–374.
13.
FreiwaldW. A.TsaoD. Y.LivingstoneM. S. (2009). A face feature space in the macaque temporal lobe. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 1187–1196.
14.
HaxbyJ. V.HoffmanE. A.GobbiniM. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 223–233.
15.
HutchersonC. A.BushongB.RangelA. (2015). A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications. Neuron, 87, 451–462. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031
16.
KrajbichI.ArmelC.RangelA. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1292–1298.
17.
KruppD. B.DeBruineL. M.BarclayP. (2008). A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 49–55.
18.
LandryC.LangeA.ListJ. A.PriceM. K.RuppN. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 747–782.
19.
MaestripieriD.HenryA.NickelsN. (2017). Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 40, e19. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16000340
20.
MarshA. (2016). Neural, cognitive and evolutionary foundations of human altruism. Cognitive Science, 7, 59–71.
21.
MarshA. A.KozakM. N.AmbadyN. (2007). Accurate identification of fear facial expressions predicts prosocial behavior. Emotion, 7, 239–251. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.239
22.
MarshA. A.StoycosS. A.Brethel-HaurwitzK. M.RobinsonP.VanMeterJ. W.CardinaleE. M. (2014). Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 15036–15041. doi:10.1073/pnas.1408440111
23.
PriceM. (2008). Fund-raising success and a solicitor’s beauty capital: Blondes raise more funds?Economics Letters, 100, 351–354.
24.
RaihaniN. J.SmithS. (2015). Competitive helping in online giving. Current Biology, 25, 1–4.
25.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873–922.
26.
RosenblatT. S. (2008). The beauty premium: Physical attractiveness and gender in dictator games. Negotiation Journal, 24, 465–481.
27.
SolnickS. J.SchweitzerM. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 79, 199–215.
28.
SpuntR.EllsworthE.AdolphsR. (2016). The neural basis of understanding the expression of the emotions in man and animals. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 95–105.
29.
SrinivasanR.GolombJ. D.MartinezA. M. (2016). A neural basis of facial action recognition in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 4434–4442.
30.
StirratM.PerrettD. (2010). Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 21, 349–354.
31.
StirratM.PerrettD. I. (2012). Face structure predicts cooperation: Men with wider faces are more generous to their in-group when out-group competition is salient. Psychological Science, 23, 718–722. doi:10.1177/0956797611435133
32.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545.
33.
TuscheA.BöcklerA.KanskeP.TrautweinF. M.SingerT. (2016). Decoding the charitable brain: Empathy, perspective taking, and attention shifts differentially predict altruistic giving. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 4719–4732. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3392-15.2016
34.
WangS.JiangM.DuchesneX. M.KennedyD. P.AdolphsR.ZhaoQ. (2015). Atypical visual saliency in autism spectrum disorder quantified through model-based eye tracking. Neuron, 88, 604–616.
35.
WinstonJ. S.StrangeB. A.O’DohertyJ.DolanR. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 277–283.
36.
XuJ.JiangM.WangS.KankanhalliM. S.ZhaoQ. (2014). Predicting human gaze beyond pixels. Journal of Vision, 14, Article 28. doi:10.1167/14.1.28
37.
ZaatariD.PalestisB. G.TriversR. (2009). Fluctuating asymmetry of responders affects offers in the ultimatum game oppositely according to attractiveness or need as perceived by proposers. Ethology, 115, 627–632.
38.
ZakiJ.CikaraM. (2015). Addressing empathic failures. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 471–476.
