Four studies demonstrated that perceivers were able to identify the political attitudes of unknown politicians on a left–right dimension when the targets were merely shown in photographs. In Study 1, party membership provided an objective criterion for political attitudes, whereas actual voting behavior served as a validity criterion in Studies 2, 3a, and 3b. All studies yielded ratings highly chance accuracy. Additional ratings suggest that perceived dominance may partly account for the effect. Moreover, perceivers were more accurate when they rated politicians whose attitudes were opposite to their own position, reflecting a more liberal criterion for out-group than for in-group members. Finally, politicians who were rated accurately had higher chances of being reelected to the following parliamentary session.
AllportG. W.KramerB. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22, 9–39.
2.
AltemeyerR. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–91). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
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.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
5.
BlockJ.BlockJ. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 734–749.
6.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1995). Observable attributes as manifestations and cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63, 1–25.
7.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
9.
CarneyD. R.ColvinC. R.HallJ. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072.
10.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.
11.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.BourguignonD.SeronE. (2002). Who may enter? The impact of in-group identification on in-group/out-group categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 315–322.
12.
ClarkH. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.
13.
ElliottD. N.WittenbergB. H. (1955). Accuracy of identification of Jewish and non-Jewish photographs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 339–341.
14.
FiedlerK.KareevY. (2006). Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 883–903.
15.
FunderD. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
16.
GilliesJ.CampbellS. (1985). Conservatism and poetry preferences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 223–227.
17.
GlasgowM. R.CartierA. M.WilsonG. D. (1985). Conservatism, sensation-seeking, and music preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 393–395.
18.
HermannM. (2006). Links-recht-Rating. Analyse für die Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 1. Dezember 2006[Left-right-rating. Analysis for the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” (a Swiss newspaper), December 1, 2006; Data file]. Received from the author.
19.
JahodaG. (1954). Political attitudes and judgments of other people. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 330–334.
20.
JosephsR. A.SellersJ. G.NewmanM. L.MehtaP. H. (2006). The mismatch effect: When testosterone and status are at odds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 999–1013.
21.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
22.
LeyensJ.-P.YzerbytV. Y. (1992). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Impact of valence and confirmation on stereotypical search. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 549–569.
23.
McIntyreM. H.BarrettE. S.McDermottR.JohnsonD. D. P.CowdenJ.RosenS. P. (2007). Finger length ratio (2D:4D) and sex differences in aggression during a simulated war game. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 755–764.
24.
McNicolD. (1972). A primer of signal detection theory. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
25.
MendesW. B.BlascovichJ.HunterS. B.LickelB.JostJ. T. (2007). Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 698–716.
26.
NesseR. M. (2005). Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: A signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 88–105.
27.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 315–324.
28.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087–11092.
29.
Penton-VoakI. S.ChenJ. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229–241.
30.
Penton-VoakI. S.PoundN.LittleA. C.PerrettD. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 607–640.
31.
QuantyM. B.KeatsJ. A.HarkinsS. G. (1975). Prejudice and criteria for identification of ethnic photographs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 449–454.
32.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2010). Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS ONE, 5, e8733.
33.
SchallerM. (2008). Evolutionary bases of first impressions. In AmbadyN.SkowronskiJ. J. (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Guilford.
34.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
TomkinsS. S. (1963). Left and right: A basic dimension of ideology and personality. In WhiteR. W. (Ed.), The study of lives (pp. 388–411). Chicago, IL: Atherton.
36.
WänkeM.WyerR. S. (1996). Individual differences in person memory: The role of sociopolitical ideology and in-group versus out-group membership in responses to socially relevant behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 742–754.
37.
WilsonG. D. (Ed.). (1973). The psychology of conservatism. London, UK: Academic Press.
38.
WilsonG. D.AusmanJ.MathewsT. R. (1973). Conservatism and art preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 286–288.
39.
YzerbytV.LeyensJ.-P.BellourF. (1995). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Identity concerns in decisions about group membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 1–16.
40.
ZebrowitzL. A. (2006). Finally, faces find favor. Social Cognition, 24, 657–701.
41.
ZebrowitzL. A.CollinsM. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 204–223.
42.
ZebrowitzL. A.MontepareJ. M. (2006). The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In SchallerM.SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 81–113). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
