Previous research has shown high cross-cultural consensus in personality trait judgments based on faces. However, the information that was provided in these studies included extrafacial features, such as hairstyle or clothes. Such styling information can be intentionally chosen by target persons to express who they are. Using a well-developed and validated Western face model, we were able to formalize the static facial information that is used to make certain personality trait judgments, namely, aggressiveness, extroversion, likeability, risk seeking, social skills, and trustworthiness judgments. We manipulated this information in photographs of Asian and Western faces with natural-looking results. Asian and Western participants identified the enhanced salience of all different personality traits in the faces. Asian participants, however, needed more time for this task. Moreover, faces with enhanced salience of aggressiveness, extroversion, social skills, and trustworthiness were better identified by Western than by Asian participants.
AlbrightL.KennyD. A.MalloyT. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.
2.
AlbrightL.MalloyT. E.DongQ.KennyD. A.FangX.WinquistL.YuD. (1997). Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 558–569.
3.
BachmannT.NurmojaM. (2006). Are there affordances of suggestibility in facial appearance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 87–92.
4.
BlairI. V.JuddC. M.ChapleauK. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674–679.
5.
BlanzV.VetterT. (1999). A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. Proceedings of Siggraph’99, 178–194.
6.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero-acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.
7.
BruceV.YoungA. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.
8.
EberhardtJ. L.DaviesP. G.Purdie-VaughnsV. J.JohnsonS. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy. Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383–386.
9.
JaccardJ.WanC. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
KeatingC. F.MazurA.SegallM. H. (1981). A cross-cultural exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness. Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 41–48.
12.
MontepareJ. M.DobischH. (2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgerneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 237–254.
13.
MontepareJ. M.Zebrowitz McArthurL. (1998). Person perception comes of age: The salience and significance of age in social judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 93–161.
14.
NaumannL. P.VazireS.RentfrowP. J.GoslingS. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661–1671.
15.
O’TooleA. J.VetterT.TrojeN. F.BülthoffH. H. (1997). Sex classification is better with three-dimensional head structure than with image intensity information. Perception, 26, 75–84.
16.
O’TooleA. J.WengerM. J.TownsendJ. T. (1998). Quantitative models of perceiving and remembering faces: Precedents and possibilities. In WengerM. J.TownsendJ. T. (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition (pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
PhillipsP. J.WechslerH.HuangJ.RaussP. J. (1998). The feret database and evaluation procedure for face-recognition algorithms. Image and Vision Computing, 16, 295–306.
18.
SczesnyS.SpreemannS.StahlbergD. (2006). Masculine = competent? Physical appearance and sex as sources of gender-stereotypic attributions. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 15–23.
19.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.
20.
ValentineT. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 161–204.
21.
WalkerM.VetterT. (2009). Portraits made to measure. Manipulating social judgments about individuals with a statistical face model. Journal of Vision, 9, 1–13.
22.
WilliamsJ. E.BestD. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
ZebrowitzL.MontepareJ. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1497–1517.
24.
ZebrowitzL.MontepareJ. M.LeeH. K. (1993). They don’t all look alike: Individuated impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85–101.
25.
ZebrowitzL.RhodesG. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185.
26.
ZebrowitzL. A.AndreolettiC.CollinsM. A.LeeS. Y.BlumenthalJ. (1998). Bright, bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300–1320.
27.
ZebrowitzL. A.FellousJ. -M.MignaultA.AndreolettiC. (2003). Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 194–215.
28.
ZebrowitzL. A.HallJ. A.MurphyN. A.RhodesG. (2002). Looking smart is looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238–249.
