A Thin Slice of Science Communication: Are People’s Evaluations of TED Talks Predicted by Superficial Impressions of the Speakers?

Abstract

First impressions based on physical characteristics and superficial information predict a wide variety of social judgments and outcomes. We build on recent work examining the effects of such impressions on the communication of scientific research and ideas to the general public. A large diverse sample viewed and evaluated scientific TED talks, while a separate group viewed short, silent excerpts of each video and judged the speakers on three core sociocognitive traits: competence, morality, and sociability. Neither the perceived scientific quality nor the entertainment value of the talks was meaningfully predicted by the thin-slice judgments; likewise, they were independent of the speakers’ age, gender, ethnicity, and attractiveness. We propose that these null results arise because the influence of superficial visual cues was overwhelmed by the wealth of more diagnostic information and by our participants’ attentiveness to this information. Our results suggest limits to the predictive power of superficial impressions.

Keywords

science communication impression formation social cognition thin slices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ambady

Bernieri

F. J.

Richeson

J. 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. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80006-4

Ambady

Gray

H. M.

(2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.947

Ambady

Hallahan

Conner

(1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 538–547.

Ambady

Rosenthal

(1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431

Barnes

(2015). The use of altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 46, 121–134. doi:10.1080/00048623.2014.1003174

Boring

(2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27–41. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006

Brambilla

Leach

C. W.

(2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397–408. doi:10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397

Brambilla

Rusconi

Sacchi

Cherubini

(2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 135–143. doi:10.1002/ejsp.744

Briton

N. J.

Hall

J. A.

(1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90. doi:10.1007/BF01544758

10.

Carney

D. R.

Colvin

C. R.

Hall

J. A.

(2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004

11.

Eriksson

(2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 746–749. doi:10.1073/pnas.1216778110

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

13.

Feingold

(1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304

14.

Fiske

S. T.

(2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 67–73. doi:10.1177/0963721417738825

15.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

16.

Ford

Brick

Blaufuss

Dekens

(2018). Gender inequity in speaking opportunities at the American geophysical union fall meeting. Nature Communications, 9, 1358. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03809-5

17.

Fox

Weisberg

(2011). Multivariate linear models in R. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Los Angeles, CA: Thousand Oaks.

18.

Gheorghiu

A. I.

Callan

M. J.

Skylark

W. J.

(2017). Facial appearance affects science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114, 5970–5975. doi:10.1073/pnas.1620542114

19.

Goodwin

G. P.

(2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 38–44. doi:10.1177/0963721414550709

20.

Goodwin

G. P.

Piazza

Rozin

(2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168. doi:10.1037/a0034726

21.

Harold

Lorenzoni

Shipley

T. F.

Coventry

K. R.

(2016). Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization. Nature Climate Change, 6, 1080–1089. doi:10.1038/nclimate3162

22.

Joint Approaches to Social Policy_Team. (2018). JASP version 0.8.6. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org

23.

Johnson

B. D.

King

R. D.

(2017). Facial profiling: Race, physical appearance, and punishment*. Criminology, 55, 520–547. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12143

24.

Kandasamy

Garfinkel

S. N.

Page

Hardy

Critchley

H. D.

Gurnell

Coates

J. M.

(2016). Interoceptive ability predicts survival on a london trading floor. Scientific Reports, 6, 1–7. doi:10.1038/srep32986

25.

Lok

(2010). Science funding: Science for the masses. Nature, 465, 416–418. doi:10.1038/465416a

26.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Brescoll

V. L.

Graham

M. J.

Handelsman

(2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109, 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109

27.

Olivola

C. Y.

Todorov

(2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110. doi:10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1

28.

Oosterhof

N. N.

Todorov

(2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105, 11087–11092. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805664105

29.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

30.

Rule

N. O.

Ambady

Adams

R. B.

Ozono

Nakashima

Yoshikawa

Watabe

(2010). Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 1–15. doi:10.1037/a0017673

31.

Salganik

M. J.

Dodds

P. S.

Watts

(2015). Experimental study of inequality and unpredicatibility in an artificial culture market. Science, 299, 1874–1877. doi:10.1126/science.1121066

32.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 13585–13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111

33.

Schinske

Cardenas

Kaliangara

(2015). Uncovering scientist stereotypes and their relationships with student race and student success in a diverse, community college setting. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–16. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-12-0231

34.

Shapin

(1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Talamas

S. N.

Mavor

K. I.

Perrett

D. I.

(2016). Blinded by beauty: Attractiveness bias and accurate perceptions of academic performance. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148284. 1–18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148284

36.

Todorov

Mandisodza

A. N.

Goren

Hall

C. C.

(2005). Psychology: Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626. doi:10.1126/science.1110589

37.

Todorov

Olivola

C. Y.

Dotsch

Mende-Siedlecki

(2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831

38.

Todorov

Porter

J. M.

(2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25, 1404–1417. doi:10.1177/0956797614532474

39.

Todorov

Said

C. P.

Engell

A. D.

Oosterhof

N. N.

(2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455–460. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.001

40.

Uleman

Kressel

L. M.

(2013). A brief history of theory and research on impression formation. In Carlston

D. E.

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 53–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Weisberg

D. S.

Taylor

J. C. V.

Hopkins

E. J.

(2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 429–441.

42.

Williams

W. M.

Ceci

S. J.

(2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112, 5360–5365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112

43.

Wojciszke

(2005). Affective concomitants of information on morality and competence. European Psychologist, 10, 60–70. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.10.1.60

44.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Mcdonald

S. M.

(1991). The impact of litigants’ babyfacedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603–623.

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.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB