Facial impressions have long been argued to be driven by two independent dimensions of trustworthiness and dominance. However, in an intergroup context, we reasoned that these dimensions may shift predictably and become more positively related for ingroup members, yet negatively related for outgroup members, due to dominance signaling outgroup threat and/or ingroup prosociality. In two studies, we examined how the two dimensions shift across minimal group boundaries for White targets. In Study 1, core dimensions of trustworthiness and dominance became intertwined with each other differently for ingroup and outgroup targets. In Study 2, stronger stereotypic beliefs that trustworthiness ≈ dominance for ingroup than outgroup mediated the shifts in facial impression dimensions. This work advances our understanding of facial impressions and intergroup bias by showing that the facial impression dimensions are not fixed but may shift across group boundaries and that such shifts occur above and beyond simple ingroup favoritism.
AndersonC.KilduffG. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503.
2.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612–625.
3.
BeaupréM. G.HessU. (2003). In my mind, we all smile: A case of in-group favoritism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 371–377.
4.
BernsteinM. J.YoungS. G.HugenbergK. (2007). The cross-category effect: Mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition. Psychological Science, 18(8), 706–712.
5.
BrewerM. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728–738.
6.
ChuaK.-W.FreemanJ. B. (2021). Facial stereotype bias is mitigated by training. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1335–1344.
7.
CogsdillE.TodorovA.SpelkeE.BanajiM. (2014). Inferring character from faces: A developmental study. Psychological Science, 25(5), 1132–1139.
8.
CollovaJ. R.SutherlandC. A. M.RhodesG. (2019). Testing the functional basis of first impressions: Dimensions for children’s faces are not the same as for adults’ faces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 900–924.
9.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.KwanV. S. Y.GlickP.DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.BondM. H.CroizetJ.-C.EllemersN.SleebosE.HtunT. T.KimH.-J.MaioG.PerryJ.PetkovaK.TodorovV.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoralesE.MoyaM.. . .ZieglerR. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. The British Journal of Social Psychology / The British Psychological Society, 48(1), 1–33.
10.
DuarteJ.SiegelS.YoungL. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2484.
11.
DunhamY. (2011). An angry = Outgroup effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 668–671.
12.
EssesV. M.HaddockG.ZannaM. P. (1993). Chapter 7—Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In MackieD. M.HamiltonD. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping (pp. 137–166). Academic Press.
13.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
14.
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.
15.
HassinR.TropeY. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 837–852.
16.
HehmanE.StolierR. M.FreemanJ. B.FlakeJ. K.XieS. Y. (2019). Toward a comprehensive model of face impressions: What we know, what we do not, and paths forward. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2), Article e12431.
17.
HehmanE.SutherlandC. A. M.FlakeJ. K.SlepianM. L. (2017). The unique contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 513–529.
18.
HongY.MayesM. S.MunasingheA. P.RatnerK. G. (2022). Scrutinizing whether mere group membership influences the N170 response to faces: Results from two preregistered event-related potential studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34(11), 1999–2015.
19.
HongY.RatnerK. G. (2021). Minimal but not meaningless: Seemingly arbitrary category labels can imply more than group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 576–600.
20.
HugenbergK.CorneilleO. (2009). Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces. Cognitive Science, 33(6), 1173–1181.
21.
HugenbergK.YoungS. G.BernsteinM. J.SaccoD. F. (2010). The categorization-individuation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1168–1187.
22.
HughesB. L.ZakiJ. (2015). The neuroscience of motivated cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 62–64.
23.
HughesB. L.ZakiJ.AmbadyN. (2017). Motivation alters impression formation and related neural systems. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 49–60.
24.
HutchingsR. J.SimpsonA. J.ShermanJ. W.ToddA. R. (2021). Perspective taking reduces intergroup bias in visual representations of faces. Cognition, 214, Article 104808.
25.
JaegerB.TodorovA. T.EvansA. M.van BeestI. (2020). Can we reduce facial biases? Persistent effects of facial trustworthiness on sentencing decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 104004.
26.
JonesB. CDeBruineL. M.FlakeJ. K.Tullio LiuzzaM.AntfolkJ.ArinzeN. C.NdukaiheI. L. G.BloxsomN. G.LewisS. C.ForoniF.WillisM. L.CubillasC. P.VadilloM. A.TurieganoE.GileadM.SimchonA.SaribayS. A.OwsleyN. C.JangC.. . . ColesN. A. (2021). To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply?Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 159–169.
27.
KlapperA.DotschR.van RooijI.WigboldusD. H. J. (2016). Do we spontaneously form stable trustworthiness impressions from facial appearance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 655–664.
28.
KundaZ.ThagardP. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103(2), 284–308.
LinC.KelesU.AdolphsR. (2021). Four dimensions characterize attributions from faces using a representative set of English trait words. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–15.
31.
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.
32.
OhD.DotschR.PorterJ.TodorovA. (2020). Gender biases in impressions from faces: Empirical studies and computational models. Nature Human Behavior, 4, 287–293.
33.
OhD.MartinJ. D.FreemanJ. B. (2022). Personality across world regions predicts variability in the structure of face impressions. Psychological Science, 33(8), 1240–1256.
34.
OliveiraM.Garcia-MarquesT.DotschR.Garcia-MarquesL. (2019). Dominance and competence face to face: Dissociations obtained with a reverse correlation approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 888–902.
35.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087–11092.
36.
RatnerK. G.DotschR.WigboldusD. H. J.van KnippenbergA.AmodioD. M. (2014). Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 897–911.
37.
RuleN. O.KrendlA. C.IvcevicZ.AmbadyN. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 409–426.
38.
StolierR. M.HehmanE.FreemanJ. B. (2018a). A dynamic structure of social trait space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 197–200.
39.
StolierR. M.HehmanE.FreemanJ. B. (2020). Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 361–371.
40.
StolierR. M.HehmanE.KellerM. D.WalkerM.FreemanJ. B. (2018b). The conceptual structure of face impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9210–9215.
41.
SutherlandC. A. M.BurtonN. S.WilmerJ. B.BloklandG. A. M.GermineL.PalermoR.CollovaJ. R.RhodesG. (2020). Individual differences in trust evaluations are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(19), 10218–10224.
42.
SutherlandC. A. M.OldmeadowJ. A.SantosI. M.TowlerJ.Michael BurtD.YoungA. W. (2013). Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition, 127(1), 105–118.
43.
SutherlandC. A. M.YoungA. W.MootzC. A.OldmeadowJ. A. (2015). Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter-stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. British Journal of Psychology, 106(2), 186–208.
44.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
45.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.
46.
TodorovA.SaidC. P.EngellA. D.OosterhofN. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 455–460.
47.
WalkerM.SchönbornS.GreifenederR.VetterT. (2018). The Basel face database: A validated set of photographs reflecting systematic differences in Big Two and Big Five personality dimensions. PLOS ONE, 13(3), Article e0193190.
XieS. Y.FlakeJ. K.HehmanE. (2019). Perceiver and target characteristics contribute to impression formation differently across race and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 364–385.
50.
XieS. Y.FlakeJ. K.StolierR. M.FreemanJ. B.HehmanE. (2021). Facial impressions are predicted by the structure of group stereotypes. Psychological Science, 32(12), 1979–1993.
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.
