Research has shown that face-based impressions change when integrated with valence-inconsistent voices. Yet, it remains unclear whether listening to a voice also alters mental representations of faces. We tested this possibility using reverse correlation (RC) in two preregistered experiments with Italian Prolific users. In Experiment 1 (N = 61), participants formed impressions based on negative behavioral statements about a target person (Time 1) and completed the RC task to visualize face representations (classification images). Next, they formed new impressions on valence-(in)consistent voices (Time 2) before repeating the RC task. In Experiment 2 (N = 120), participants memorized a positive or negative face at Time 1 to measure spontaneous face impressions without requiring an explicit judgment. Classification images were created only after listening to valence-(in)consistent voices at Time 2. Across both experiments, independent judges rated the images (Ntotal = 140). Valence-inconsistent voices changed the perceived valence of the mental face representations. Implications for cross-modal impression formation are discussed.
AxtJ.SiemersN.DiscepolaM. N.MartinezP.XiaoZ.WehrliE. (2023). The mind’s “aye”? Investigating overlap in findings produced by reverse correlation versus self-report. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 107, Article 104473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104473
2.
BrinkmanL.TodorovA.DotschR. (2017). Visualising mental representations: A primer on noise-based reverse correlation in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2017.1381469
3.
BülthoffI.NewellF. N. (2017). Crossmodal priming of unfamiliar faces supports early interactions between voices and faces in person perception. Visual Cognition, 25(4-6), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1290729
4.
ConeJ.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LeiR.DotschR. (2021a). Type I error is inflated in the two-phase reverse correlation procedure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620938616
5.
ConeJ.FlahartyK.FergusonM. J. (2021b). The long-term effects of new evidence on implicit impressions of other people. Psychological Science, 32(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620963559
6.
ConeJ.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2017). Changing our implicit minds: How, when, and why implicit evaluations can be rapidly revised. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 131–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.03.001
DotschR.TodorovA. (2012). Reverse correlating social face perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611430272
9.
DotschR.WigboldusD. H.LangnerO.Van KnippenbergA. (2008). Ethnic out-group faces are biased in the prejudiced mind. Psychological Science, 19(10), 978–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02186.x
10.
DotschR.WigboldusD. H.Van KnippenbergA. D. (2013). Behavioral information biases the expected facial appearance of members of novel groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1928
11.
FarleyS. (2025). Introduction to the special issue on innovations in vocal research: Insights from emotion, personality perception, eyewitness accuracy and persuasion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 49, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-025-00483-2
12.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.005
13.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). Simr: an R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
14.
KleinS. A.HutchingsR. J.ToddA. R. (2021). Revising mental representations of faces based on new diagnostic information. Cognition, 217, Article 104916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104916
15.
KuhnL. K.WydellT.LavanN.McGettiganC.GarridoL. (2017). Similar representations of emotions across faces and voices. Emotion, 17(6), 912–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000282
16.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
17.
LangnerO.DotschR.BijlstraG.WigboldusD. H.HawkS. T.Van KnippenbergA. D. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
21.
MasiM.MattavelliS.FasoliF.BrambillaM. (2022). Cross-modal impression updating: Dynamic impression updating from face to voice and the other way around. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(3), 808–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12511
22.
MasiM.MattavelliS.FasoliF.BrambillaM. (2023). When faces and voices come together: Face width-to-height ratio and voice pitch contribute independently to social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2905
23.
MasiM.MattavelliS.FasoliF.BrambillaM. (2024). Multi-modal cues to change your mind: The intertwining of faces, voices, and behaviors in impression updating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241273209
24.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
25.
McAleerP.BelinP. (2018). The perception of personality traits from voices. In FruholzS.BelinP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of voice perception (pp. 585–606). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198743187.013.26
26.
McAleerP.TodorovA.BelinP. (2014). How do you say ‘Hello’? Personality impressions from brief novel voices. PLOS ONE, 9(3), Article e90779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090779
MilevaM. (2025). Multimodal person evaluation: First impressions from faces, voices, and names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000454
29.
NisbettR. E.ZukierH.LemleyR. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4
30.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniG. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519
31.
RezlescuC.PentonT.WalshV.TsujimuraH.ScottS. K.BanissyM. J. (2015). Dominant voices and attractive faces: The contribution of visual and auditory information to integrated person impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0214-8
32.
RougierM.De HouwerJ. (2025). Unconstraining evaluative conditioning research by using the reverse correlation task. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231217526
SchmitzM.RougierM.YzerbytV. (2024). Introducing the brief reverse correlation: An improved tool to assess visual representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(7), 1446–1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3100
35.
ShenX.MaiolatesiA. J.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2023). The relation between updated implicit evaluations and the trust game. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(8), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221141661
36.
ShenX.MannT. C.FergusonM. J. (2020). Beware a dishonest face?: Updating face-based implicit impressions using diagnostic behavioral information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, Article 103888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103888
37.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E.HartnettJ. (2008). Spontaneous impressions derived from observations of behavior: What a long, strange trip it’s been (and it’s not over yet). In AmbadyN.SkowronskiJ. J. (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 313–333). Guilford Press.
38.
SutherlandC. A.YoungA. W. (2022). Understanding trait impressions from faces. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12583
39.
TodorovA.OhD.UddenbergS.AlbohnD. N. (2025). Face evaluation: Findings, methods, and challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1545(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15293
40.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
41.
VivesM. L.FrancesC.BausC. (2023). Automating weighing of faces and voices based on cue saliency in trustworthiness impressions. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 20037. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45471-y
42.
YoungA. W.FrühholzS.SchweinbergerS. R. (2020). Face and voice perception: Understanding commonalities and differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.001
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.
