Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 259–277 | Cite as

Personality at Face Value: Facial Appearance Predicts Self and Other Personality Judgments among Strangers and Spouses

  • Raluca Petrican
  • Alexander Todorov
  • Cheryl Grady
Original Paper

Abstract

Character judgments, based on facial appearance, impact both perceivers’ and targets’ interpersonal decisions and behaviors. Nonetheless, the resilience of such effects in the face of longer acquaintanceship duration is yet to be determined. To address this question, we had 51 elderly long-term married couples complete self and informant versions of a Big Five Inventory. Participants were also photographed, while they were requested to maintain an emotionally neutral expression. A subset of the initial sample completed a shortened version of the Big Five Inventory in response to the pictures of other opposite sex participants (with whom they were unacquainted). Oosterhof and Todorov’s (in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11087–11092, 2008) computer-based model of face evaluation was used to generate facial trait scores on trustworthiness, dominance, and attractiveness, based on participants’ photographs. Results revealed that structural facial characteristics, suggestive of greater trustworthiness, predicted positively biased, global informant evaluations of a target’s personality, among both spouses and strangers. Among spouses, this effect was impervious to marriage length. There was also evidence suggestive of a Dorian Gray effect on personality, since facial trustworthiness predicted not only spousal and stranger, but also self-ratings of extraversion. Unexpectedly, though, follow-up analyses revealed that (low) facial dominance, rather than (high) trustworthiness, was the strongest predictor of self-rated extraversion. Our present findings suggest that subtle emotional cues, embedded in the structure of emotionally neutral faces, exert long-lasting effects on personality judgments even among very well-acquainted targets and perceivers.

Keywords

Big five Facial appearance Trustworthiness Dominance Married couples 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research postdoctoral fellowship awarded to Raluca Petrican and a CIHR grant to Cheryl Grady (MOP14036).

References

  1. Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2009). The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The Halo-Alpha-Beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1142–1156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, D. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 298–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, D. S., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E. (1981). An overview of the psychological effects of physical attractiveness. In G. W. Lucker, K. A. Rubbens, & J. A. McNamara Jr (Eds.), Psychological aspects of facial form (pp. 1–47). Ann Arbor, Ml: Center for Human Growth and Development.Google Scholar
  7. Bond, C. F., Berry, D. S., & Omar, A. (1994). The kernel of truth in judgments of deceptiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C., & Paelecke, M. (2009). Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 702–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wilhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Socioemotional selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. Annual Review of Gerontology and, 11, 195–217.Google Scholar
  14. Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2005). Facial symmetry and the “big-five” personality factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franklin, R. G., & Zebrowitz, L. A.(2013). Older adults’ trait impressions of faces are sensitive to subtle resemblance to emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10919-013-0150-4.
  19. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grady, C. L., Grigg, O., & Ng, C. (2012). Age differences in default and reward networks during processing of personally relevant information. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1682–1697.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications. Quantitative methodology series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. F., & Pittenger, J. B. (1984). Attribution, the attractiveness stereotype and the elderly. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1168–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keightley, M. L., Winocur, G., Burianova, H., Hongwanishkul, D., & Grady, C. (2006). Age effects on social cognition: Faces tell a different story. Psychology and Aging, 21, 558–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero-acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, B. M. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 847–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malatesta, C. Z., Fiore, M. J., & Messina, J. J. (1987). Affect, personality, and facial expression characteristics of older people. Psychology and Aging, 2, 64–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 496–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661–1671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010a). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Non-verbal Behavior, 34, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010b). Fooled by first impressions? Re-examining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 11087–11092.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2009). Shared perceptual basis of emotional expressions and trustworthiness impressions from faces. Emotion, 9, 128–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Penton-Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a ‘kernel of truth’ in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 490–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrican, R., English, T., Gross, J. J., Grady, C. L., Hai, T., & Moscovitch, M. (2013). Friend or foe? Age moderates time course-specific responsiveness to trustworthiness cues. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 68, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pound, N., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Brown, W. M. (2007). Facial symmetry is positively associated with self-reported extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1572–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2013). HLM 7.01 for Windows [Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling software]. Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Ruby, P., Collette, F., D’Argembeau, A., Peters, F., Degueldre, C., Balteau, E., et al. (2009). Perspective taking to assess self-personality: What’s modified in Alzheimer’s disease? Neurobiology of Aging, 30, 1637–1651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rule, N. O., Krendl, A. C., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Said, C. P., Sebe, N., & Todorov, A. (2009). Structural resemblance to emotional expressions predicts evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Emotion, 9, 260–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062–1075.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmuckler, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after 100 ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zebrowitz, L. A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M. A., Lee, S. Y., & Blumenthal, J. (1998a). Bright, bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300–1320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zebrowitz, L. A., Collins, M. A., & Dutta, R. (1998b). Appearance and personality across the lifespan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 736–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zebrowitz, L. A., Franklin, R. G., Hillman, S., & Boc, H. (2013). Older and younger adults’ first impressions from faces: Similar in agreement, but different in positivity. Psychology and Aging, 28, 202–212.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zebrowitz, L. A., Voinescu, L., & Collins, M. A. (1996). ‘‘Wide-eyed’’ and ‘‘crooked-faced’’: Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1258–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotman Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations