Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 165–179 | Cite as

The Look that Binds: Partner-Directed Altruistic Motivation and Biased Perception in Married Couples

  • Raluca Petrican
  • Alexander Todorov
  • Christopher T. Burris
  • R. Shayna Rosenbaum
  • Cheryl Grady
Original Paper

Abstract

A trustworthy appearance is regarded as a marker of a globally positive personality and, thus, evokes a host of benevolent responses from perceivers. Nevertheless, it is yet to be determined whether the reverse is also true, that is, whether social targets who evoke unambiguously benign motivations in perceivers are regarded as possessing a more trustworthy appearance (cf. Oosterhof and Todorov in Emotion 9:128–133, 2008). To this end, elderly long-term married couples completed measures of partner-directed altruistic motivation, accommodative behaviors, marital satisfaction, and trust in the partner. They also completed a face-processing task involving spousal and stranger faces 1 year later. Higher motivation to prioritize a spouse’s well-being (but none of the other relationship functioning variables assessed) predicted perceiving one’s spouse’s emotionally neutral face as being more trustworthy-looking. Results are discussed in the context of the reciprocal relationship between higher-order motivational processes and basic perceptual mechanisms in shaping relational climates.

Keywords

Facial trustworthiness Face processing Altruistic motivation Married couples 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research postdoctoral fellowship awarded to Raluca Petrican, a CIHR grant to Cheryl Grady (MOP14036), and the Canada Research Chair program (Tier 1 CRC to C.L.G.).

References

  1. Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45, 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, M. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A guided tour. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Righetti, F., & Branje, S. (2009). Living together apart: Perceived concealment as a signal of exclusion in marital relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1410–1422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications. Quantitative methodology series. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Karremans, J. C., Dotsch, R., & Corneille, O. (2011). Romantic relationship status biases memory of faces of attractive opposite-sex others: Evidence from a reverse correlation paradigm. Cognition, 121, 422–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: A critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 496–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray, S., & Holmes, J. (2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Pinkus, R. T. (2010). A smart unconscious? Procedural origins of automatic partner attitudes in marriage. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 650–656.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 842–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087–11092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2009). Shared perceptual basis of emotional expressions and trustworthiness impressions from faces. Emotion, 9, 128–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowe, A. C., & Williams, J. (2007). Through rose-tinted glasses: Relationship satisfaction and representations of partners’ facial attractiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Petrican, R., Todorov, A. T., & Grady, C. L. (2014). Personality at face value: Facial appearance predicts self and other personality judgments in elderly married couples. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Gustaw, C. (2010). Dangerous decisions: The impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability. Psychology, Crime and Law, 16, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2013). HLM 7.0 for Windows [hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling software]. Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Rempel, J. K., & Burris, C. T. (2005). Let me count the ways: An integrative theory of love and hate. Personal Relationships, 12, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, 20, 28–34.Google Scholar
  26. Rempel, J. K., Young, J. R., & Burris, C. T. (2008). A many-splendored motive. Poster presented at the at the 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, NM, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Rezlescu, C., Duchaine, B., Olivola, C. Y., & Chater, N. (2012). Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLoS ONE, 7, e34293.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 874–886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Said, C. P., Sebe, N., & Todorov, A. (2009). Structural resemblance to emotional expressions predicts evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Emotion, 9, 260–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Swami, V., Waters, L., & Furnham, A. (2010). Perceptions and meta-perceptions of self and partner physical attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 811–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Todorov, A., & Engell, A. (2008). The role of the amygdala in implicit evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. van’t Wout, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision making. Cognition, 108, 796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C., Foster, C., & Agnew, C. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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

  • Raluca Petrican
    • 1
  • Alexander Todorov
    • 2
  • Christopher T. Burris
    • 3
  • R. Shayna Rosenbaum
    • 4
  • Cheryl Grady
    • 5
  1. 1.Rotman Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, 2-N-7 Green HallPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySt. Jerome’s UniversityWaterlooCanada
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyYork University and Rotman Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Psychology and Psychiatry, Rotman Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations