Over the last ten years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgments of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries, and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods, correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution.

Perceptions of an individual can change dramatically across different images of their face. Questions remain as to whether some traits are more sensitive to image variability than others. To investigate this issue, we constructed a database of 340 naturalistic images consisting of 20 photos of 17 individuals. In this preregistered study, 95 participants rated all 340 images on one of three traits: trustworthiness, dominance, or attractiveness. Across images, participants’ trustworthiness ratings tended to vary more than dominance, which in turn varied more than attractiveness; however, the relative differences between traits depended on the identity in question. Importantly, despite the variability in ratings within identities, there were substantial differences between individuals, suggesting that these trait judgements are based to some degree on relatively invariant facial characteristics. We found greater between-identity variability for attractiveness judgements compared to trustworthiness and dominance. Future research should further investigate the extent to which each trait dimension is tied to the identity of the faces.

Over the last ten years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgments of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries, and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods, correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution.

This study investigates whether variability in perceived trait judgements disrupts our ability to match unfamiliar faces. In this preregistered study, 174 participants completed a face matching task where they were asked to indicate whether two ambient face images belonged to the same person or different people (17,748 total data points). Participants completed 51 match trials consisting of images of the same person that differed substantially on one trait (either trustworthiness, dominance or attractiveness) with minimal differences in the alternate traits. Participants also completed 51 mismatch trials which contained two photos of similar-looking individuals. We hypothesised that participants would make more errors on match trials when images differed in terms of attractiveness ratings than when they differed on trustworthiness or dominance. Contrary to expectations, images that differed in terms of attractiveness were matched most accurately, and there was no relationship between the extent of differences in attractiveness ratings and accuracy. There was some evidence that differences in perceived dominance and, to a lesser extent, trustworthiness were associated with lower face matching performance. However, these relationships were not significant when alternate traits were accounted for. The findings of our study suggest that face matching performance is largely robust against variation in trait judgements.

Perceptions of an individual can change dramatically across different images of their face; however, questions remain as to whether the variability in perceptions is linked to specific traits for naturalistic images. In this pre-registered study, we constructed and used a database of naturalistic faces to investigate whether some traits are more sensitive to image variability than others. Ninety-five participants rated a total of 340 images (20 photos from 17 individuals) on one of three traits: trustworthiness, dominance, or attractiveness. Across images, trustworthiness judgements tended to vary more than dominance, which in turn varied more than attractiveness; however, the relative differences between traits depended on the identity in question. Importantly, despite the variability in ratings within identities, there were substantial differences between identities, suggesting that these trait judgments are based to some degree on relatively invariant facial characteristics. We found greater between-identity variability for attractiveness judgements compared to both trustworthiness and dominance. Future research should further investigate the extent to which each trait dimension is tied to the identity of the faces.