Advances in Understanding the Detectability of Trustworthiness From the Face: Toward a Taxonomy of a Multifaceted Construct

Abstract

Researchers have recently shown increasing interest in assessments of trustworthiness, devoting much attention to whether trustworthiness can be detected from a person’s facial appearance. This question has been investigated along diverse behavioral dimensions, using a wide variety of targets, and with great inconsistency in results. Here, we call for greater precision in defining trustworthiness. We review various subdomains of trustworthiness perception and argue that developing a more highly specified taxonomy of trustworthiness will allow for better predictions about when trustworthiness can be judged on the basis of appearance, for more precision in estimating how accurate people are in making such judgments, and for more accurate information regarding the specific cues relevant to inferring trustworthiness in each domain.

Accuracy in Facial Trustworthiness Impressions: Kernel of Truth or Modern Physiognomy? A Meta-Analysis

“…These categories were then checked independently by a second author. The resulting categories (except agreeableness) aligned perfectly with those found in a previous review by Wilson and Rule (2017) and were thus named accordingly. 2.…”

“…Indeed, these were the only two domains that showed significant accuracy at the perceiver level. These two domains may have clearer physiological mechanisms compared with the other domains (Wilson & Rule, 2017), as both are linked to facial masculinity and potentially, testosterone.…”

“…Domain : We included domain as a moderator because trustworthiness can be conceptualized in multiple ways, and the theoretical links between different types of trustworthiness are not yet well understood (Wilson & Rule, 2017). In this way, we hoped to shed light on which domains might be more or less similar in terms of accuracy.…”

“…It is currently unclear how similar these different aspects of trustworthiness are (Rule et al, 2013). Similarly, “ground-truth” measures of target trustworthiness also vary considerably across studies, including being operationalized as criminal convictions, aggressive behavior, cheating on a test, trust gameplay, and/or unfaithfulness (Wilson & Rule, 2017). Studies also vary in their face stimuli, from naturally available photographs (e.g., mugshots, media images; Trebicky et al, 2013; Valla et al, 2011) to images taken in controlled laboratory conditions (e.g., front facing, expressionless, consistent lighting; Berry, 1990).…”

“…Famously, the physiognomists attempted to “diagnose” criminality from the face at the turn of the last century (Lombroso, 1876), but their pseudoscientific conclusions did not survive scientific verification (Goring, 1913). Over the last 10 years, there has been a resurgence of interest in this question, with many individual empirical studies examining the accuracy of trustworthiness impressions, along with theoretical and narrative reviews (e.g., Olivola et al, 2014; Wilson & Rule, 2017). However, this more recent literature on accuracy has not painted a clear picture either.…”