Circular reasoning about interpersonal behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic classification.

Wiggins, Jerry S.; Phillips, Norman; Trapnell, Paul D.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.296

Cited by 221 publications

(282 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

264

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This 2D structure of face evaluation is consistent with well established dimensional models of social perception (19,22,23). For example, Wiggins et al (19,23), starting with a large set of traits describing interpersonal relationships, have shown that interpersonal perception can be described by two orthogonal dimensions, affiliation and dominance, that are similar to the dimensions identified here.Judgments of trustworthiness were closest in space to the first PC, and judgments of dominance were closest to the second PC ( Fig. S2 and Table S3).…”

supporting

confidence: 51%

“…Judgments of dominance, aggressiveness, and confidence had the highest loading on the second PC, suggesting that it can be interpreted as dominance evaluation (19). This 2D structure of face evaluation is consistent with well established dimensional models of social perception (19,22,23). For example, Wiggins et al (19,23), starting with a large set of traits describing interpersonal relationships, have shown that interpersonal perception can be described by two orthogonal dimensions, affiliation and dominance, that are similar to the dimensions identified here.…”

supporting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The functional basis of face evaluation

Oosterhof

Todorov

2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,567

160

2,416

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People automatically evaluate faces on multiple trait dimensions, and these evaluations predict important social outcomes, ranging from electoral success to sentencing decisions. Based on behavioral studies and computer modeling, we develop a 2D model of face evaluation. First, using a principal components analysis of trait judgments of emotionally neutral faces, we identify two orthogonal dimensions, valence and dominance, that are sufficient to describe face evaluation and show that these dimensions can be approximated by judgments of trustworthiness and dominance. Second, using a data-driven statistical model for face representation, we build and validate models for representing face trustworthiness and face dominance. Third, using these models, we show that, whereas valence evaluation is more sensitive to features resembling expressions signaling whether the person should be avoided or approached, dominance evaluation is more sensitive to features signaling physical strength/weakness. Fourth, we show that important social judgments, such as threat, can be reproduced as a function of the two orthogonal dimensions of valence and dominance. The findings suggest that face evaluation involves an overgeneralization of adaptive mechanisms for inferring harmful intentions and the ability to cause harm and can account for rapid, yet not necessarily accurate, judgments from faces.emotions ͉ face perception ͉ social cognition T he belief that the nature of the mind and personality could be inferred from facial appearance has persisted over the centuries. References to this belief can be dated back to ancient Greece, Rome, and China (1). In the 19th century, the pseudoscience of physiognomy reached its apogee. Cesare Lombroso, the founder of criminal anthropology, argued that ''each type of crime is committed by men with particular physiognomic characteristics''. For example, ''thieves are notable for their expressive faces and manual dexterity, small wandering eyes that are often oblique in form, thick and close eyebrows, distorted or squashed noses, thin beards and hair, and sloping foreheads'' (2). Lombroso provided his ''scientific'' testimony at several criminal trials.Although modern science, if not folk psychology (3), has largely discarded such notions, trait evaluations from faces predict important social outcomes ranging from electoral success (4-6) to sentencing decisions (7,8). Studies show that people rapidly evaluate faces on multiple trait dimensions such as trustworthiness and aggressiveness (9, 10). For example, trait judgments can be formed after as little as 38-ms exposure to an emotionally neutral face (10). Studies also show that the amygdala, a subcortical brain region critical for fear conditioning and consolidation of emotional memories (11), plays a key role in the assessment of face trustworthiness (12-15).Why do mechanisms for rapid spontaneous face evaluation exist if they do not necessarily deliver accurate inferences? This apparent puzzle from an evolutionary point of view can be resolved b...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 51%

supporting

confidence: 51%

The functional basis of face evaluation

Oosterhof

Todorov

2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,567

160

2,416

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, on the semantic-conceptual level, the 2D model of Oosterhof & Todorov (2008), which was built on face-based person evaluation, fits other two dimensional models of social perception, such as the Stereotype Content Model with the two dimensions of warmth and competence to describe social groups (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002;Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), the model of interpersonal perception with the two dimensions love and dominance (Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989;Wiggins, 1979) or morality and competence (Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998;Wojciszke, 1994), and the Big Two personality concept with the dimensions communion and agency (Abele, Uchronski, Suitner, & Wojciszke, 2008;Abele & Wojciszke, 2007;Wiggins, 1991). Though these models differ in several critical aspects, one clear commonality emerges from their joint examination: There are two dimensions, namely valence (or morality/warmth/love/communion) and dominance (or competence/agency), which individuals rely on when referring to individuals, social groups, or to themselves.…”

Section: General Spontaneous Personality Judgments Based On Facesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing the personality of a face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors modeled in real photographs.

Walker

Vetter

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

104

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General, spontaneous evaluations of strangers based on their faces have been shown to reflect judgments of these persons’ intention and ability to harm. These evaluations can be mapped onto a 2D space defined by the dimensions trustworthiness (intention) and dominance (ability). Here we go beyond general evaluations and focus on more specific personality judgments derived from the Big Two and Big Five personality concepts. In particular, we investigate whether Big Two/Big Five personality judgments can be mapped onto the 2D space defined by the dimensions trustworthiness and dominance. Results indicate that judgments of the Big Two personality dimensions almost perfectly map onto the 2D space. In contrast, at least 3 of the Big Five dimensions (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness) go beyond the 2D space, indicating that additional dimensions are necessary to describe more specific face-based personality judgments accurately. Building on this evidence, we model the Big Two/Big Five personality dimensions in real facial photographs. Results from 2 validation studies show that the Big Two/Big Five are perceived reliably across different samples of faces and participants. Moreover, results reveal that participants differentiate reliably between the different Big Two/Big Five dimensions. Importantly, this high level of agreement and differentiation in personality judgments from faces likely creates a subjective reality which may have serious consequences for those being perceived—notably, these consequences ensue because the subjective reality is socially shared, irrespective of the judgments’ validity. The methodological approach introduced here might prove useful in various psychological disciplines.

show abstract

“…Such scales were then revised and improved in psychometric terms and in terms of predictive validity (Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989). Accordingly, we assessed warmth versus coldness using the IAS-R (Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cold individuals view others as less trustworthy, whereas warm individuals view others as more trustworthy (Moskowitz, 2010). Cold individuals often seek to isolate the self from others, whereas warm individuals are, if anything, sometimes too dependent on others and motivated to please them (Strack & Lorr, 1994; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). A communal (Bakan, 1966) label for this dimension is apt because warm individuals score higher in femininity and quite a few other motivations and traits suggestive of a greater appreciation for others and goals to accommodate to others in everyday social interactions (Locke, 2011; Markey & Markey, 2007; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive egocentrism differentiates warm and cold people

Boyd

Bresin

Ode

et al. 2013

Journal of Research in Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Warmth-coldness is a fundamental dimension of social behavior. Cold individuals are egocentric in their social relations, whereas warm individuals are not. Previous theorizing suggests that cognitive egocentrism underlies social egocentrism. It was hypothesized that higher levels of interpersonal coldness would predict greater cognitive egocentrism. Cognitive egocentrism was assessed in basic terms through tasks wherein priming a lateralized self-state biased subsequent visual perceptions in an assimilation-related manner. Such effects reflect a tendency to assume that the self's incidental state provides meaningful information concerning the external world. Cognitive egocentrism was evident at high, but not low, levels of interpersonal coldness. The findings reveal a basic difference between warm and cold people, encouraging future research linking cognitive egocentrism to variability in relationship functioning.

show abstract

Circular reasoning about interpersonal behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic classification.

Cited by 221 publications

References 21 publications

The functional basis of face evaluation

The functional basis of face evaluation

Changing the personality of a face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors modeled in real photographs.

Cognitive egocentrism differentiates warm and cold people

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About