Different Signals of Personality and Health from the Two Sides of the Face

Abstract

Abstract. Previous studies demonstrate that people with different personality traits have different looking faces. We investigated whether personality and health information are differently signalled by the two hemifaces. Using composite images created from women with high and low scores on health and personality dimensions, we investigated discrimination accuracy with original and mirrored hemifaces. By comparing discrimination accuracy for particular types of hemiface, we address issues regarding both the location of information signals and how these signals are conveyed. From the hemiface stimuli, participants could accurately identify three of the Big Five traits, along with health. We found differences in which hemiface could be more accurately identified, depending on the expressed trait. Emotional stability and health were more accurately discriminated from the right hemiface, while extraversion showed higher accuracy from the left hemiface. We found evidence for differences between hemifaces related to both directional asymmetries and to other information content. Finally, our results also address ongoing debate about which side of the face is more attractive, as we found attractiveness differences between hemifaces depended upon the personality trait most clearly expressed.

The role of serotonin in personality inference: tryptophan depletion impairs the identification of neuroticism in the face

“…Similar accuracy levels of trait discrimination are reported by Kramer and Ward (2011) using hemi-face versions of these stimuli (that is, presenting just the left or right half of the stimuli). Therefore, we focused our analyses upon the most robustly discriminated traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness.…”

Taking the Perfect Selfie: Investigating the Impact of Perspective on the Perception of Higher Cognitive Variables

“…This finding is in accordance with the finding that the right side of the owner's face ( right hemiface ) affects the perception of attractiveness, age and gender (Zaidel et al, 1995; Burt and Perrett, 1997; Dunstan and Lindell, 2012) more than the left side ( left hemiface ) but is in some contrast to findings that emotional aspects can be derived better and more accurately from the left side of the owner's face (e.g., Zaidel et al, 1995; Kramer and Ward, 2011; Lindell, 2013a,b; Low and Lindell, 2016). However, with respect to the perceived attractiveness , we found comparative lager effects for the left hemiface , contrasting past research by others (for instance, Zaidel et al, 1995; Burt and Perrett, 1997; Dunstan and Lindell, 2012; but also see Sitton et al, 2006).…”

“…However, with respect to the perceived attractiveness , we found comparative lager effects for the left hemiface , contrasting past research by others (for instance, Zaidel et al, 1995; Burt and Perrett, 1997; Dunstan and Lindell, 2012; but also see Sitton et al, 2006). It is important to mention that past research (but see Kramer and Ward, 2011) did not use 2D stimuli generated from real 3D face models for that kind of research question. Schneider et al (2012) suggested that differences in perceptual aspects (e.g., perceived body weight on the basis of faces) are strongly dependent on depth information, hence viewing perspective affects respective ratings.…”

“…Viewing perspective, which is often used as a composition property in selfies, strongly affects the perception of these variables (Schneider et al, 2012, 2013). However, with respect to lateralization effects on the perceived health on the basis of faces, there is scientific disagreement (right side of the face see e.g., Reis and Zaidel, 2001; Kramer and Ward, 2011; Jones et al, 2012; but see Sitton et al, 2006 for the left side of the face).…”

Personality judgments from everyday images of faces

“…This describes human personality in terms of five dimensions; extraversion, agreeableness, openness (sometimes called intellect: Goldberg, 1990 ), neuroticism (sometimes contrasted to emotional stability), and conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa, 1987 ; Goldberg, 1990 ). The Big Five model applies to both self and peer ratings (see Goldberg, 1993 ; John and Srivastava, 1999 for reviews), and a number of studies now have looked at judgments of strangers on the Big Five personality dimensions from face photographs, or photographs with minimal target information; mostly entirely to examine the accuracy of these judgments (Watson, 1989 ; Penton-Voak et al, 2006 ; Little and Perrett, 2007 ; Beer and Watson, 2008 ; Naumann et al, 2009 ; Back et al, 2010 ; Kramer and Ward, 2010 , 2011 ; Ivcevic and Ambady, 2012 ; Jones et al, 2012 ; Leikas et al, 2013 ). This raises the question of how these Big Five personality characteristics relate to the broad factors of facial first impressions, since these two literatures have not been integrated.…”