Good to Bad or Bad to Bad? What is the relationship between valence and the trait content of the Big Two?

Abstract

In this article we directly assessed the relationship between valence and relevant traits of the Big Two dimensions (i.e., communion and agency). Drawing on previous research, we expected that the relationship with valence would be less monotonous and more variable in direction across agency‐related traits, compared to communion‐related traits. In three repeated measures studies we assessed the perceived valence of each trait dimension on a continuum of seven points. Studies 1 and 2 defined each continuum verbally. In Study 3 each continuum was defined by facial features. Results across these studies show that valence is linearly and more consistently related with communion‐related traits than with agency‐related traits. Within agency, however, competence established a positive linear relationship with valence, whereas dominance showed a target‐sensitive relationship with valence: quadratic in evaluation of trait concepts, and negative and linear in face evaluation. We discuss the implications of these data for Big Two‐related research.

The effect of facial occlusion on facial impressions of trustworthiness and dominance

“…The present studies consistently suggest that trustworthiness and dominance judgments are not entirely independent. In agreement with previous work (e.g., Dotsch & Todorov, 2012 ; Oliveira et al, 2020 ; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008 ), the overall association between these two dependent variables was negative. This negative association between judgments could have resulted in a process whereby facial dominance was discriminated by trustworthiness judgments and facial trustworthiness by dominance judgments.…”

“…Alternatively, it is also possible that these inferences result mainly from a more general valence evaluation, instead of specific inferences on either of the two dimensions. If so, one could additionally take into account previous findings showing a higher overlap of trustworthiness judgments with general valence in social face evaluation (e.g., Oh et al, 2020 ; Oliveira et al, 2020 ; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008 ).…”

Toward the use of approach/avoidance tendencies as attitude measures: Individual‐ and group‐level variability of the ingroup bias

“…We chose trustworthiness evaluations as a measure of personal prejudice precisely because this task shares a unique part of variance with the IAT and thus because it allowed for a conservative comparison between the VAAST and the IAT—given that the IAT D score has been shown to highly correlate with this kind of measure (Oswald et al, ; Stanley et al, ), contrary to the VAAST compatibility effect (that has never been correlated with trustworthiness ratings until now). However, the trustworthiness/untrustworthiness dimension is also strongly related to the valence dimension in the domain of face perception (similar to the measure of face ratings we used), which might overlap with cultural knowledge (i.e., trustworthy = positive; Oosterhof & Todorov, ; see also Oliveira, Garcia‐Marques, Garcia‐Marques, & Dotsch, for the domain of social judgment). Additionally, we know from meta‐analyses on IAT effects that its predictive power with measures of intergroup attitudes—as self‐report, response time tasks, behavioral measures, or brain activity—is unequal (Greenwald et al, ; Hofmann et al, ; Kurdi et al, ; Oswald et al, ).…”

Understanding trait impressions from faces

“…trustworthiness) can be dissociated from sociability-related impressions (e.g. warmth: Oliveira et al, 2020; see also Lin et al, 2021), capturing the intuition that 'one may smile and smile and yet be a villain' (Hamlet,(105)(106)(107)(108)(109). However, other studies find a close relationship between these aspects of intentionality as judged from faces (Sutherland, Oldmeadow, et al, 2016;Walker & Vetter, 2016).…”