Roger Highfield, Richard Wiseman and Rob Jenkins, New Scientist, February 11, 2009
{snip}
First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about its owner’s character—caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on (Psychological Science, vol 17, p 592). Once that snap judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. What’s more, different people come to strikingly similar conclusions about a particular face—as shown in our own experiment (see “The New Scientist face experiment”).
{snip}
Is there any substance to such snap judgements? Are dominant-looking people really more dominant? Are baby-faced people naive? Are we electing the most competent leaders, or simply people who look the part? As psychologist Alexander Todorov of Princeton University points out, the fact that different people come to remarkably similar conclusions about a particular face is very different from saying there is a correspondence between a face and something real in an individual’s personality.
There is, however, some tantalising evidence that our faces can betray something about our character. In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met before to rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in silence (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 4, p 44). For three traits—extroversion, conscientiousness and openness—the observers’ rapid judgements matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance.
More recently, researchers have re-examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of Stirling and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the Michigan studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors: the participants could have been swayed by posture, movement, clothing and so on. But when Little and Perrett re-ran the experiment using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial appearance and personality—though only for extroversion and conscientiousness (Social Cognition, vol 24, p 607).
While these experiments suggest that our snap judgements of faces really do contain a kernel of truth about the personality of their owner, Little stresses that the link is far from clear-cut. He and Perrett only found a correlation at the extremes of personality, and other studies looking for links with different aspects of personality have failed to find any association at all. The owner of an “honest” face, for example, is no more likely to be trustworthy than anyone else.
What is also not fully understood is why we make facial judgements so readily. Is there an evolutionary advantage to judging books by their covers? Little suggests that because these judgements are so rapid and consistent—and because they can indeed reveal aspects of personality—it is likely that evolution has honed us to pick up on the signals.
Support for this, and the kernel of truth idea, has come from a study of 90 ice-hockey players published late last year by Justin Carré and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada. They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-to-cheekbone distance was unusually large relative to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the number of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from behind and fighting (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 275, p 2651).
Testosterone-fuelled
They also found a link between the facial width-to-height ratio and the male sex hormone testosterone. According to the results of a recent pilot study by Carré, men with wider faces have higher testosterone concentrations in their saliva.
The critical—and as yet unanswered—question is whether people judge men with wider faces as more aggressive. McCormick and Carré are studying this, and though the results are not all in, McCormick says a preliminary analysis suggests that they do.
If this pans out, it would mean that men with high testosterone levels, who are known to be bigger, stronger and more dominant, are more likely to have rounder faces—and that we evolved to judge such faces as aggressive because their owners are more likely to attack us. Carré stresses, however, that the face is only one of many cues that we use to read the intentions of others. “It is not the be all and end all of assessing people.”
The kernel of truth idea isn’t the only explanation on offer for our readiness to make facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. Our readiness to judge books by their covers, she says, is often an “overgeneralisation” of a more fundamental response (Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol 2, p 1497).
{snip}
Todorov and Oosterhof conclude that personality judgements based on people’s faces are an overgeneralisation of our evolved ability to infer emotions from facial expressions, and hence a person’s intention to cause us harm and their ability to carry it out (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p11087).
Todorov, however, stresses that overgeneralisation does not rule out the idea that there is sometimes a kernel of truth in these assessments of personality. “I would not say there is no accuracy at all in these judgements, particularly in the case of dominance,” he says. “It is not the case that overgeneralisation and kernel of truth ideas are mutually exclusive.”
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on February 13, 2009)
Comments
No animal could survive if they were expected to adhere to human driven politically correct rules such as not to judge people or to take the time to really get to know someone.
Try to teach those insane ideas to a deer living in wolf or cougar country.
I trust my gut instincts every time. And if blacks really believed the idea that whites were as evil and dangerous as their insticts tell them, they wouldn’t want to be near whites at any moment in time. Funny how they want to live in the lions den with the lion.
It’s very interesting article, consistent with what can be easily observed in everyday’s life.
The problem is that this kind of statistical reasoning based on someone’s face is considered by some bigotry if not outright discrimination.
I can recognize a recently arrived Mexican illegal “immigrant” in a heartbeat by looking in his face, and so can, probably, any law enforcement officer. But the apprehensions based on appearance are rare as the law enforcement bureaucrats don’t want to risk a lawsuit charging them with “racial profiling”.
Profiling is a useful evolutionary advantage, indeed, assuming that one is allowed to use it. And the prognoses for future look rather grim.
There is also scientific backing for it. For example, we associate wearing glasses with intelligence (it’s a mild association, but it exists). Jensen’s book, The G Factor, points out that myopia correlates moderately with IQ.
I bet these researchers don’t have the guts to look at this topic.
So is the old adage partially true? That a person’s body reflects their soul?
Seems absurd, but there might be something to it.
From my own experience, it’s only true in extreme cases.
It isn’t “prejudice” to judge a book by its cover. Its just our natural evolutionary response to potential danger.
I’d say there is a predisposition to judge those with even features positively. This makes sense in that those with significantly uneven (asymmetric) features are more likely to be both physically and mentally ill, or at least more vulnerable to illness.
From my experience, it’s true in almost ALL cases. I work in a job where I see customers before I get to talk with them, and I see them many times thereafter, and almost always, my first impression, from a distance of twenty or thirty feet, is right.
I’ve heard many women say I knew within 10 seconds whether or not I would date that person. It’s emotions based on endocrinal reponses nothing more. People should use their heads more than their feelings.
“Funny how they want to live in the lions den with the lion.” Posted by sbuffalonative
It’s not because the like the lion. They don’t. It’s because they like the lion’s comfy DEN and the lion’s good food. They would be very happy to do without the lion…. if they could.
What a dilemma!
“I’d say there is a predisposition to judge those with even features positively.
“It isn’t “prejudice” to judge a book by its cover.
People who caution you against judging a book by its cover are invariably those who worry that you might look too closely and discover what’s within.
Many people will deny that a correlation exists. But the people who deny it might have some aspect of their own looks that they aren’t happy with. They go through life hoping that this correlation isn’t true, because it makes them worse off.
It requires a certain amount of courage to look in the mirror, not like something you see, and still face life in an honest and positive manner.
“Every night, when you go to sleep, your dreams reveal your true personality, and your face will adopt the expressions you are using in your dreams. If you spend every night being aggressive, etc. then your facial muscles will become set in that expression, no matter how ‘nice’ you pretend to be while awake.”
This is actually a pretty interesting comment, considering that we spend (or should spend) about 1/3 of our lives asleep. Add to that the immense time we spend alone, like getting ready for work, taking showers, brushing our teeth, driving back and forth, and other situations where we aren’t really interacting with the public, then it seem the face WOULD begin to look the way a person really is. It might significantly correlate to the amount of time we aren’t actually “on” for others.
Just throwing in my 2 cents here. I know this guy. I really don’t know what it wrong with him, but a lot of people think he is a criminal. In particular, they say he is a child molester. I don’t know why they say this. I guess they think he *looks* like a child molester. Another common opinion is that he is an extremely dangerous person, so dangerous that a number of people don’t want to be around him, and there has been an attempt to ban him from a store.
He recently moved to a new town, in part to escape this stuff, and it started right up again. The people in the new town quickly started saying he was a child molester, a criminal, a predator and a serial killer. There were attempts to ban him from another store on grounds of dangerousness.
He’s very upset about this, and he is frantically trying to figure out how to stop people from thinking this about him, but I think it’s probably hopeless.
The truth is this guy is probably the most harmless person on the face of the Earth. He’s simply incapable of hurting you or doing anything aggressive to anyone unprovoked. He has no criminal record of victimizing others in any way and he’s 40 years old. He’s also scrupulously honest and conscientious and has extremely high morals. He won’t rip you off, use you or really hurt you in any way.
He’s very introverted and I think neurotic and he’s kind of weird. He has a funny stare and looks distracted. He’s also one of the smartest people I have ever known. I guess that’s the source of the nonsense.
This episode, and innumerable others I have witnessed down through the years, shows me that our ability to judge dangerousness is seriously flawed. Maybe not a lot of false negatives, but surely tons of false positives.
Survival instincts dictate ‘fight or flee’ reactions, of course in our politically correct and well organized society, tolerate and mollify trumps all instincts. Appeasement is the rule.
Unemployed WASP:
For politicians, it’s worse: A UCLA study shows that a politician makes his first and most important and lasting impression in the mind of a voter that sees him/her in 0.1 second.
Anonymous 6:52, you really said a lot of things I would not have figured out for myself. Please keep posting….I’m learning. You have a lot to share.
I have to agree that one’s face usually reflects one’s inner self. Of course sometimes people get mad or sad and that may be momentary. I like to see a person in action for a while before I judge them. However, the ability to discriminate (friend or foe) is the basis of survival.
“He’s very introverted and I think neurotic and he’s kind of weird. He has a funny stare and looks distracted. He’s also one of the smartest people I have ever known. I guess that’s the source of the nonsense.
This episode, and innumerable others I have witnessed down through the years, shows me that our ability to judge dangerousness is seriously flawed. Maybe not a lot of false negatives, but surely tons of false positives. “
Posted by Robert Lindsay at 4:50 AM on February 15
> Yes, just like Stephan Hawking. While we are reinforcing some aspects of survival reflexes in other recognition, we ought to remember that we often make people into who they are by how we perceive them based on many influences and cultural training. Being a short man, but a health care professional, I was able to concretely see how much more respected I was in Eastern Europe than I ever have been in America. In the U.S. we have a height stereotype. There, my letters, performance and mastery of etiquette brought me an introduction to a small nation’s pro-consul, invitations to write articles for magazines and numerous offers for dates with normally socially conservative (but beautiful) women (some of whom were taller than me). Overall, what I find here is a grudging acceptance of my presence and dismissal by those who can look over my shoulder. The difference is incredible and once you’ve experienced this sort of thing, more subtle interpretations in understanding how we affect one another are necessary.
“From my experience, it’s true in almost ALL cases. I work in a job where I see customers before I get to talk with them, and I see them many times thereafter, and almost always, my first impression, from a distance of twenty or thirty feet, is right.
Posted by Anonymous at 6:52 PM on February 1
> I also understand that moles and warts reveal an individuals wickedness. Let’s round them all up, once we have an all-White nation and do the right thing with them.
Seriously -
Psychotics or any mentally ill individual might be completely unaware that the evil they do is wrong and they often have “baby” faces. Good looking hucksters are usally the most successful at the practice of fraud and such evils. There are many human rackets that good looks assist. Some may be legal, but they are rackets all the same (politicians?). The list of exceptions to simple assumptions abound. I suggest huge doses of caution when making straight lines of association between something like appearance and intent or content of character. Ugly people are often honest because they can’t gain anything through attributes like a nice face and charming demeanor. I can believe that they might grow bitter over the years at their exclusion from desireable things like love, money and even happiness, due to their lack of physical acceptance. It is often ALL cultural. 50 years ago, only Blacks would have said that Barak Obama was a good looking man, yet today the media can’t stop reminding us of his great looks. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and that notion can be manipulated. Perhaps some of you younger posters (even older ones) ought to look up an old Twilight Zone episode of that same name.
It is amazing to me to sometimes read on Amren - posts by otherwise intelligent people that indicate how easily they would join in a lynch mob, and not even an interracial one, but a White on White one.
Go figure the responses here.
To some extent we can size up people by expressions and other details we spot from experience. I remember this one merchant I would frequent who looked mean and nasty, who really was just a troubled and hurt little boy in a man’s body. Wouldn’t hurt anybody but being male and older one could write him off as a mean old bastard.
It makes perfect sense that a person’s outer core would reflect their inner being and people would naturally pick up on this. Just try to smile broadly when your furious with anger.
In reply to “Reader’s” comment about the wearing glasses being equated to intelligence, that was a popular conception in pre-
I dont think you can always tell what kind of person someone is by looking at them. Lots of us live lives of quiet desperation, though we may look and appear to be happy and like we have our (bleep) together.
To add to the biological/genetic side of this discussion.
These landmarks might be the tip of the nose, the tip of the chin, the outer corner of the eye or other repeatable locations. They then recorded the distances between all the points in all directions, so they had a distance map of each of the faces.
And on the round/wide, high testorone face: For example, in general, West Africans have wider faces than Europeans and Europeans have longer faces than West Africans .
From…..http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Mixed-population-provides-insights-into-human-genetic-makeup-7078-1/
So this means that the field known as physiognomy, which is at least 2-3 thousand years old, might have some validity? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
“Ugly people are often honest because they can’t gain anything through [having] a nice face and charming demeanor. I can believe that they might grow bitter at their exclusion from desireable things like love, money and even happiness, due to their lack of physical acceptance.
It is often ALL cultural. Fifty years ago, only Blacks would have said that Barak Obama was a good looking man, yet today the media can’t stop reminding us of his great looks.”
Robert Lindsay above writes that he disagrees that looks mean much. He then gives us an example of a man he knows, who, it is implied, at least at first, then again at the end, is okay but looks as though something is wrong.
However, Lindsay also states of this man, “He’s very introverted and I think neurotic and he’s kind of weird. He has a funny stare and looks distracted.”
People and society today are a study in contradictions.
Whiteplight at 2:55 PM on February 16 wrote:
I completely agree with you.
Anonymous seems to believe dishonesty and evil cannot be hidden; what about Ted Bundy? Good looking, but a sadistic serial killer nonetheless.
Give those of us not blessed with perfect faces a break, will ya?
My point is that the guy looks pretty weird but he’s completely harmless. Not only that, but he is scrupulously honest. He’s also a really nice guy. The presumption that this guy is dangerous in any way, dishonest in any way, or will harm you in any way, emotionally or physically, is utterly erroneous. Yet this is an extremely perception. It’s flat out wrong. People can’t judge dangerousness, honesty or even decency very well.
In the case above, it’s merely tragic, because people are afraid of a harmless person. The opposite case, where people trust someone who is dangerous, is a lot scarier. But aren’t there sociopaths out there who pull this off to victimize others?
I mean, it’s nice to think we can figure people out by looking at them. The world seems so much more comfortable and less scary that way. But what if we are often wrong?
This talk of Robert Lindsays friend and how is he is perceived by ‘most people’ reminds me of a segment from the 2001 BBC Documentary The Human Face .
In the ‘fame’ episode they follow three aspiring actors living in Hollywood who get to show their ‘headshots’ to a renowned casting director.Video of them getting the shots .
Well the casting director spent about twenty seconds looking at each of the three of them and she said with a lot of authority that the….All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.
Someone on youtube has uploaded the less applicable ‘beauty’ episode in it’s entirety if anyone wants to see more.
I would add that many people who have known this guy for a long time (5-15 years) think he’s ok. I guess they got to know him better. Also, smarter people and older people seem to have figured him out better. Dumb people and young people seem to be really terrible at figuring people out.
