The Relationship between Physiognomic Belief and ...

The Relationship between Physiognomic Belief and Confidence in Partner Selection

Juliette van Muijden

Tilburg University

SNR 1270433

ANR 908137

Supervisor: Bastian Jaeger

Bachelor Thesis Psychology 550998

CONFIDENCE IN PARTNER SELECTION AND PHYSIOGNOMIC BELIEF

2

Abstract

Many research has been done to physiognomy, its accuracy and one’s confidence upon

which. Yet, very little research has been done on whether we actually belief if physiognomy is

truthful. Nevertheless, physiognomy plays an important role in partner selection. Applying the

Trust Game and computer-generated faces in a survey-based research, the confidence in partner

selection and physiognomic belief was measured over 288 mostly Dutch participants. Analysing

the data, a distinction between general physiognomic belief and specific physiognomic belief

consisting of nine personality traits, was made to cover all facets of physiognomic belief. With a

focus on the physiognomic belief of detecting trustworthiness, measuring the relationship with

one’s confidence, resulted in a positive, significant correlation between one’s confidence in partner

selection and physiognomic belief. This illustrates that once a persons’ confidence in partner

selection is higher, he or she is prone to have a higher belief in physiognomy. This outcome implies

that once our physiognomic belief is of greater presence, we feel more confident selecting a partner

based on facial cues. However, this research was limited to investigating the impact of the sole cue

of facial factors, further research needs to be done to examine other influences.


3

Introduction

We constantly make judgements over others. For that, the face is a well providing, easy

accessible, and useful source of information, which is available in most of our social situations,

upon which we base those judgements and therefore make important social decisions as a result.

For example, we elect political leaders based on how competent the candidate looks (Todorov,

Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005), we choose our friends who tend to be similar in social status

compared to ourselves (Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1998), as well as

we are more likely to date people who are similarly attractive (Simon, Aikins, & Prinstein, 2008),

and the more we find a person looking trustworthy, the sooner we are to collaborate (Krumhuber,

Manstead, Cosker, Marshall, Rosin, & Kappas 2007). Although these facial cues can be superficial

and weakly valuable, according to Todorov, Olivola, Dotsch, and Mende-Siedlecki (2015), we feel

confident and comfortable using them, which often results in facial features biasing our choices

(Hassin & Trope, 2000). Not only can we extract a person’s age, gender, ethnicity, or emotional

state, (Todorov et al., 2015) face-based social inferences can influence our judgements of others

even about personality, behavioural intentions, and intellectual abilities (Willis & Todorov, 2006).

The concept of reading personality traits from faces is called physiognomy1. Physiognomic

information, such as first impressions, has, as reported by Hassin and Trope (2000) a powerful

impact on decisions, and frequently creates overconfidence in our judgements about people.

Griffin and Tversky (1992) claimed that the presence of overconfidence can be explained by the

assumption that we focus on the strength, such as extremity and intensity, of the available

information instead of its reliability and validity. Nevertheless, the understanding of nonverbal, as

1 The idea of physiognomy can be explained in several ways. The definition that will be used in this study describes

physiognomy as followed: to denote the reading of traits from faces; "physiognomic information”, which refers to

the information about personality deduced from faces (Hassin & Trope, 2000).


4

well as verbal communication is extended by physiognomy (Marzi, Battaglia, Castelli, & Peru,

2014). According to Solík (2014), physiognomy has become part of our understanding of others

and socio-culturally encoding and decoding information. Physiognomy provides insight into the

unconscious, nonverbal intentions and personality of one another, therefore has physiognomy

practical implications in all forms of social, face-to-face contact with others (Johnston, 2016).

Physiognomy biases our judgements and decisions which makes it an important factor in

our daily life. But is this physiognomic information indeed accurate? Research so far regarding

the accuracy of our social inferences of facial features is ambiguous. A great amount of earlier

research was not able to establish a significant correlation between physiognomic deductions and

the targets actual personality (e.g. Alley, 1988, Cohen, 1973). Citing Cohen’s (1973) conclusion;

"No significant or replicable relationships could be found between physiognomic characteristics

and the mean evaluations of target persons by their comrades or their self-descriptions in a

personality questionnaire". Yet, Swann (1984) argued that we are much more accurate in our

judgements of others than the earlier research suggested. Subsequent studies using the zero-

acquaintance paradigm indicated that many judgements of total strangers can be correctly made

on the basis of limited information (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). Plenty of evidence

supporting this outcome has been acquired by Berry and Zebrowitz (1988). For instance, they

found significant correlations on power, warmth, and honesty between peer and photograph

evaluations (Berry, 1991). Latest research provides evidence that, in general, people are fairly

accurate when forming impressions of others (Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy, Schmid Mast, &

Feinstein, 2008), although there are a number of factors that may make impressions more or less

accurate. For instance, some targets are easier to judge than others (Biesanz & West, 2000), some

perceivers are better judges than others (Ickes et al., 2000), and contextual factors such as perceiver


5

motivation can influence the accuracy of personality impressions (Biesanz & Human, 2010). Yet,

this discrepancy between earlier and recent studies has not been entirely resolved. Hassin and

Trope (2000) suggest a possible explanation where later studies examined traits that are related to

each other by means of a more general impression, whereas the earlier studies examined relatively

discrete traits that are not parts of a more global characteristic of faces. Hence, this research aims

focus on both parts of general and specific physiognomy to reduce ambiguity.

As mentioned before, Hassin and Trope (2000) provide evidence that physiognomic

information makes us highly confident about our interpretations of others. But why do we feel so

confident about our inferences? Can we even tell the difference when we are right or wrong in our

first impressions? Smith, Archer, and Costanzo (1991) found a significant relationship between

accuracy and confidence, which suggests that perceivers do have some awareness of how accurate

their judgements are, even if they have no appropriate basis for their confidence. Yet, according

to Hassin and Trope (2000), we are extremely overconfident in our judgements and interpretations

based on physiognomic information, since the actual accuracy of these inferences by far do not

match the expectations considering the confidence. Todorov and colleagues (2015) even found

that participants were no less confident in their ability to draw valid conclusions from

physiognomic information than high performers were. We can conclude that confidence of our

social inferences is often misplaced, yet we still rely on the feeling of confidence as an accuracy

indicator.

Physiognomy plays an important role in partner selection. Although forming a novel

relationship with a person you hardly know could have many advantages, deciding to trust this

potential partner also brings along the risk of damage, costs or trouble whenever he or she starts

to act in an untrustworthy way or chooses to act on its own. Nevertheless, Barclay (2016) states


6

that cooperation is crucial to our survival and social success. We often choose our social partners,

such as friends, allies, lovers, associates, which gives us the opportunity to avoid partners that do

not suit us and gain partners with whom we like to interact with. The best partners were defined

by DeSteno and colleagues (2012) as most willing, able, and available to confer benefits, either

intentionally or incidentally. It can be highly advantageous choosing our partners based on these

characteristics.

In this study the focus is on partner selection for cooperation with an economic importance.

Therefore, it is important for people to have access to information of reliable signs of the

trustworthiness of the future partner, for cooperation to be advantageous for both parties (Delton,

Krasnow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2011). Trust concerns putting one's well-being into the hands of

another. It involves a decision that makes one vulnerable to the actions of someone else (Righetti

& Finkenauer, 2011). Robinson (1996) conceptualized trust as a person’s expectations,

assumptions, or belief about the likelihood that another’s future actions will be beneficial,

favourable, or at least not harmful to one’s interests. That is why trust plays an important role in a

reciprocal exchange, such as the Trust Game. Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in

economic exchange, people often have to decide whether to trust potential partners in with lack of

reliable and relevant information about their past behaviour (DeSteno et al., 2012). Hence, the

capacity of recognizing trustworthiness in facial cues of others could offer a valuable advantage.

In the latest years, researchers have conducted physiognomic studies to establish whether

specific facial cues can offer information about one’s trustworthiness (Engell, Haxby, & Todorov,

2007). For example, Engell and colleagues (2007) asked participants to rate to what extent

computer-generated faces they considered trustworthy. They came to the conclusion that

participants used certain facial characteristics, such as cheekbones, nose, or eye width, to


7

determine the trustworthiness of a person from an image. Therefore, physiognomy can play an

important role in partner selection by detecting a persons’ trustworthiness.

Very little research has been done on whether people actually believe that their impressions

of others, based on facial features, are accurate. Hassin and Trope (2000) investigated the belief in

physiognomy on a representative sample of Israelis of 535 respondents. The following question

was asked: "Is it possible, in your opinion, to know an individual's true personality traits from

looking at his or her face?". Thirteen percent answered they thought it was possible to know all of

an individual’s personality, based on his or her face, where 26% stated it was possible to deduce

many traits and 36% believed it was possible to know a few traits, yet 25% believed it was even

impossible to deduce any traits. This results in an overall percentage of 75% of the respondents

who believed in physiognomy until some level, whereas only 25% thinks that physiognomy is not

possible. Yet, this is one of the few findings on physiognomic belief, consequently more research

needs to be done on this topic.

Taken all of this into consideration, it is not known if there is any relationship between a

persons’ confidence when selecting a partner and his or her belief in physiognomy, and whether

the given of trustworthiness can influence this. The current study addresses this important gap in

the literature by examining the following question: Is there a relationship between a persons’

physiognomic belief and his or her confidence in partner selection? The expectation is that there

is a significant, positive relationship between those two factors and that trustworthiness plays an

important role for such.

Method

In order to achieve the research goal of identifying the relationship between one’s

physiognomic belief and his or her confidence in partner selection, a survey-based research was


8

conducted in a correlational design. Therefore, a survey was composed to investigate the

importance of the key factors of this research, namely; a persons’ physiognomic belief,

trustworthiness in partner selection, and one’s confidence when selecting a partner based on facial

cues.

Participants

All respondents were acquired through social media. A link to the survey was sent in

WhatsApp groups, posted on Facebook, e-mails were sent throughout two considerably large

companies by a well-known individual within that company, and many respondents were requested

to fill out the survey face-to-face. This resulted in a sample of 288 participants (165 female, 121

male) with a mean age of 31 raging from 16 to 74 years old of which 130 students. The main

similarity between the respondents is their Dutch nationality (88.54%).

Materials

In the survey, participants were given an imaginary Trust Game in which two players had

to choose an option where they could gain money, depending on what the other player chooses.

Subsequently, three photos of faces were shown, where the participant had to choose who they

wanted to select as their partner.

The Trust Game

The Trust Game was used in the survey which created a situation for participants where

they had to choose a partner upon which they had to trust. A decision-making task was outlined,

where participants were asked to imagine a game in which they could gain points that would be

converted into real money at the end of the study. The amount of the prize depended on which

option (IN or OUT) both Player 1 and Player 2 chose. The participant was assigned to the role of

Player 1. In Figure 1 the rules of the game were clarified in a scheme which added by the


9

explanation of the task. Subsequently, the participant had to decide which person they would

choose if they had to play this game, choosing from the three pictures of computer-generated faces,

indicating the participants’ perception of trustworthiness.

Figure 1. The Trust Game

Computer-generated faces

The faces that were shown in the questionnaire, were based on behavioural studies and

computer modelling. Oosterhof and Todorov (2008) developed a 2D model of face evaluation. In

principle, this model does not make a priori assumptions about the importance of specific facial

parts, such as nose or facial hair. Using a data-driven statistical model for face representation, they

built and validated models for representative faces of trustworthiness. For each face, they produced

seven versions that each varied on a scale of trustworthiness, namely -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, and 3

Standard Deviation on the dimensions. This resulted in a database of male and female human faces

that were laser-scanned in 3D. From this database, six randomized sets of three faces were

composed, each with an untrustworthy face (-3 SD), a neutral face (0 SD) and a trustworthy face

(3 SD), for an example of a set of faces that were shown to participants, see Figure 2.


10

Figure 2. Respectively, an untrustworthy face, a neutral face and a trustworthy face

Variables

There are two different sides of physiognomic belief (Jaeger, 2017), both sides were

measured in this research since the first part only measures general belief in physiognomy, yet

within the Trust Game scenario, trustworthiness plays an important role. Therefore, physiognomic

belief of trustworthiness was measured next to eight other personality traits to fulfil all sides of

physiognomic belief.

The two variables of general physiognomic belief and specific physiognomic belief were

computed by adding up the scores on different questions of the survey, a format adopted from

Jaeger (2017). The variable of general physiognomic belief is a result of adding up the scores to

what extent the participant agreed on three statements, namely: I can learn something about the

person’s personality just from looking at his or her face, I do not believe that the person's

personality is reflected in their face, and My first impressions of the person's personality, just from

looking at his or her face, is accurate. This is not a standardized scale, hence Cronbach’s Alpha

was used to test its reliability. This led to an acceptable reliability (α = .754) of the three statements

testing general physiognomic belief. Additionally, specific physiognomic belief was computed by

adding up the scores to what extent the participant believed they could deduce personality traits


11

from a passport photo, testing several traits, namely: trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, warmth,

friendliness, likeability, competence, intelligence and to what extent the person is skilful.

All together, the variables to be analysed concerned a participants’ confidence of his or her

selected partner, the participants’ general physiognomic belief, belief in detectability of

trustworthiness from a passport photo, and belief of detecting personality traits from a passport

photo.

Procedure

The survey started with a consent form to read where participants were able to decide to

join the study or not, once the next button was clicked, the participants gave their consent.

Subsequently, the instructions of the Trust Game followed, combined with a summarizing

overview (Figure 1). Next, an explanation was offered why simplified faces were given, since the

faces showed were computer-generated, therefore the survey explained this feature due to

anonymity of the persons given to reduce the participants’ feeling of artificiality. The participant

was asked which of the three faces they would choose, if they had to play the Trust Game with

one of them. All participants viewed a randomized set of three pictures (Figure 2) obtained from

the database of Oosterhof and Todorov (2008), as mentioned before, choosing from an

untrustworthy face, a neutral face and a trustworthy face. Afterwards, the participants had to

indicate how confident they were about their selected partner on a scale from 1 to 9. The general

belief in physiognomy was measured with a set of three questions whether the participants actually

think they can learn something about the personality of the target just by considering their facial

features. At last, the question was asked; How accurately can you judge a person on the following

characteristics just from looking at the person’s passport photo? following with twelve

characteristics with each of them a slider to indicate whether they agreed or not. Those twelve


12

characteristics were respectively: age, gender, attractiveness, trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty,

warmth, friendliness, likeability, competence, intelligence and to what extent the person is skilful.

To finish the survey, participants filled in ten basic questions about their demographics to identify

the population that was examined.

Results

To examine if there exists a relationship between a persons’ physiognomic belief and his

or her confidence in partner selection, correlations were measured to establish this relationship.

Correlations between one’s confidence in partner selection and his or her belief in detecting

trustworthiness was tested as the main correlation to verify the relationship, one’s confidence and

his or her general physiognomic belief and one’s confidence and his or her belief in detecting

specific personality traits were measured to complement for a more robust relationship.

Before analysing the relationship between confidence in partner selection and

physiognomic belief, some variables needed to be validated with a correlation in between

variables. First of all, there were two variables testing physiognomic belief, one measuring the

general belief in physiognomy, and the other one only measured belief in detecting specific traits.

Examining the correlation between the general belief in physiognomy and physiognomic belief in

specific personality traits, resulted in a positive correlation of r = .503 which was significant at the

two-tailed level (p = .001). This means that the variables cohered significantly and therefore both

measuring physiognomic belief.

Confidence

To test the research question; Is there a relationship between a persons’ physiognomic

belief and his or her confidence in partner selection? several correlations between variables were

measured, for an overview, see Table 1. The first correlation to test was the correlation between a


13

participants’ confidence of his or her selected partner, and the trustworthiness-specific

physiognomic belief. This analysis revealed a positive and significant correlation (r = .253, p =

.001). This correlation showed that the more a participant believed that trustworthiness can be read

from one’s face, the more confident they were that they had selected the right partner in the Trust

Game or the other way around, once the participant feels more confident over his or her selected

partner, the participant is more likely to believe that trustworthiness can be read from one’s face.

Furthermore, to fuel the robustness of the relationship between a participants’ confidence of his or

her selected partner, and the trustworthiness-specific physiognomic belief, the correlation between

a participants’ confidence of his or hers selected partner and the participants’ general

physiognomic belief was tested. This resulted in again a significant positive correlation (r = .216,

p = .001). This outcome shows that once a participant is more confident about his or her selected

partner, the more the participant will belief in physiognomy in general. Additionally, to test the

connection between a persons’ physiognomic belief and his or her confidence in partner selection,

the correlation between a participants’ confidence in their selected partner was measured and the

specific-trait physiognomic belief, thus not only trustworthiness, but all nine specific personality

traits. This resulted too in a significant, positive correlation (r = .241, p = .001) This indicates that

once a participant is more confident over his or her selected partner, he or she is more likely to

believe in physiognomy of specific personality traits. This verified the overall relationship between

confidence in partner selection and physiognomic belief. 2

2 When excluding thirty participants who filled in the survey extremely fast (less than three minutes), no significant

difference in correlations were found. Therefore, participants who may have filled in the survey carelessly, did not

influence the results. Also, when excluding participants who notified that they did not understand the decision-

making task, this did not significantly differ from the original results, therefore, those participants had no negative

influence on the results.


14

Table 1.

Summary of Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

Measure 1 2 3 4 M SD

1. Confidence in partner selection 5.89 1.79

2. Trustworthiness-specific .253** 33.14 24.51

3. General physiognomic belief .216** .481** 4.45 1.17

4. Specific physiognomic belief .241** .831** .503** 35.18 18.91

** p < .01

To elaborate, a multiple linear regression analysis was used to test effects of several

independent variables on a persons’ confidence in partner selection and the belief in physiognomy.

Measuring the differences in age, gender, education, income, and religion, no significance variance

on the variables were found. This means that no matter what the participants’ age, gender,

educational level, income or religion was, the correlation between physiognomic belief and ones’

confidence in partner selection would stay the same.

Discussion

This study presents a dataset from a sample of 288 participants to investigate the research

question whether or not there is a relationship between confidence in partner selection and

physiognomic belief. The results showed a significant correlation between physiognomic belief

and confidence in partner selection, this correlation was primarily focused on the physiognomic

belief of trustworthiness. This implies that once a participant is more confident of his or her

selected partner, the more he or she will believe in physiognomy, or the other way around, when

a participant believed more in physiognomy, they would be more confident over their selected

partner. This could mean for a daily life that people with a greater presence of physiognomic belief,

will feel more confident basing their partner choices on facial cues.


15

Evidence of previous research remained ambiguous regarding physiognomy. Hassin and

Trope (2000) suggested a clarification that earlier studies examined rather specific traits where

latest studies investigated a more general facet of physiognomy where the face and interpretation

is taken as a whole. This research tried to restrain this discrepancy by measuring both the general

as well as the specific physiognomy. Therefore, the outcome of this research was more robust to

this ambiguity.

Another strength of this research is the large sample of participants. Besides, it is important

to note that the problem of most research nowadays is that namely students are being used to

conduct research (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). However, only 130 out of 288

participants in this research were considered students, which is less than half (45,14%) of the total

amount of participants. This made the population that was used more diverse than Henrich and

colleagues (2010) consider a problem. However, a disadvantage considering the sample is that the

research was focused on Dutch individuals, which makes the findings of the study not

generalizable to other countries or cultures. For instance, Xu, Wu, Toriyama, Ma, Itakura, & Lee,

(2012) found a difference between Caucasian and Chinese participants in the way they estimated

trustworthiness based on faces. Besides, prior research on using facial cues to judge

trustworthiness was limited to asking participants to rate photographs of their own race (Todorov,

Dotsch, Wigboldus & Said, 2011). Hence, more research with different cultures may reveal if

individuals of different norms and values use alternative facial cues to make social judgements

such as trustworthiness and this would permit the generalization of the results.

Another shortcoming of this study comes up in the results section, where correlations were

used to verify the relationship between a participants’ confidence in partner selection and their

physiognomic belief. However, correlations do not measure the direction of the relationship


16

between variables. This solely shows a connection, which can be bidirectional or one way which

remains unknown. A suggestion for future research is to find out the direction or of the correlation

or whether it is bidirectional.

Moreover, this research assumed that the selection of the partner was based on how

trustworthy the individuals looked, since the main correlation consisted of the relationship between

the confidence in partner selection and the extent to which participants believed they could deduce

trustworthiness from a passport photo. However, only half (50,3%) of the participants have chosen

the trustworthy face, yet it can be expected that this would be a higher percentage since the Trust

Game aims to measure trust. This could indicate that many selected partners were not based on

trust. Participants could have selected their partner based on, for example, competence or the one

who looked similar to them. For instance, Xu and colleagues (2012) found a significant correlation

between trustworthiness and attractiveness, which indicates that when a person is determining the

trustworthiness of another, they base this to a great extent on facial attractiveness. Therefore, the

design of the Trust Game could have had a significant impact on the results, since the correlation

between physiognomic belief and confidence in partner selection would not have been relevant

when the partner selection was not based on trustworthiness, as physiognomic belief was focused

on trustworthiness. Future research could investigate this discrepancy by measuring the

relationship of confidence in partner selection with other specific personality traits separate from

each other.

Also a disadvantage of this research is that most participants were likely to fill in the survey

in their free time. This could have resulted in a lack of commitment since respondents were not

being supervised nor did they receive any personal feedback or did they benefit from filling out

the questionnaire in any other way. This could have taken away the self-interest and this does not


17

motivate the participants to answer in an accurate way. When participants would have filled in the

questionnaire in a lab setting, they would be more likely to answer more accurately and be

motivated, since they would feel that they participate in a professional, serious study and, as said,

could feel forced to fill in the survey more accurately or sincerely (Dandurand, Shultz, & Onishi,

2008).

On the other hand, there is a positive side of participants filling in the questionnaires in

their spare time, since participants would be more likely to fill in the survey in their natural

environment, for example at home or at work, where they felt comfortable answering the questions

of the questionnaire and their mood was not influenced by a lab setting, where people could feel

pressured or unnatural.

Furthermore, all participants were clearly informed that their answers and data would be

processed anonymously. This decreased the likelihood of participants answering in a socially

desirable way. This excluded the possibility of a social desirability bias, as respondents were filling

in the survey individually without any social influence (Roxas & Lindsay, 2012).

However, the combination of anonymity, which means that participants were not

monitored and could have gotten demotivated by the lack of self-interest, together with a quite

long explanation of the rules of the Trust Game, could have let to carelessly filling in the survey,

without any deliberative thinking. Even thirty of the participants took less than three minutes to

fill in the survey, which could indicate they have answered recklessly. Future research could

eliminate this weakness by creating an actual Trust Game, rather than a fictional one. Additionally,

higher monetary stakes could increase participants’ motivation, in a fictional as well as an actual

Trust Game.


18

The finding that physiognomic belief is highly correlated with confidence in partner

selection is theoretically important as it provides a foundation for prospective research to both the

physiognomic aspect as the partner selection, as it supplements the physiognomic belief evidence

where prior research did not create a proper foundation and it provides a new angle on the

relationship between partner selection and physiognomy. We could further conclude that the

partners we select, are based on a rather ambiguous source, namely physiognomy. For example,

Little, Burt, and Perret (2006) also found that partners are selected based on facial judgements,

linked to desired personality in their partners. We could state that this is due to the lack of other

available cues to base their partner preferences on. Surprisingly, participants’ confidence was quite

high based on this sole cue. Future research could add more informational cues to the alternatives,

such as resumes, profession, hobbies, or anything that indicates reputation, to specify whether the

correlation between physiognomic belief and confidence in partner selection is as high as this

research suggests, when other factors play a role. Likewise, it could be interesting to consider if

confidence of partner selection would increase, decrease or stay the same when additional

informational cues will be added. Lastly, people who have a high physiognomic belief, would they

rely more easily on physiognomic information, such as first impressions, when making a decision?

Hence, this research provides a meaningful ground for future research in physiognomic belief and

partner selection.

Conclusion

Previous research has shown little evidence for physiognomic belief and the relationship

with a persons’ confidence in partner selection. This research reveals a significant relationship

between the two. This means that people with a higher degree of physiognomic belief, will feel

more confident basing their partner choices on the mere cue of facial factors, along with small


19

believers in physiognomy who will feel uncertain choosing their partners on this limited

information. Since this research only investigates the influence of the sole cue of facial factors, it

remains unknown what the influence of additional information would be. Yet, the established

relationship of this study provides substantial ground for future research to physiognomic belief,

partner selection and the relationship among them.


20

References

Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgements at zero

acquaintance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 55(3), 387.

Alley, T. R. (1988). Physiognomy and social perception. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied

aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 167-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Barclay, P. (2016). Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and

friendship. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 33-38.

Berry, D. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal

information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 298.

Berry, D. S., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). What's in a face? Facial maturity and the

attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), 23

33.

Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions:

Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less

normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21(4), 589

594.

Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self–other profile

agreement and profile consensus. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(3),

425.

Ciriolo, E. (2007). Inequity aversion and trustees' reciprocity in the trust game. European

Journal of Political Economy, 23(4), 1007-1024.

Cohen, R. (1973). Patterns of personality judgements. New York: Academic Press


21

Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a

problem-solving experiment. Behavior research methods, 40(2), 428-434.

Delton, K. W., Krasnow, M. X., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2011). The evolution of direct

reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 13335–13340.

DeSteno, D., Breazeal, C., Frank, R. H., Pizarro, D., Baumann, J., Dickens, L., & Lee, J. J.

(2012). Detecting the trustworthiness of novel partners in economic

exchange. Psychological science, 23(12), 1549-1556.

Engell A, Haxby J, & Todorov A., (2007). Implicit trustworthiness decisions: Automatic coding

of face properties in the human amygdala. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(9),

1508–1519.

Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence.

Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411-435.

Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., Murphy, N. A., Mast, M. S., & Feinstein, B. A. (2008).

Accuracy of judging others’ traits and states: Comparing mean levels across

tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1476-1489.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,

466(7302), 29-29

Haselager, G. J., Hartup, W., van Lieshout, C. F, & Riksen Walraven, J. M. (1998). Similarities

between friends and nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development, 69, 1198-1208

Hassin, R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of

physiognomy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), 837.


22

Ickes, W., Buysse, A., Pham, H., Rivers, K., Erickson, J. R., Hancock, M., ... & Gesn, P. R.

(2000). On the difficulty of distinguishing “good” and “poor” perceivers: A social

relations analysis of empathic accuracy data. Personal Relationships, 7(2), 219-234.

Jaeger, B. (2017) Physiognomic belief. Unpublished manuscript, Tilburg University

Johnston, C. L. (2016). Physiognomics: A comparative study of chinese-american and

caucasian-american senior females' use of nonverbal cues to determine

trustworthiness Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University.

Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S., Cosker, D., Marshall, D., Rosin, P. L., & Kappas, A. (2007).

Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 7(4),

730.

Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). What is good is beautiful: Face preference

reflects desired personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(6), 1107-1118.

Marzi, T., Battaglia, E., Castelli, G., & Peru, A., (2014). Affective touch shapes the sense of

trustworthiness of visually presented faces. Current Advances in Psychology Research,

1(2), 60-66.

Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings

ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105

Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The

role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 100(5), 874.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41, 574–599. doi:10.2307/2393868


23

Roxas, B., & Lindsay, V. (2012). Social desirability bias in survey research on sustainable

development in small firms: An exploratory analysis of survey mode-effect. Business

Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), 223-235.

Simon, V. A., Aikins, J. W., & Prinstein, M. J. (2008). Romantic partner selection and

socialization during early adolescence. Child Development, 79(6), 1676-1692.

Smith, H. J., Archer, D., & Costanzo, M. (1991). “Just a hunch”: Accuracy and awareness in

person perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(1), 3-18.

Solík, M. (2014). Semiotic approach to analysis of advertising. European Journal of Science and

Theology, 10(1), 207-217.

Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics.

Psychological review, 91(4), 457

Todorov, A., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D. H., & Said, C. P. (2011). Data‐driven methods for

modeling social perception. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(10), 775-791.

Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from

faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review

of Psychology, 66.

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms

exposure to a face. Psychological science, 17(7), 592-598.

Xu. F., Wu, D., Toriyama, R., Ma, F., Itakura, S., & Lee, R., (2012). Similarities and differences

in chinese and caucasian adults’ use of facial cues for trustworthiness judgments. PLos

ONE, 7(4).

The Relationship between Physiognomic Belief and ...

Documents

Transcript of The Relationship between Physiognomic Belief and ...