Over the last ten years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgments of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries, and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods, correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution.

Abstract. Although vaccines are among the most effective interventions used in fighting diseases, vaccination readiness varies substantially among individuals. Vaccination readiness is defined as a set of components that increase or decrease AN individual’s likelihood of getting vaccinated. Building on earlier work that distinguished five components of vaccination readiness (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility), we revised the questionnaire used to measure these components to improve its psychometric properties, specifically criterion validity. In doing so, we also developed two new components of vaccination readiness: compliance and conspiracy. Compliance is the tendency to support monitoring to control adherence to regulations; conspiracy is the tendency to endorse conspiratorial beliefs about vaccination. The newly introduced 7C scale was initially piloted in a cascade of serial cross-sectional studies and then validated with N = 681 participants from the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring in Denmark. We report a bifactor measurement model, convergent validity with other questionnaires, and an explanation of 85% variance in the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. We also present a 7-item short version of the scale. The instrument is publicly available in several languages ( www.vaccination-readiness.com ), and we seek collaboration to provide translations of our instrument into other languages.

Whereas research focusing on stable dispositions has long attributed ethically and socially aversive behavior to an array of aversive (or "dark") traits, other approaches from social-cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have emphasized the crucial role of social norms and situational justifications that allow individuals to uphold a positive self-image despite their harmful actions. We bridge these research traditions by focusing on the common core of aversive traits (the dark factor of personality [D]) and its defining aspect of involving diverse beliefs that serve to construct justifications. In particular, we theoretically specify the processes by which D is expressed in aversive behavior-namely, through diverse beliefs and the justifications they serve. In six studies (total N . 25,000) we demonstrate (a) that D involves higher subjective justifiability of those aversive behaviors that individuals high in D are more likely to engage in, (b) that D uniquely relates to diverse descriptive and injunctive beliefs-related to distrust (e.g., cynicism), hierarchy (e.g., authoritarianism), and relativism (e.g., normlessness)-that serve to justify aversive behavior, and (c) a theoretically derived pattern of moderations and mediations supporting the view that D accounts for aversive behavior because it fosters subjective justifiability thereof-at least in part owing to certain beliefs and the justifications they afford. More generally, our findings highlight the role of (social) cognitions within the conceptual definitions of personality traits and processes through which they are expressed in behavior.

Author contributions: CS came up with the study idea, JS, CS, and RCA contributed to the study design. All authors performed data collection. RCA wrote the analysis plan for which JS simulated data. CS and DF performed the voice analyses, based on scripts by DAP and DF. JS cleaned the data. RCA analyzed the data, created the codebook for all variables and the supplementary website. JS drafted the Stage 1 and the Stage 2 manuscript, RCA helped with the statistical analyses and advised the results part. All authors provided critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Do voices carry valid information about a speaker's personality?

The research Ethics committee of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology (ELTE) granted a central permission (permission nr: 2019/47). Many other labs obtained IRB approval too, which approvals can be found here: https://osf.io/j6kte/ . Participants had to give informed consent before starting the experiment. Only participants recruited through Mturk or Prolific received monetary compensation.Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.