2008
DOI: 10.1068/p5278
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Inversion and Negation on Social Inferences from Faces

Abstract: Judgments about personality and other social characteristics based on facial appearance are remarkably consistent across individuals. However, whereas the facial cues that underpin age and sex judgments are already well understood, the physical bases for judgments of characteristics such as intelligence or trustworthiness are still unknown. Inversion and photographic negation are used here to investigate the visual processes underlying social inferences from the face and to explore whether various judgments mi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
58
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
(65 reference statements)
4
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A full description of the derivation of this set of tasks is available elsewhere (Santos, 2003 ;Hall et al 2004 ;Santos & Young, 2008). In brief, a database of 1000 pictures of faces of nonfamous adults were acquired from media sources and were rated by six volunteer participants on six social dimensions (age, trustworthiness, intelligence, attractiveness, approachability and distinctiveness) using 1-7-point scales.…”
Section: Tests Of Social Judgementmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A full description of the derivation of this set of tasks is available elsewhere (Santos, 2003 ;Hall et al 2004 ;Santos & Young, 2008). In brief, a database of 1000 pictures of faces of nonfamous adults were acquired from media sources and were rated by six volunteer participants on six social dimensions (age, trustworthiness, intelligence, attractiveness, approachability and distinctiveness) using 1-7-point scales.…”
Section: Tests Of Social Judgementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each stimulus was presented for 5 s. Participants were asked by text prompts to make a two-alternative forced-choice judgement on the face relating to age (old or young) in set 1, trustworthiness (very trustworthy or not trustworthy) in set 2, attractiveness (attractive or unattractive) in set 3, intelligence (very intelligent or not intelligent) in set 4, approachability (very approachable or not approachable) in set 5 and distinctiveness (very distinctive or not distinctive) in set 6. A response was considered an error whenever it did not correspond to the categorization of the stimulus derived from the independent ratings (Santos, 2003 ;Hall et al 2004 ;Santos & Young, 2008).…”
Section: Tests Of Social Judgementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Facial stimuli were selected as described previously (Hall et al 2004 ;Santos & Young, 2008). In brief, 1000 pictures of faces derived from media sources, all of non-famous adults, were shown to six volunteer participants and were rated for approachability and intelligence on a scale of 1-7.…”
Section: Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two tests of social cognition were performed comprising judgements of approachability or intelligence from faces (Hall et al 2004 ;Santos & Young, 2008). In the approachability task, participants had to decide whether faces appeared ' not approachable ' or ' very approachable '.…”
Section: Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From ratings of the perceived trustworthiness of these 1,000 face photographs established in previous studies (Santos & Young, 2005;Santos & Young, 2008;Santos & Young, 2011;Sutherland, et al, 2013;Sutherland, et al, 2015) the 15 male faces with lowest rated trustworthiness and the 15 male faces with highest rated trustworthiness were selected, subject to constraints that the photographs included no spectacles, were sufficiently close to frontal view that both eyes were visible, showed no beards or moustaches, and that there were no more than two faces with hats in each set. These constraints were introduced only to allow the creation of relatively sharp averaged images.…”
Section: Face Perception and Social Cognition Tasksmentioning
confidence: 99%