Enhancing static facial features increases intimidation

Hehman, Eric; Leitner, Jordan B.; Gaertner, Samuel L.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.015

Cited by 70 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, although all models were recorded directly facing the camera, possible deviations from frontality were not assessed. Previous evidence has suggested that such deviations can bias other judgments about the target such as weight estimation (T. M. Schneider et al, 2012) or personality traits (Hehman, Leitner, & Gaertner, 2013). Hence, future research should seek to extend the current database by including frontality assessments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The many faces of a face: Comparing stills and videos of facial expressions in eight dimensions (SAVE database)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents subjective rating norms for a new set of Stills And Videos of facial Expressions-the SAVE database. Twenty nonprofessional models were filmed while posing in three different facial expressions (smile, neutral, and frown). After each pose, the models completed the PANAS questionnaire, and reported more positive affect after smiling and more negative affect after frowning. From the shooting material, stills and 5 s and 10 s videos were edited (total stimulus set = 180). A different sample of 120 participants evaluated the stimuli for attractiveness, arousal, clarity, genuineness, familiarity, intensity, valence, and similarity. Overall, facial expression had a main effect in all of the evaluated dimensions, with smiling models obtaining the highest ratings. Frowning expressions were perceived as being more arousing, clearer, and more intense, but also as more negative than neutral expressions. Stimulus presentation format only influenced the ratings of attractiveness, familiarity, genuineness, and intensity. The attractiveness and familiarity ratings increased with longer exposure times, whereas genuineness decreased. The ratings in the several dimensions were correlated. The subjective norms of facial stimuli presented in this article have potential applications to the work of researchers in several research domains. From our database, researchers may choose the most adequate stimulus presentation format for a particular experiment, select and manipulate the dimensions of interest, and control for the remaining dimensions. The full stimulus set and descriptive results (means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals) for each stimulus per dimension are provided as supplementary material.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The many faces of a face: Comparing stills and videos of facial expressions in eight dimensions (SAVE database)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent research has demonstrated the magnitude of fWHR's impact on critical social perceptions. For instance, inferences of aggression (Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009;Geniole, Keyes, Mondloch, Carré, & McCormick, 2012;Short et al, 2012), racial prejudice (Hehman, Leitner, & Gaertner, 2013b), and untrustworthiness (Stirrat & Perrett, 2010) are greater for males with a higher fWHR than their thinner faced peers. Furthermore, evaluations based upon fWHR are often accurate, as higher fWHR males were more likely to engage in deception (Haselhuhn & Wong, 2012), react aggressively (Carré & McCormick, 2008), and report racial prejudices (Hehman, Leitner, Deegan, & Gaertner, 2013a).…”

Section: Informative Facesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that higher fWHR corresponds with perceptions of aggression (Carré et al, 2009;Geniole et al, 2012;Short et al, 2012), intimidation (Hehman et al, 2013b), lesser intelligence, lesser friendliness, greater expression of prejudice (Hehman et al, 2013a), and untrustworthiness (Stirrat & Perrett, 2010), one possible explanation for individuals' demonstrated and robust sensitivity to fWHR is to facilitate avoidance of these individuals who are potentially dangerous both to one's physical person and to one's resources.…”

Section: Negative Associations With Fwhrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because lethal competition generally occurred across group boundaries (Navarrete, McDonald, Molina, & Sidanius, 2010;Van Vugt, 2009), group membership would moderate the manner in which physically formidable males are perceived: negatively when part of the outgroup, but positively when part of the ingroup. Thus, since high fWHR males are perceived as physically strong, dangerous, and intimidating (Hehman, Leitner, & Freeman, 2014b;Hehman et al, 2013b), they should be valued and preferred as members of one's team in competitive contexts, rather than as a potential competitor. High fWHR males might therefore be preferred specifically in competitive intergroup contexts involving contests of physical strength.…”

Section: Positive Associations With Fwhrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following random face generation, faces were digitally manipulated to appear with either a higher or lower fWHR, utilizing benchmarks from previous research with real faces (Hehman et al, 2013a;Hehman et al, 2013b). Specifically, the aspect ratio of each face was changed using Irfanview.…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Picking teams: When dominant facial structure is preferred

Hehman

Leitner

Deegan

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology and Neuroscience of Person Perception

Brooks

Freeman

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding other people is an important and consequential task, and thus it is not surprising that the perceptual system is attuned to extract relevant information (e.g., social categories, identity, traits, and intentions) available in the faces, bodies, and voices of other people. As a result, social information is quickly inferred from even a brief glimpse of another's face, although this process can be prone to systematic biases. Recent interdisciplinary developments spanning across social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and vision science have enabled a deeper understanding of person perception and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms. In this chapter, we discuss how perceptions of other people are formed rapidly not only through a wealth of bottom‐up features inherent in the target of perception (e.g., facial, bodily, and vocal cues) but also through a number of top‐down factors harbored in the perceiver (e.g., stereotypes, person knowledge, goals, and intergroup processes). In addition, we discuss extant research on the neural architecture of person perception and recent computational models. We conclude by discussing downstream consequences of person perception (e.g., discrimination and bias in leadership roles and mate selection) and emerging approaches to person perception that trace these downstream consequences to more basic processes.

show abstract

Enhancing static facial features increases intimidation

Cited by 70 publications

References 34 publications

The many faces of a face: Comparing stills and videos of facial expressions in eight dimensions (SAVE database)

The many faces of a face: Comparing stills and videos of facial expressions in eight dimensions (SAVE database)

Picking teams: When dominant facial structure is preferred

Psychology and Neuroscience of Person Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About