Facial First Impressions Across Culture: Data-Driven Modeling of Chinese and British Perceivers’ Unconstrained Facial Impressions

Abstract

People form first impressions from facial appearance rapidly, and these impressions can have considerable social and economic consequences. Three dimensions can explain Western perceivers' impressions of Caucasian faces: approachability, youthful-attractiveness, and dominance. Impressions along these dimensions are theorized to be based on adaptive cues to threat detection or sexual selection, making it likely that they are universal. We tested whether the same dimensions of facial impressions emerge across culture by building data-driven models of first impressions of Asian and Caucasian faces derived from Chinese and British perceivers' unconstrained judgments. We then cross-validated the dimensions with computer-generated average images. We found strong evidence for common approachability and youthful-attractiveness dimensions across perceiver and face race, with some evidence of a third dimension akin to capability. The models explained ~75% of the variance in facial impressions. In general, the findings demonstrate substantial cross-cultural agreement in facial impressions, especially on the most salient dimensions.

Facial first impressions and partner preference models: Comparable or distinct underlying structures?

“…Although we noted that some other studies have also found three dimensions underlying impressions of faces (Olivola, Eubanks, et al, 2014;Sutherland, Liu, et al, 2017;Wolffhechel et al, 2014), major models of facial first impressions are often couched in terms of two underlying dimensions Walker & Vetter, 2009), as is a leading model of intergroup perception (Fiske et al, 2007). This finding was by no means inevitable.…”

Do facial first impressions reflect a shared social reality?

“…It also agrees with the pattern found across culture: For example, Sutherland et al . () found similar impression dimensions for British and Chinese groups, but with the least cross‐cultural agreement on competence. Moreover, Sutherland, Oldmeadow, et al .…”

“…First, Zebrowitz, Franklin, Hillman, and Boc () have measured the degree to which individual observers agree with members of the same or different social groups, for example, finding that older and younger people do agree in their impressions of faces across age. Second, studies modelling group‐based impressions also usually cross‐validate these impression dimensions by constructing computer‐generated (Oosterhof & Todorov, ; Walker & Vetter, ) or morphed (Sutherland et al ., , ) faces directly from the models and then ascertaining that these faces are perceived as expected by new sets of observers. Third, the fact that facial impressions predict important social consequences in the real world is also suggestive that impressions must be consensual, at least to some extent.…”

Toward a comprehensive model of face impressions: What we know, what we do not, and paths forward

“…A second dimension is thought to reflect a target's ability to enact those intentions. Traits such as dominant, competent, or physically strong load on this dimension (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, ; Leary, ; Leyens et al, ; Oosterhof & Todorov, ; Sutherland et al, ; Todorov & Engell, ). Recent research including older targets among those being rated yielded a third dimension of “youthful/attractive” (Sutherland et al, ).…”

“…Three dimensions emerged when British perceivers evaluated British faces but only two when evaluating Chinese faces. Three dimensions emerged when Chinese perceivers evaluated British faces, versus four when evaluating Chinese targets (Sutherland et al, ).…”