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

Abstract

Given the frequency of relationships nowadays initiated online, where impressions from face photographs may influence relationship initiation, it is important to understand how facial first impressions might be used in such contexts. We therefore examined the applicability of a leading model of verbally expressed partner preferences to impressions derived from real face images and investigated how the factor structure of first impressions based on potential partner preference-related traits might relate to a more general model of facial first impressions. Participants rated 1,000 everyday face photographs on 12 traits selected to represent (Fletcher, et al. 1999, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72) verbal model of partner preferences. Facial trait judgements showed an underlying structure that largely paralleled the tripartite structure of Fletcher et al.'s verbal preference model, regardless of either face gender or participant gender. Furthermore, there was close correspondence between the verbal partner preference model and a more general tripartite model of facial first impressions derived from a different literature (Sutherland et al., 2013, Cognition, 127, 105), suggesting an underlying correspondence between verbal conceptual models of romantic preferences and more general models of facial first impressions.

Do facial first impressions reflect a shared social reality?

“…However, the dimensional modelling approach has been increasingly influential in explaining other aspects of social perception. Our current approach can be applied in future to test dimensional models of social perception across fields, including for voices (McAleer, Todorov, & Belin, 2014), bodies (Morrison, Wang, Hahn, Jones, & DeBruine, 2017) and relationship partner preferences (South Palomares et al, 2018). Our approach can also be extended to test other populations across age and culture.…”

“…A powerful approach to understanding the rich variety of facial impressions has been to use data‐driven techniques to model key dimensions underlying these impressions (Oosterhof & Todorov, ). These techniques have revealed a surprising simplicity to the structure of facial impressions: Two or three dimensions explain most of the variance across a wide range of facial impressions (Oosterhof & Todorov, ; South Palomares, Sutherland, & Young, ; Sutherland et al ., ; Walker & Vetter, ). Most studies find trustworthiness and dominance (or competence) dimensions, whilst an additional youthful–attractiveness dimension also appears in some studies, largely where face photographs are more varied, particularly on age (South Palomares et al ., ; Sutherland et al ., ; although Wolffhechel et al ., , also found this dimension using standardized images).…”

“…These dimensions link impressions to important forms of social appraisal involving threat avoidance and partner selection (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008;South Palomares et al, 2018;Sutherland et al, 2013). This dimensional approach represents a major advance because it shows that a tractable model can encompass a near-endless range of attributions; for example, Allport once famously noted that nearly 18,000 English words are devoted to trait impressions (Allport & Odbert, 1936).…”

“…Rosenberg's model of personality impressions of abstract targets has similar social and intelligence dimensions (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968). Fletcher, Simpson, and Thomas (2000) model of partner preferences has three dimensions of warmth, vitality, and status, which highly correspond with trustworthiness, youthful-attractiveness, and dominance (South Palomares et al, 2018; three similar dimensions also appear in Osgood's 1969 semantic differential model of attitudes, and in Rosenberg et al, 1968). At the same time, the facial impression dimensions can be recovered from mapping visual cues present in face images themselves, showing that there is an intimate link between these impressions and visual information (Vernon, Sutherland, Young, & Hartley, 2014).…”

The conceptual structure of face impressions

“…However, to our knowledge, such insights have not been directly applied or tested in understanding trait impressions of faces (although overlap in conceptual and face trait spaces has been observed toward romantic partner preferences; ref. 18). If a perceiver's conceptual associations in part help scaffold face trait space, this may further formal models of face impressions generally, and an important implication would be that face trait space is dynamic across perceivers rather than representing any single fixed architecture (9).…”