» Articles » PMID: 28352107

Forming Impressions of Facial Attractiveness is Mandatory

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2017 Mar 30
PMID 28352107
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

First impressions of social traits, such as attractiveness, from faces are often claimed to be made automatically, given their speed and reliability. However, speed of processing is only one aspect of automaticity. Here we address a further aspect, asking whether impression formation is mandatory. Mandatory formation requires that impressions are formed about social traits even when this is task-irrelevant, and that once formed, these impressions are difficult to inhibit. In two experiments, participants learned what new people looked like for the purpose of future identification, from sets of images high or low in attractiveness. They then rated middle-attractiveness images of each person, for attractiveness. Even though instructed to rate the specific images, not the people, their ratings were biased by the attractiveness of the learned images. A third control experiment, with participants rating names, demonstrated that participants in Experiments 1 and 2 were not simply rating the people, rather than the specific images as instructed. These results show that the formation of attractiveness impressions from faces is mandatory, thus broadening the evidence for automaticity of facial impressions. The mandatory formation of impressions is likely to have an important impact in real-world situations such as online dating sites.

Citing Articles

Facial attractiveness does not modify the perceived trustworthiness of ethnic minority men.

Hellyer J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27093.

PMID: 39511364 PMC: 11544132. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78291-9.


Anchoring has little effect when forming first impressions of facial attractiveness.

Kramer R, Koca Y, Mireku M, Oriet C Perception. 2024; 53(11-12):787-802.

PMID: 39319386 PMC: 11568655. DOI: 10.1177/03010066241284956.


Mate assessment based on physical characteristics: a review and reflection.

Watkins C Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2024; 100(1):113-130.

PMID: 39175167 PMC: 11718632. DOI: 10.1111/brv.13131.


The psychometrics of rating facial attractiveness using different response scales.

Kramer R, Ritchie K, Flack T, Mireku M, Jones A Perception. 2024; 53(9):645-660.

PMID: 38778780 PMC: 11348630. DOI: 10.1177/03010066241256221.


Effects of facial skin pigmentation on social judgments in a Mexican population.

Martinez-Ramirez J, Puts D, Nieto J, G-Santoyo I PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0279858.

PMID: 38032952 PMC: 10688750. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279858.


References
1.
Winston J, Strange B, ODoherty J, Dolan R . Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat Neurosci. 2002; 5(3):277-83. DOI: 10.1038/nn816. View

2.
Murphy J, Ipser A, Gaigg S, Cook R . Exemplar variance supports robust learning of facial identity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 41(3):577-81. PMC: 4445380. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000049. View

3.
Gosling S, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John O . Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol. 2004; 59(2):93-104. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93. View

4.
Jenkins R, White D, Van Montfort X, Burton A . Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition. 2011; 121(3):313-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001. View

5.
Todorov A, Porter J . Misleading first impressions: different for different facial images of the same person. Psychol Sci. 2014; 25(7):1404-17. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614532474. View