CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 672Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFace Recognition and PerceptionFace recognition and analysis

Social Psychological Face Perception: Why Appearance Matters

Open access
Zebrowitz, Leslie A., Montepare, Joann M.·2008·Social and Personality Psychology Compass
DOI 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.xPMC PMC2811283
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We form first impressions from faces despite warnings not to do so. Moreover, there is considerable agreement in our impressions, which carry significant social outcomes. Appearance matters because some facial qualities are so useful in guiding adaptive behavior that even a trace of those qualities can create an impression. Specifically, the qualities revealed by facial cues that characterize low fitness, babies, emotion, and identity are overgeneralized to people whose facial appearance resembles the unfit (anomalous face overgeneralization), babies (babyface overgeneralization), a particular emotion (emotion face overgeneralization), or a particular identity (familiar face overgeneralization). We review studies that support the overgeneralization hypotheses and recommend research that incorporates additional tenets of the ecological theory from which these hypotheses are derived: the contribution of dynamic and multi‐modal stimulus information to face perception; bidirectional relationships between behavior and face perception; perceptual learning mechanisms and social goals that sensitize perceivers to particular information in faces.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The baby-face overgeneralization tendency evolved because failures to respond favorably to babies (false negatives) are evolutionarily more costly than overgeneralizing (false positives).

    “While this overgeneralization tendency often leads to errors, it is thought to have evolved because failures to respond favorably to babies (i.e., false negatives) are evolutionarily more costly than overgeneralizing (i.e., false positives) (ibid).”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Zebrowitz and Montepare 2008

    The “Impressions Created by Variations in Babyfaceness—Baby Face Overgeneralization” section (page unavailable) links favorable responses to babies with evolutionary importance and says prepared responses to infantile cues may be overgeneralized to non-babies. It does not say that failing to respond favorably to babies is evolutionarily more costly than overgeneralizing those responses. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This tendency is overgeneralized such that even adults are more readily viewed more favorably, treated as likeable (but also physically weak, and naïve) when they display babyface features.

    “And this tendency is overgeneralized such that even adults are more readily viewed more favorably, treated as likeable (but also physically weak, and naïve) when they display babyface features.”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Zebrowitz and Montepare 2008

  • People have a strong readiness to favorably respond to babies' distinctive facial features.

    “Studies suggest that people have a strong readiness to favorably respond to babies' distinctive facial features.”

    From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Zebrowitz and Montepare 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., Ruppert, J. A., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 43 (pp. 43-92). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
  2. Berry, D. S. (1990b). What can a moving face tell us? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (6), 1004-1014.
  3. Berry, D. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contribution of facial and vocal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 298-307.
  4. Berry, D. S., & Landry, J. C. (1997). Facial maturity and daily social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 570-580.
  5. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-18.
  6. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Chapleau, K. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15 (10), 674-679.
  7. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., Sadler, M. S., & Jenkins, C. (2002). The role of Afrocentric features in person perception: Judging by features and categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (1), 5-25.
  8. de Bonis, M. (2003). Causes and reasons in failures to perceive fearful faces. In M. Katsikitis (Ed.), Human Face: Measurement and Meaning (pp. 149-167). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  9. Bronstad, P. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Zhang, E., & Aharon, I. (2008). Similarity in the Appearance and Meaning of Faces Is Represented in Patterned Neural Activity. Unpublished manuscript under review. Brandeis University.
  10. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77 (3), 305-327.
  11. Burnham, D. (1993). Visual recognition of mother by young infants: Facilitation by speech. Perception, 22 (10), 1133-1153.
  12. Busey, T. A. (2001). Formal models of familiarity and memorability in face recognition. In M. J. Wenger & J. P. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition: Contexts and Challenges (pp. 147-191).
  13. Collins, M. A., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1995). The contributions of appearance to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25 (2), 129-163.
  14. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
  15. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., & Barbee, A. P. (1995). 'Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours': Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 261-279.
  16. Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science, 15 (12), 806-813.
  17. Depaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3-40). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  18. Dion, K. K. (2002). Cultural perspectives on facial attractiveness. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives (pp. 239-260). Westport, CT: Ablex.
  19. Dubois, S., Rossion, B., Schiltz, C., Bodart, J. M., Michel, C., Bruyer, R., et al. (1999). Effect of familiarity on the processing of human faces. NeuroImage, 9 (3), 278-289.
  20. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110 (1), 109-128.
  21. Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17 (5), 383-386.
  22. Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268-287.
  23. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). When familiarity breeds accuracy: Cultural exposure and facial emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 276-290.
  24. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (2), 304-341.
  25. Fitzgerald, D. A., Angstadt, M., Jelsone, L. M., Nathan, P. J., & Phan, K. L. (2006). Beyond threat: Amygdala reactivity across multiple expressions of facial affect. NeuroImage, 30 (4), 1441-1448.
  26. de Gelder, B., & Hadjikhani, N. (2006). Non-conscious recognition of emotional body language. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 17 (6), 583-586.
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.
  28. Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edn, Vol. 2, pp. 89-150). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Golby, A. J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Chiao, J. Y., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2001). Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces. Nature Neuroscience, 4 (8), 845-850.
  30. Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187-206.
  31. Hamann, S., & Mao, H. (2002). Positive and negative emotional verbal stimuli elicit activity in the left amygdala. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 13 (1), 15-19.
  32. Hamm, N. H., Baum, M. R., & Nikels, K. W. (1975). Effects of race and exposure on judgments of interpersonal favorability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11 (1), 14-24.
  33. Hart, A. J., Whalen, P. J., Shin, L. M., McInerney, S. C., Fischer, H. K., & Rauch, S. L. (2000). Differential response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 11 (11), 2351-2355.
  34. Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2002). Human neural systems for face recognition and social communication. Biological Psychiatry, 51 (1), 59-67.
  35. Helfrich, H. (1979). Age markers in speech. In K. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social Markers in Speech (pp. 63-107). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Hill, T., Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Schuller, G. (1990). The role of learned inferential encoding rules in the perception of faces: Effects of non-conscious self-perpetuation of a bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 350 -371.
  37. Ishai, A., Schmidt, C. F., & Boesiger, P. (2005). Face perception is mediated by a distributed cortical network. Brain Research Bulletin, 67 (1), 87-93.
  38. Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 288-299.
  39. Juslin, P. N., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). Vocal expression of affect. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The New Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research (pp. 65-135). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  40. Keating, C. F. (2002). Charismatic faces: Social status cues put face appeal in context. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives (pp. 153-192). Westport, CT: Ablex.
  41. Keating, C. F., & Doyle, J. (2002). The faces of desirable mates and dates contain mixed social status cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (4), 414-424.
  42. Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L. A., San Giovanni, J. P., & Sherak, B. (1995). Infants' preferences for attractiveness and babyfaceness. In R. J. B. B. G. Bardy & Y. Guiard (Eds.), Studies in Perception and Action III (pp. 389-392).
  43. Lewicki, P. (1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563-574.
  44. Livingston, R. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). What are we really priming? Cue-based versus category-based processing of facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (1), 5-18.
  45. Marsh, A. A., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Why Do Fear and Anger Look the Way They Do? Form and Social Function in Facial Expressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (1), 73-86.
  46. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. A. (1983). An ecological approach to social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.
  47. Montepare, J. M., & Dobish, H. (2003). The contribution of emotion perceptions and their overgeneralizations to trait impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 237-254.
  48. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). 'Person perception comes of age': The salience and significance of age in social judgments. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 93-163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  49. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2002). A social-developmental view of ageism. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons (pp. 77-125). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  50. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1989). Children's perceptions of babyfaced adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69 (2), 467-472.
  51. O'Toole, A. J., Wenger, M. J., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Quantitative models of perceiving and remembering faces: Precedents and possibilities. In M. J. Wenger & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, Geometric, and Process Perspectives on Facial Cognition: Contexts and Challenges (pp. 1-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  52. Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1986). Predicting adult temperament from minor physical anomalies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1235-1239.
  53. Penn, D. J., Damjanovich, K., & Potts, W. K. (2002). Mhc heterozygosity confers a selective advantage against multiple-strain infections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 11260-11264.
  54. Phelps, E. A., O'Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., et al. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12 (5), 729-738.
  55. Posamentier, M. T., & Abdi, H. (2003). Processing faces and facial expressions. Neuropsychology Review, 13, 113-143.
  56. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9 (1), 45-48.
  57. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226.
  58. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cognition, 19 (1), 57-70.
  59. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (1), 31-46.
  60. Ronquillo, J., Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Lu, Z.-L., Nandy, A., & Maddox, K. B. (2007). The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: An fMRI investigation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2 (1), 39-44.
  61. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Us and them: Memory advantages in perceptually ambiguous groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14 (4), 687-692.
  62. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and cues to good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 1913-1917.
  63. Secord, P. (1958). Facial features and inference processes in interpersonal perception. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (pp. 300-315). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  64. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
  65. Sommerville, J. A., & Decety, J. (2006). Weaving the fabric of social interaction: Articulating developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the domain of motor cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 179-200.
  66. Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348-361.
  67. Streissguth, A. P., Herman, C. S., & Smith, D. W. (1978). Intelligence, behavior, and dysmor- phogenesis in the fetal alcohol syndrome: A report on 20 patients. Journal of Pediatrics, 92, 363-367.
  68. Strom, M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Zhang, S., Bronstad, P. M., & Lee, H. K. (2008). Race-related facial qualities contribute to stereotyping by White, Black, and Korean Judges. Unpublished manuscript under review, Brandeis University.
  69. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.
  70. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1-27.
  71. Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., & Inglehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial efference: Implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 96, 395-416.
  72. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1996). Physical appearance as a basis for stereotyping. In M. H. N. McRae & C. Stangor (Eds.), Foundation of Stereotypes and Stereotyping (pp. 79-120). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  73. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading Faces: Window to the Soul? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  74. Zebrowitz, L. A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M. A., Lee, S. Y., & Blumenthal, J. (1998). Bright, bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300-1320.
  75. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 204-223.
  76. Zebrowitz, L. A., Collins, M. A., & Dutta, R. (1998). The relationship between appearance and personality across the life span. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 736-749.
  77. Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J. M., Mignault, A., & Andreoletti, C. (2003). Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 194-215.
  78. Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238-249.
  79. Zebrowitz, L. A., Kikuchi, M., & Fellous, J.-M. (2007). Are effects of emotion expression on trait impressions mediated by babyfaceness? Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 648-662.
  80. Zebrowitz, L. A., Luevano, V. X., Bronstad, P. M., & Aharon, I. (2007). Neural activation to babyfaced men matches activation to babies. Journal of Social Neuroscience. Epub ahead of print 12 October 2007. DOI: 10.1080/17470910701676236. · DOI
  81. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2006). The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and Social Psychology (pp. 81-113). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  82. Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Individual impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85-101.
  83. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to 'Bad Genes' and the Anomalous Face Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence and Health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167-185.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • Emerson College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-17
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
1497-1517
ISSN
1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x
PMC
PMC2811283
OpenAlex
W2120209240
Cited by
672
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 27
FWCI
12.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Social and Personality Psychology Compass (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH066836, K02MH072603)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
face perception, first impressions, facial appearance, overgeneralization, ecological theory, perceptual learning, multimodal cues

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review