Evaluating Faces on Trustworthiness: An Extension of Systems for Recognition of Emotions Signaling Approach/Avoidance Behaviors
Abstract
People routinely make various trait judgments from facial appearance, and such judgments affect important social outcomes. These judgments are highly correlated with each other, reflecting the fact that valence evaluation permeates trait judgments from faces. Trustworthiness judgments best approximate this evaluation, consistent with evidence about the involvement of the amygdala in the implicit evaluation of face trustworthiness. Based on computer modeling and behavioral experiments, I argue that face evaluation is an extension of functionally adaptive systems for understanding the communicative meaning of emotional expressions. Specifically, in the absence of diagnostic emotional cues, trustworthiness judgments are an attempt to infer behavioral intentions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Correspondingly, these judgments are derived from facial features that resemble emotional expressions signaling such behaviors: happiness and anger for the positive and negative ends of the trustworthiness continuum, respectively. The emotion overgeneralization hypothesis can explain highly efficient but not necessarily accurate trait judgments from faces, a pattern that appears puzzling from an evolutionary point of view and also generates novel predictions about brain responses to faces. Specifically, this hypothesis predicts a nonlinear response in the amygdala to face trustworthiness, confirmed in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, and dissociations between processing of facial identity and face evaluation, confirmed in studies with developmental prosopagnosics. I conclude with some methodological implications for the study of face evaluation, focusing on the advantages of formally modeling representation of faces on social dimensions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 choice of using intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability and happiness as dependent attributes for the halo effect was driven by existing literature.
“The choice of using intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability and happiness as dependent attributes for the halo effect was driven by existing literature on this cognitive bias, such as [4,6,8,9,22,53,60–63].”
From What is beautiful is still good: the attractiveness halo effect in the era of beauty filters (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 111 · Cited by 382
- Authors
- Todorov, A.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Todorov, Alexander
- ORCID
- Todorov, Alexander
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 1124
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 208-224
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W1607089218
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 1.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Keywords
- face evaluation, trustworthiness judgments, amygdala, emotional facial expressions, happiness, anger, approach-avoidance behavior, behavioral intention, prosopagnosia
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Avoidance Learning, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Face, Facial Expression, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Social Perception, Recognition, Psychology
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