Facial appearance - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 31 Words: 9297 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Did you like this example? Trait Paradigm of Psychology and How It Applies To the Measurement of Intelligence and Personality: An Explanation t h lng bn brvd tht individuals dffr n frm nthr n mny psychological dmnn. This is why Cervone and Lawrence (2007) say that traits, the primary unit of personality description, are relatively enduring ways in which individuals differ. Assessment at the level of traits is variable centered and nomothetic, focusing on differences among individuals, as opposed to the person-centered and idio-graphic approach that focuses on individuals, and that typically characterises assessment at deeper and more abstract levels of personality. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Facial appearance" essay for you Create order n r f ntn ntrt mng pyhlgt th murmnt f individual dffrn n prnlty. Lubnk (2004) mntn prnlty mmnly dfnd th ntlltn f trt, r typl nd rltvly tbl pttrn f rpndng t th nvrnmnt, whh r unqu t vru individuals. n mprtnt fu f dutnl psychology th mnt f th trt nd thr rltd psychological ttrbut uh ntrt, prfrn, nd tttud (Lubnk, 2004). Prsnlty trts dscrb ndvdul dffrncs n humn bngs typcl wys f prcvng, thnkng, flng, nd bhvng tht r gnrlly cnsstnt vr tm nd crss stutns. Thr mjr rsrch rs r cntrl t trt psychlgy. Frst, trt psychlgsts hv ttmptd t dntfy sts f bsc trts tht dqutly dscrb btwn-prsn vrtn n humn prsnlty. Scnd, scl scntsts crss dscplns us prsnlty trts t prdct bhvr nd lf utcms. Thrd, trt psychlgsts ttmpt t undrstnd th ntur f bhvrl cnsstncy nd th chrnc f th prsn n rltn t stutnl nfluncs. Cervone and Lawrence (2007) mention that thr r tw prmnnt pprchs t dntfyng th bsc prsnlty trts nd thr rgnztnl structur (McCr nd Jhn 1992). Th lxcl pprch mphszs th vlutn f prsnlty trt djctvs n th nturl lngug lxcn nd ssums tht ths prsnlty dscrptrs ncdd n vrydy lngug rflct mprtnt ndvdul dffrncs, prtculrly f thy r fund crss lngugs. Th qustnnr pprch ttmpts t ssss mprtnt trts drvd frm psychlgclly bsd nd blgclly bsd prsnlty thrs. Slf- nd prrtngs n sts f lxclly drvd r thrtclly drvd trts hv typclly bn subjctd t fctr nlyss t dvlp hrrchcl rgnztns f trts rflctng smll numbr f brd suprrdnt dmnsns vrrchng lrg numbr f nrrw-bnd trts. t th suprrdnt lvl, cntmprry trt structurl mdls vry n th numbr f dmnsns ncssry t rgnz lwr-rdr trts, rngng frm tw t sxtn. ch f ths mdls cn b ssssd v slf- nd pr-rprt usng rlbl nd wll-vldtd qustnnrs nd rtng frms (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). n th mst nfluntl nd wdly usd structurl mdl, thrty trts r hrrchclly rgnzd nt fv brd bplr dmnsns, rflctng cnvrgnc f th Bg Fv lxcl trts nd th qustnnr-bsd fv-fctr mdl. Th Bg Fv/FFM dmnsns r nurtcsm, xtrvrsn, pnnss, grblnss, nd cnscntusnss. dhrnts f th Bg Fv/FFM mdl ssrt tht ths dmnsns cn b fund crss lngugs nd prsnlty msurs, prvdng cmprhnsv nd prsmnus ccunt f ndvdul dffrncs n prsnlty (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). Cntmprry rsrch n th hrtblty f trts hs fcusd n th Bg Fv/FFM dmnsns. Bhvrl gntc studs hv fund substntl hrtblty rngng frm 41 prcnt t 61 prcnt fr th brd dmnsns, wth lttl vdnc f shrd nvrnmntl ffcts (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). Hrtblty f th nrrwbnd trts f th FFM s mr mdst, rngng frm 30 prcnt t 50 prcnt. t s wdly blvd tht trts r nfluncd by multpl gns; mlculr gntc studs, hwvr, hv nt rplctd rsults lnkng spcfc gns t prsnlty trts. n ddtn t th gntc crrlts f trts, prmsng nw ffrts by nurpsychlgsts usng functnl brn mgng nd lctrncphlgrm (G) rcrdngs hv bgun t rvl th nurl bss fr trts. Trait theory hs bn ppld t ndustrl/rgnztnal psychlgy whr t hs bn usd t prdct mply stsfctn nd jb prfrmnc. Prsnlty trts hv ls bn f ntrst t frnsc psychlgsts n prdctng psychpthc nd dvnt bhvr. thr rs n whch trts hv bn succssfully mplyd nclud: prdctng mt slctn s wll s mrtl stsfctn, scl psychlgy, cunslng, studs f humn dvlpmnt crss th lfspn, crss-culturl studs, lrnng nd ductnl utcms, nd hlth-rltd bhvrs nd utcms (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). Individuals dffr frm n nthr bhvrlly n myrd wy. Dffrntl psychology, th ntf tudy f th individual dffrn, prvd n rgnztnl trutur fr th vt rry f psychological ttrbut (Lubnk, 2004). In words of Cervone and Lawrence (2007) by xmnng brd bhvrl pttrn nd ung ytmt mnt f rltvly tbl prnl ttrbut, dffrntl psychology llw lngtudnl frtng f vrty f mprtnt lf utm. Bu muh f th rrh n th r fu prtulr ttntn n prdtng lng-trm lf utm, nd bu wrk uh lrg nd mprtnt ftur f dult lf, th rltnhp btwn mny mmnly nvtgtd individual dffrn ntrut nd vru pt f wrk bhvr. For example dutnl-vtnl h, qutn f jb-rltd knwldg, jb prfrmn, jb tftn nd tnur r wll undrtd. Trdtnlly, th murmnt f individual dffrn h rld n pyhmtr l bd n th ggrgtn f mny tm. Bu ny ngl tm n l rprnt nly lvr f nfrmtn but prnl ttrbut, ggrgtn ud t rt mpt f vrl lghtly rrltd tm. Th pprh dtll th mmunlty runnng thrugh th tm nd nttut hghly rlbl nd uful nfrmtn but th humn hrtrt undr nly (Gttfrdn, 2003). lthugh individuals r mmnly drbd n th mr ppulr pr n trm f typ, mplyng tht ppl r mmbr f dtnt tgr (.g., xtrvrt r ntrvrt), individual dffrn vrbl r rrly brvd drt l. Rthr, th mjrty f individuals r fund nr th ntr f ntnuu dtrbutn, wth fw brvtn t thr xtrm. Th dtrbutnl pttrn f mt individual dffrn vrbl wll rprntd by th nrml (bll-hpd) urv (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). Th mjr dmnn f individual dffrn n b lfd nt thr vrlppng lutr: gntv blt, prfrn (ntrt nd vlu), nd prnlty (Gttfrdn, 2003). Th prdmnnt ntf nptulztn f gntv blt nvlv hrrhl rgnztn. Vru mdl f ddtnl pf blt hv bn prpd, but th hrrhl ntur f humn blt lnt n h (Lubnk, 2000). Fr xmpl, Jhn rrll ftr nlyzd mr thn 460 dt t lltd thrughut th 20th ntury nd fund gnrl ftr (g) t th px tht xplnd pprxmtly hlf f th mmn vrn mng htrgnu lltn f tt, rvlng mmunlty runnng thrugh mny dffrnt typ f mr plzd blt nd th tt dgnd t mur thm. Th gnrl ntllgn ftr xhbt n xtnv rng f xtrnl rrlt, mpltng t rgubly th mt ntflly gnfnt dmnn f humn psychological dvrty unvrd by dffrntl psychology t dt. t h rptdly dmntrtd t utlty n th prdtn f dutnlly nd vtnlly rlvnt utm, nludng th qutn f jb-rltd knwldg nd jb prfrmn (Lubnk, 2000). Fr xmpl, n mt-nly f 85 yr f rrh n prnnl ltn mthd, Frnk hmdt nd Jhn Huntr rprtd tht g th bt ngl prdtr f prfrmn n jb-trnng prgrm, xhbtng n vrg vldty ffnt f .56. hmdt nd Huntr furthr rprtd tht th vldty f g n prdtng jb prfrmn nd nly t tht f wrk mpl mur. Hwvr, bu th u f wrk mpl lmtd t u wth numbnt nd muh tlr t mplmnt, g uully ndrd mr ffnt. Th prdtv vldty f g n frtng jb prfrmn vr funtn f jb mplxty, wth trngr rltnhp mng mr mplx ptn. Huntr rprt vldty ffnt f .58 fr prfnl nd mngrl ptn, .56 fr hghly thnl jb, .40 fr mklld lbr, nd .23 fr unklld lbr. Fr th mjrty f jb (62%), th lfd mdum-mplxty, vldty ffnt f .51 w brvd. Th gnrl ftr f ntllgn upplmntd by vrl mr rumrbd, pf blt tht hv dmntrtd psychological mprtn. Dvd Lubnk nd h llgu hv hwn tht t lt thr dd nrmntl vldty t th vrn-xplnd by g: vrbl, mthmtl, nd ptl blt. Th mprtn f pf blt my b vn mr pprnt t hghr lvl f funtnng (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). n xmntn f numru jb nly dt t, fr xmpl, Lnd Gttfrdn fund tht, lthugh th funtnl dut f jb wr hrtrzd prmrly by thr gntv mplxty (.., dmnd n gnrl ntllgn), jb rqurng bv-vrg ntllgn wr mr dpndnt n prfl f pf blt thn wr th jb rqurng vrg r blw vrg gnrl ntllgn (Lllnfld, Wd nd Grb, 2000). pf blt r rlvnt n th prdtn f jb prfrmn, but thy r l mprtnt n prdtng th dutnl nd vtnl nh nt whh individuals lf-lt. Th lf-ltn ur vn t xtrrdnry lvl f gnrl ntlltul dvlpmnt. n rnt 10-yr lngtudnl tudy, fr xmpl, Lubnk mprd th dutnl-vtnl trk hn by thr grup f prfundly gftd individuals (tp 1 n 10,000 fr thr g): hgh vrbl grup (individuals wth dvnd vrbl rnng blty, rltv t thr mthmtl blty), hgh mth grup (individuals wth dvnd mthmtl rnng blty, rltv t thr vrbl blty), nd hgh flt prfl grup (individuals wth mprbly hgh vrbl nd mthmtl blt). Dpt hvng mlr lvl f gnrl gntv blty, th thr grup dvrgd n thr prfnl dvlpmntl h (Lllnfld, Wd nd Grb, 2000). Hgh mth prtpnt wr frquntly purung trnng n ntf nd thnlgl prfn, whr hgh vrbl prtpnt wr dng n th humnt nd rt. Hgh flt prtpnt wr ntrmdt. Hllnd mdl f ntrt rgnz x gnrl uptnl thm n hxgn wth n thm t h vrtx n th hxgn. Th thm r rdrd rdng t thr pttrn f ntr-rrltn: djnt thm n th hxgn r mr hghly rrltd t n nthr, whr ppt thm r lt rrltd. Th mdl knwn th R mdl, n rnym fr th x thm rprntd n th hxgn: rlt, nvtgtv, rtt, l, ntrprng, nd nvntnl (Cervone and Lawrence, 2007). Individuals wth hgh rlt ntrt xhbt prfrn fr wrkng wth thng nd tl; th wth hgh nvtgtv ntrt njy ntf purut; hgh rtt ntrt rflt dr fr tht purut nd lf-xprn; l ntrt nvlv prfrn fr ntt wth ppl nd pprtunt t hlp ppl; individuals hgh n ntrprng ntrt njy buyng, mrktng, nd llng; nd th wth nvntnl ntrt r mfrtbl wth ff prt nd wll-truturd tk. Individuals rltv nrmtv trngth n h f th R gnrl uptnl thm r mmnly d ung th trng ntrt nvntry (rrll, 1993). lthugh th gnrlzblty f th R mdl h mrgd rptdly n lrg mpl, Dl Prdgr h uggtd tht th mdl n b rdud t tw rltvly ndpndnt bplr dmnn: ppl vru thng, nd dt vru d. Ppl vru thng my b uprmpd n th l nd rlt thm, rptvly (rrll, 1993). Runnng t th frt dmnn, th nd dmnn, dt vru d, lt dt btwn th ntrprng nd nvntnl thm nd d btwn th rtt nd nvtgtv thm. Th ppl vru thng dmnn rprnt n f th lrgt x dffrn n trt unvrd n psychology ( full tndrd dvtn, wth wmn rng hghr n th dr t wrk wth ppl, nd mn, wth thng), rvlng mprtnt mpltn fr th uptn tht mn nd wmn h. Vlu nttut nthr tgry f prnl prfrn grmn t lrnng nd wrk, whh hv dmntrtd thr utlty n th prdtn f bth dutnl nd uptnl rtr. Vlu r vldly d by th tudy f Vlu, whh rprt th ntr-individual prmnn f x prnl vlu: thrtl, nm, pltl, l, tht, nd rlgu. Th dmnn prvdd n ddtnl 13% f xplnd vrn bv th 10% ffrd by mth nd vrbl blt n th prdtn f undrgrdut mjr n gftd yuth d vr 10-yr ntrvl; mrvr, th fndng h rntly bn gnrlzd t uptnl rtr, murd n mmnurt trm, vr 20-yr ntrvl. Hwvr, lthugh prfrn d m t ply n mprtnt rl n prdtng uptnl grup mmbrhp nd tnur, n individuals lf-lt nt uptnl fld, th utlty f prfrn fr prdtng jb prfrmn n th fld lmtd (rrll, 1993). mprl xmntn f prnlty u trt mdl t undrtnd prn typl ntrprnl tyl nd bhvrl hrtrt. Th mdl hv htrlly rld n lxl pprh tht um tht mprtnt dmnn f humn prnlty r ndd n humn lngug. Th mthd h bn frutful: Lw Gldbrg, mng thr (krmn, 1996), h ftr nlyzd th lxn f mny lngug nd fund fv-ftr mdl f prnlty wth rmrkbl mlrt r ultur ( l nvtgtn by Rbrt Mr nd Pul t). lthugh th lbl fr h f th ftr hv vrd, mlr undrlyng ntrut ntntly mrg: xtrvrn, grbln, nntun, nurtm, nd pnn t xprn. xtrvrn hrtrzd by trm uh tlktv, bl, r nt rrvd; grbln by gd-nturd, prtv, r nt ld; nntun by rpnbl, thrugh, r nt drgnzd; nurtm (mtm rfrrd t mtnl tblty, rvrd) by nxu, mtnl, r nt lm; nd pnn t xprn (mtm rfrrd t ultur r ntllt) by mgntv, rfltv, r nt nrrw. Th nrmtv tndng f individuals n h f th dmnn f th fv-ftr mdl f prnlty mmnly d ung th N Prnlty nvntry, lthugh n nlgu ntrumnt, th PP-N (PP ntrntnl Prnlty tm Pl), vlbl n th publ dmn t http:/ / pp.r.rg/ lltvly (nd mtm individually), th brd dmnn f prnlty r vld prdtr f uptnl trnng nd ubqunt prfrmn. Fr xmpl, r multpl uptnl tgr, nntun ln xhbt vldty ffnt n th lw .20 fr prdtng trnng nd jb prfny. Th prtulr mbntn f prnlty ftr, nntun nd mtnl tblty, fund n tt f ntgrty mmnly ud n prnnl ltn (p Plk, 2005). Frm n individual prptv, n pprtn f n gntv blt, prfrn, nd prnlty prvd nvlubl nght fr drtng n rr dvlpmnt n prnlly rwrdng wy. Frm n rgnztnl prptv, n my u th nfrmtnvlbl thrugh mur f individual dffrnt tmt th lklhd f drbl wrk bhvr (.g., tznhp, jb prfrmn, tftn, nd tnur). References Ackerman, P. L., 1996, A Theory Of Adult Intellectual Development: Process, Personality, Interests, And Knowledge. Intelligence vol. 22 pp. 227-257 (1996). Aiken, L. R. (2000), Psychological Testing And Assessment (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon. Carroll, J. B. (1993), Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey Of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cervone, Lawrence A. Pervin, 2007, Personality: Theory and Research, Wiley; 10th edition (February 26, 2007), pp. 45-67. Gottfredson, L. S., 2003, The Challenge And Promise Of Cognitive Career Assessment. Journal of Career Assessment vol. 11 pp. 115-135 (2003). Lubinski, D., 2000, Scientific And Social Significance Of Assessing Individual Differences: Sinking Shafts At A Few Critical Points. Annual Review of Psychology vol. 51 pp. 405-444 (2000). Lubinski, D., 2004, Introduction To The Special Section On Cognitive Abilities: 100 Years After Spearmans (1904) General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology vol. 86 pp. 96-111 (2004). Lillienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M. , and Garb, H. N., 2000, The Scientific Status Of Projective Techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest vol. 1 (2000). pp. 27-66 Spies, R. A. , ed. , Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2005), The Sixteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Candidate Number 33156762 Rapid (complex) decision making based on facial appearance Making first impressions, evaluating a person from the moment we first see them, happens spontaneously and seemingly without any cognitive effort. We do it naturally when we see and meet new people, in order to have an idea of who they are beforehand instead of unknowingly acting in a way they might find inappropriate. It appears that humans are excellent in judging personality traits and such things as complex social characteristics like dominance, hierarchy, warmth, and especially threat. For instance, think about this example. Youre walking down a dark street, late at night trying to get home, and you see someone coming towards you. As you pass the person, you see a tall and bulky figure wearing a black hood that puts a shadow on a roughed up looking man. Before you can make a conscious thought, your legs have already moved as far away from him as possible, purely out of instinct, even thought a second later you realize its your neighbor and you shakily smile at them and keep walking. The first impression that had subconsciously and immediately formed in the mind had already controlled the bodys reaction to what it perceived to be a threat (a scary looking man). Yet, it also shows how incorrect first impressions can be, and that can have a huge effect on peoples lives. Since its such a big part of everyday life, psychologists have looked deeply into the workings of first impressions. Social perception is the field of study which looks into how we form impressions and make inferences about other people. It is a very complex process, especially forming impressions of objects, animals and most importantly people. We form first impressions of others very quickly and usually based on little information. We give special attention to salient features, focusing first on the face, then physical features while moving on to appearance and clothes. Then the process continues to categorizing the first impression of a person into a member of a group, starting broadly, from age and gender, and narrowing down to explicit features. It is followed by our own previous knowledge that comes into effect of our impression as well as previous behavior that has been gathered about that impression, as then our own needs and goals influence how we perceive others. And that information is needed, as people can be unpredictable. In the past the information was needed in order to distinguish trustworthy people from those who mean us harm, when now its socially needed to interact suitably with people. In order to understand first impressions, the biology behind it must be understood. From an evolutionary point of view, first impressions have adaptive advantages, such as picking the appropriate mate. The first impression we perceive of someone is essential for us to understand how physically attractive, reliable, and strong they are, as we make that decision based on physical appearance rather than the personality of the person, as we would like the offspring to be good looking, healthy, meaning characteristics that are advantageous to the perceivers reproductive needs, and we must act fast before the window of opportunity closes. Also if someone means us harm, or is ill, there is the possibility of us being harmed or falling ill ourselves, again we must act fast to avoid this. Usually the first impressions are most accurate, but there is always human error, as sometimes what we perceive to be trustworthy, isnt. What the evolutionary point of view argues is that its possible that o ur ability to form first impressions isnt due to practice, but instinct. We seem to effortlessly form first impressions and even better with practice and experience. There are reasons to suggest that people may have an adaptive predisposition to form rapid first impressions when meeting someone. When people look at other peoples features its important to act fast, because for an instance, if someone is untrustworthy then they may look like they may harm, cheat or insult us and we should register the fact as quick as possible in order to act appropriately. If not, then the consequences may be being killed, hurt or cheated. Its better to be prepared to fight off harm rather than mull over the intent of the other person. There have been several studies that have looked at trustworthiness and first impression. These are not just the source of benefits, but there are also the sources of threats, for instance when forming the first impression, it must be fast as there is competition, and sometimes the competition could mean us harm. Even good meaning individua ls may pose a threat to our health or reproductive fitness. Schiller et al 2009, investigated the brain mechanisms that rise when first impressions are rapidly formed when meeting a stranger (Schiller et al 2009). There were nineteen right-handed participants, who were told that they would see information about different people and were asked to give their impressions of them. In their neuro-imaging analysis, where they examined which regions showed the difference in evaluation effect out of regions that were broadly engaged in the impression-formation task, the only regions showing significantly greater bold responses to evaluation-relevant sentences were the amygdala the PCC and the thalamus. There were no regions showing the opposite effect. The first study suggesting that the amygdala, a part of the brain that research has shown to perform a role in the processing and memory of emotional reactions has an important role in trustworthiness judgments, was conducted by Adolphs, Tranel, Damasio, 1998. They showed that patients with bilateral amygdala damage perceived untrustworthy-looking faces as trustworthy, and couldnt discriminate between trustworthy and untrustworthy faces (Adolphs, Tranel, and Damasio, 1998). Several years later, Engell, Haxby Todorov, 2007, looked into the fact of whether a stranger is trustworthy, as one of the most important decisions in social environments and relations, something we consider when acquainting with new people (Engell, Haxby Todorov, 2007). There is considerable data about the significance of trait impressions from faces, yet there is little research about the neural mechanisms causing these impressions. There were one hundred and twenty-nine undergraduate students participating in the study, where functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to show that the amygdala is involved in hidden evaluations of trustworthiness of faces, consistent with previous findings. They reported that the amygdala response increased as perceived trustworthiness decreased in a task that did not demand person evaluation. Engell, Haxby Todorov also tested whether the increased amygdala response was due to an individuals own personal perception or to face characteristics that are perceived as untrustworthy throughout individuals. The amygdala response was better predicted by agreed ratings of trustworthiness than by an individuals own judgments. Individual judgments accounted for little outstanding variance in the amygdala after controlling for the shared variance with agreed ratings. The findings of this study suggested that the amygdala categorizes faces automatically according to face characteristics that are seen to show trustworthiness. More recently, Todorov Duchaine, 2008, looked at developmental prosopagnosics who had severe impairments in their memory for faces and perception of facial identity who showed they could make normal trustworthiness judgments of novel faces (Todorov Duchaine, 2008). Their control group consisted of forty-eight undergraduate students, mostly male with the mean age of twenty, which were younger compared to the four developmental prosopagnosics used in the experiment, where they were presented with face sets with the question How trustworthy is this person? and asked to respond on the scale below the photograph. What they found was that there were no significant differences between male and female control participants on both their agreement in the ratings of the faces and their mean trustworthiness judgments. They also tested the four prosopagnosics on three different face sets: set one consisted of faces that contrasted on multiple proportions and which were also used to demonstrate injuries in trustworthiness judgments of patients with bilateral amygdala damage. The other two sets consisted of normal faces with a direct look, with neutral expression and similar age. Todorov Duchaine found that on all the tests, two of the prosopagnosics made judgments that agreed with the controls judgments while the other two showed weak. The implications of this experiment suggest that there is a correlation that the tests mapped the same underlying judgment irrespective of the specific face stimuli. The normal performance of two of the prosopagnosics suggested that forming person impressions from faces involves mechanisms functionally independent of mechanisms for encoding the identity of faces. A later study by Oosterhof Todorov, 2009, proposed that changes in trustworthiness match to the subtle changes in expressions, which show whether the person displaying the emotion should be avoided or approached (Oosterhof Todorov, 2009). Oosterhof and Todorov used a dynamic paradigm where faces expressed either happiness or anger. There were sixty undergraduate students participating in the experiment, with twenty-one participating in the selection of trustworthy and untrustworthy faces, and thirty-nine participated in the dynamic stimuli study. They manipulated changes in face trustworthiness at the same time as with the change in the face expression, for instance changes from high to low trustworthiness increased the intensity of participants perceived anger but decreased the intensity of participants perceived happiness. What they found was that trustworthy faces who expressed happiness were seen as happier than untrustworthy faces, and untrustworthy faces who expressed anger were seen as angrier than trustworthy faces, which makes sense as the more angry and unapproachable someone looks, the more likely we are to avoid them for our own safety as they would look intimidating to us. When we first make an interaction with someone, our facial recognition of them is essential for the social interaction. Its not a conscious thought per se, when the decision of how trustworthy someone is, but it happens, and we decide whether the person weve just met is someone we can relate to, then maybe consider a friend, and later depend on them with everything that we care about. Its not a light matter, our lives are who and what we are, and unfortunately as it is we cannot rely sorely on ourselves, and we need other people, may it be for help, comfort or just a chat. And of course, the people we look for are those who wont turn their backs on us when we need them and will be there to support us. Its a simple survival skill, trust those who wont hurt us and we can live normally. When people are emotionally animated it is much easier to perceive the expressions they convey, particularly threatening and fearful ones very swiftly, which helps us respond to danger quickly. But how fast are first impressions exactly? Several researches have looked into how fast first impressions are made. In 2006, Bar et al looked into the fact that first impressions of peoples personalities are often formed by using the visual appearance of their faces (Bar, Neta, Linz, 2006). They reported four experiments; with the first measuring the speed of how first impressions of intelligence and threatening personality are made. They used sixty adults, mostly women, where the participants in the experiment were shown one face at a time and were asked to rate, on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, the level that they perceived each face to belong first to threatening person, and later followed with an intelligent person at the second part of the experiment. What Bat et al did was present the faces for different time lengths to different groups of participants, the first group was presented the faces for a short time and the other group was presented with faces for a longer time and then the correlation between the judgments of each group was measured, they identified how quickly participants judged a face as having a certain personality. The results demonstrate that consistent first impressions can be formed very quickly, based on whatever information is available within the first 39 ms. First impressions were less consistent under these conditions when the judgments were about intelligence, suggesting that survival-related traits are judged more quickly. The study showed that when faces are particularly emotionally expressive, people can detect these expressions that are being conveyed, such as threatening and fearful expressions, very quickly and mostly subconsciously. While Bar, Neta, Linz, 2006, looked at neutral expressions in their study, Blair, Morris, Frith, Perrett, Dolan, 1999, looked at emotions portrayed by the face. Blair et al, 1999, used functional neuroimaging to test two hypotheses: one, whether the amygdala has a neural response to sad and angry facial expressions and two, whether the orbito-frontal cortex has a specific neural response to angry facial expressions (Blair, Morris, Frith, Perrett, Dolan, 1999). There were thirteen male participants, all with the mean age of 25 who were PET scanned, while performing a sex discrimination task that consisted of grey-scale images of faces that expressed different degrees of sadness and anger. They found that increasing force of sad facial expressions was associated with enhanced activity in the left amygdala and right temporal pole. The results also indicated that increasing force of angry facial expression was associated with enhanced activity in the orbito-frontal and anterior cingulated cortex. Their results provided evidence for dissociable and linking systems for the processing of separate categories of negative facial expression. It seems that people often draw trait inferences from the facial appearance of other people. Willis Todorov, 2006, looked into the possibility that inferences about socially significant traits are quickly taken from facial impressions (Willis Todorov, 2006). They tested three hypotheses: firstly that a 100-ms exposure to a face is enough for making a trait judgment, secondly that additional exposure time increases confidence in trait judgments without changing the judgments, and thirdly that additional exposure time allows for more distinguished trait impressions, meaning they investigated the minimal conditions under which people make such inferences. There were two hundred and forty-five undergraduate students from Princeton University participating in the experiment where one hundred and twenty-eight participated in a pilot study where the trait inferences from facial appearance in the absence of time limits was measured and the other one hundred and seventeen participated in the actual five main experiments: making attractiveness, liking, competence, trustworthiness, a nd aggressiveness judgments, while manipulating the exposure time of unknown faces. The findings suggest that even 100 ms is enough for people to make a specific trait inference from a complete strangers face, meaning that we need only a tenth of a second of that first impression of someone in order for it to register as well as the fact that we also recognize the traits of the person. For all the five traits that were tested in the experiment attractiveness, likeability, trustworthiness, competence, and aggressiveness, the judgments made after 100-ms exposure to a face was highly correlated with judgments made in the absence of time limits and additional exposure time did not increase these correlations. What they also found was that when exposure time increased from 100 to 500 ms, the judgment of the participants became more negative as well as the response times for judgments, which in fact decreased, and confidence in judgments increasing. On the other hand when exposure time increased from 500 to 1,000 ms, trait judgments and response times did not change cons iderably, but confidence increased for some of the judgments; suggesting that additional time may boost confidence in judgments. However, increased exposure time led to more distinguished person impressions. Defining how quickly these impressions can be formed has critical implications for understanding social interactions and for determining the visual properties used to shape them. Making fast judgments about strangers is a task that is in fact different from the task of tracking the identity of familiar people over a period of time. Another curious little study by Buckingham et al, 2006, looked at how males and females appearance affects our first impressions, and they replicated the effect of demonstrating that adaptation to masculine or feminine faces influences the extent to which masculine faces are perceived as trustworthy (Buckingham et al, 2006). Fifty-five participants took part in their study where they were presented with five pairs of male face images where each pair consisted of a masculinized and feminized version of the same identity and they found that exposure to masculine or feminine male faces increased both attraction to faces of the type seen in the adaptation phase and credits of trustworthiness to these faces. Often our first impressions of others can be truthful and accurate, but it is not always the case, as people are not always what they seem. Yet they still do affect important social outcomes, as well as more serious matters. For example, in a study by Eberhardt et al, 2006, they examined whether the likelihood of being sentenced to death is influenced by the degree to which a black defendant is perceived to have a stereotypically black appearance (Eberhardt, Davies, Purdie -Vaughns Johnson, 2006). They found that in cases involving a white victim, the more stereotypically black a defendant is perceived to be, the more likely that person is to be sentenced to death which is shocking evidence. An area where first impressions have been researched is, maybe a little surprisingly, political elections. Evidence shows that voters seem to be influenced in their decision of a winner by facial appearance. Todorov et al, 2005, conducted a study which showed that inferences of competence which was based only on facial appearance actually predicted the outcomes of U.S. congressional elections better than chance and also were linearly linked to the border of victory (Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren Hall, 2005). These inferences were specific to competence and occurred within a 1-second exposure to the faces of the candidates, giving further evidence of how fast first impressions are and how fast they affect our decisions. Yet, from a psychological point of view, quick automatic inferences from the facial appearance of political candidates can influence processing of following information about these candidates. The findings suggest that quick, unreflective trait inferences can contribute to voting choices, which most believe to be based on rational and deliberative considerations, on the candidates campaign and convictions. A later study by Ballew, Charles Todorov, 2007, gave additional evidence that quick judgments of competence of candidates based solely on their facial appearance, predicted the outcomes of gubernatorial elections, which are the most important elections in the United States next to the presidential elections (Ballew, Charles Todorov, 2007). They conducted three main experiments, where they looked at faces of the winner and the runner-up of the election and asked to decide who is more competent, as well as testing for judgments that can predict elections prospectively, and how not relying on first impressions can affect competence judgments. In their third experiment, they collected aptitude judgments two weeks before the gubernatorial elections in 2006, to demonstrate that these judgments can predict elections prospectively. Sixty-four undergraduate participants were presented with the pictures of a Democratic and a Republican candidate from the election, for each gubernatorial rac e, and asked to choose the more competent person by using their first impression of them. They also included the 2006 Senate races in their experiment, where the results showed that quick first impressions of competence based on facial appearance predicted the outcomes of gubernatorial elections as well as even after 100 ms of exposure to the faces, the participants were more likely to choose the winner as more competent, supporting previous theories that first impressions affect our decision fairly quickly, even thought we dont realize it, as we would think weve made the decision based on capability, not appearance. Antonakis Dalgas, 2009, conducted a little study that showed even children can predict elections. They hypothesized that voters might still be using the same cues that children do to categorize individuals on capability, which would explain why voters may ignore other issues such as campaign and competence of the candidates (Antonakis Dalgas, 2009). They examined whether nave voters predict actual voter preferences in the same way that children do. They first tested six hundred and eighty-four adults by having them rate the face pairs of the winner and runner up of the election as well as six hundred and eighty-one children who were asked to choose from pairs of the same faces presented as to the adults, who they would choose as captain of their boat. After later comparing both adults and childrens results, they found that children ratings strongly predicted the adult ratings. These findings suggest that children, who are obviously less experienced than adults in making first impr essions, which do get better with practice, by showing that playing a simple game can predict election results retrospectively. These findings also suggest that voters are not appropriately weighting competence and performance of the candidates they will vote for when undertaking one of democracys most important civic duties in America. However, it has to be taken into account, that in most of the studies done on first impressions, all of the participants were psychology undergraduates, therefore would have background knowledge of other research and might be able to get an idea of what the researcher is looking for, and therefore modify their behavior to suit the experiment. To be able to provide some control over the potential confounding variables, it would be better to use participants from the general population so the results wont be biased. Also most of the studies were made in the lab and the decisions involved were low-investment to the participants. Its better if participants had to face actually people when making first impressions, rather than just seeing pictures and indicating their responses. To summarize, first impressions are part of our life, part of the decisions we make, part of our everyday behavior. Studies show that most of the time we dont even realize how they affect our decisions that they occur extremely fast, and that play a big role in the social relations we have with other people. They are the first step of picking friends, partners, associates, and even political leaders. But then again, there is a danger associated with making first impressions, as our life decisions are not always based on them. References: Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Damasio, A. R., 1998, The human amygdala in social judgment. Nature, 393, pp. 470-474. Antonakis, J., Dalgas, O., 2009, Predicting elections: Childs play! Science, 323, pp. 1183 Bar, M., Neta, M., Linz, H., 2006, Very first impressions. Emotion, 6(2), pp. 269-278 Ballew, Charles C. II, Alexander Todorov, 2007, Predicting Political Elections from Rapid and Unreflective Face Judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (46), pp. 17948-17953 Blair, R., Morris, J., Frith, C., Perrett, D., Dolan, R., 1999, Dissociable neural responses to facial expressions of sadness and anger Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 122(5), pp.883-8 Buckingham G, DeBruine L.M, Little A.C, Welling L.L.M, Conway C.A, Tiddeman B.P Jones B.C., 2006, Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness.Evolution of Human Behavior 27, pp. 381-389 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), pp. 383-386. Engell, A., Haxby, J., Todorov, A., 2007, Implicit Trustworthiness Decisions: Automatic Coding of Face Properties in the Human Amygdala. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(9), pp. 1508-1519 Oosterhof, N., Todorov, A., 2009, Shared perceptual basis of emotional expressions and trustworthiness impressions from faces. Emotion, 9(1), pp. 128-133 Schiller, D., Freeman, J., Mitchell, J., Uleman, J., Phelps, E., 2009, A neural mechanism of first impressions. Nature Neuroscience, 12(4), pp.508-514. Todorov, A., Duchaine, B., 2008, Reading trustworthiness in faces without recognizing faces. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(3), pp. 1-16 Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A.N., Goren, A., Hall, C.C., 2005, Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, pp. 1623-1626 Willis, J., Todorov, A., 2006, First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind after a 100-Ms Exposure to a Face. Psychological Science, 17(7), pp. 592-598