Advertisement

People Can Accurately (But Not Adaptively) Judge Strangers’ Antigay Prejudice from Faces

  • Ravin AlaeiEmail author
  • Nicholas O. Rule
Original Paper

Abstract

The ecological theory of social perception suggests that people’s first impressions should be especially accurate for judgments relevant to their goals. Here, we tested whether people could accurately judge others’ levels of antigay prejudice and whether gay men’s accuracy would exceed straight men’s accuracy in making these judgments. We found that people judged men’s (but not women’s) levels of antigay prejudice accurately from photos of their faces and that impressions of facial power supported their judgments. Gay men and straight men did not significantly differ in their sensitivity to antigay prejudice, however. People may therefore judge others’ levels of prejudice accurately regardless of their personal stake in its consequences.

Keywords

Accuracy Antigay prejudice Person perception Power 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to RA and NOR. We thank Garrett Arathoon, Joseph Choi, Emerson Daniele, and Chuyun Shen for their assistance in experimental set-up.

Author’s Contribution

Experimental design: RA and NOR; Data collection: RA and NOR; Data analysis: RA; Writing: RA and NOR.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in this study followed the ethical standards of the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

We obtained informed consent from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alaei, R., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Accuracy of perceiving social attributes. In J. A. Hall, M. Schmid Mast, & T. V. West (Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 125–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 446–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrzejewski, S. A., Hall, J. A., & Salib, E. R. (2009). Anti-semitism and identification of Jewish group membership from photographs. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjornsdottir, R. T., Alaei, R., & Rule, N. O. (2017). The perceptive proletarian: Subjective social class predicts interpersonal accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carney, D. R., & Harrigan, J. A. (2003). It takes one to know one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity. Emotion, 3, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ding, J. Y. C., & Rule, N. O. (2012). Gay, straight, or somewhere in between: Accuracy and bias in the perception of bisexual faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekman, P., Sorensen, E. R., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion. Science, 164, 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goh, J. X., Rad, A., & Hall, J. A. (2017). Bias and accuracy in judging sexism in mixed-gender social interactions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 820–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haddock, G., Zanna, M., & Esses, V. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009a). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, J. A., Blanch, D. C., Horgan, T. G., Murphy, N. A., Rosip, J. C., & Mast, M. S. (2009b). Motivation and interpersonal sensitivity: Does it matter how hard you try? Motivation and Emotion, 33, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haselhuhn, M. P., Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2015). Men’s facial width-to-height ratio predicts aggression: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10, e0122637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hehman, E., Leitner, J. B., Deegan, M. P., & Gaertner, S. L. (2013). Facial structure is indicative of explicit support for prejudicial beliefs. Psychological Science, 24, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond ‘homophobia’: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heslin, P. A., Bell, M. P., & Fletcher, P. O. (2012). The devil without and within: A conceptual model of social cognitive processes whereby discrimination leads stigmatized minorities to become discouraged workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 840–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 1716–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson, A., Gillies, M., Howard, P. J., & Coffin, J. (2007). It’s enough to make you sick: The impact of racism on the health of Aboriginal Australians. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 3, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mehta, P. H., & Beer, J. (2009). Neural mechanisms of the testosterone-aggression relation: The role of the orbitofrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2357–2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2003). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, N. A., & Hall, J. A. (2011). Intelligence and interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 39, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087–11092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penton-Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 607–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2005). Brief report: Thin slices of racial bias. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rule, N. O., Adams, R. B., Jr., Ambady, N., & Freeman, J. B. (2012). Perceptions of dominance following glimpses of faces and bodies. Perception, 41, 687–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rule, N. O., & Alaei, R. (2016). Gaydar: The perception of sexual orientation from subtle cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 444–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. C. (2009). Female sexual orientation is perceived accurately, rapidly, and automatically from the face and its features. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1245–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rule, N. O., Krendl, A. C., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2013). Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: Behavioral and neural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rule, N. O., Rosen, K. S., Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2011). Mating interest improves women’s accuracy in judging male sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 22, 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandler, I. N., & Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: The role of control perceptions and social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tskhay, K. O., Krendl, A. C., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Age-related physical changes interfere with judgments of male sexual orientation from faces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1217–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Internalized homophobia influences perceptions of men’s sexual orientation from photos of their faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 755–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul?. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations