Image Variability and Face Matching

This study investigates whether variability in perceived trait judgements disrupts our ability to match unfamiliar faces. In this preregistered study, 174 participants completed a face matching task where they were asked to indicate whether two face images belonged to the same person or different people (17,748 total data points). Participants completed 51 match trials consisting of images of the same person that differed substantially on one trait (either trustworthiness, dominance, or attractiveness) with minimal differences in the alternate traits. Participants also completed 51 mismatch trials which contained two photos of similar-looking individuals. We hypothesised that participants would make more errors on match trials when images differed in terms of attractiveness ratings than those that differed on trustworthiness or dominance. Contrary to expectations, images that differed in terms of attractiveness were matched most accurately, and there was no relationship between the extent of attractiveness differences and accuracy. There was some evidence that differences in perceived dominance and, to a lesser extent, trustworthiness was associated with lower face matching performance. However, these relationships were not significant when alternate traits were accounted for. The findings of our study suggest that face matching performance is largely robust against variation in trait judgements. fi

Within-Person Variability in First Impressions From Faces

Perceptions of an individual can change dramatically across different images of their face. Questions remain as to whether some traits are more sensitive to image variability than others. To investigate this issue, we constructed a database of 340 naturalistic images consisting of 20 photos of 17 individuals. In this preregistered study, 95 participants rated all 340 images on one of three traits: trustworthiness, dominance, or attractiveness. Across images, participants’ trustworthiness ratings tended to vary more than dominance, which in turn varied more than attractiveness; however, the relative differences between traits depended on the identity in question. Importantly, despite the variability in ratings within identities, there were substantial differences between individuals, suggesting that these trait judgements are based to some degree on relatively invariant facial characteristics. We found greater between-identity variability for attractiveness judgements compared to trustworthiness and dominance. Future research should further investigate the extent to which each trait dimension is tied to the identity of the faces.

The historical imagology: subject and object of perception

The article discusses historical imagology one of the areas of imagology in general. It analyzes the sources, which are essential and most often used in such studies. The historiography of the issue is briefly considered. This article for the first time in the research literature on historical imagology and imagology in general pays special attention to the object and subject of historical imagological works. Several approaches to determining the object of research have been identified. The subject of imagological research is examined in detail. The issue of factors affecting perception is raised. Attention is paid to the problem of image variability and stereotepization.

Within-Person Variability in First Impressions from Faces

Perceptions of an individual can change dramatically across different images of their face; however, questions remain as to whether the variability in perceptions is linked to specific traits for naturalistic images. In this pre-registered study, we constructed and used a database of naturalistic faces to investigate whether some traits are more sensitive to image variability than others. Ninety-five participants rated a total of 340 images (20 photos from 17 individuals) on one of three traits: trustworthiness, dominance, or attractiveness. Across images, trustworthiness judgements tended to vary more than dominance, which in turn varied more than attractiveness; however, the relative differences between traits depended on the identity in question. Importantly, despite the variability in ratings within identities, there were substantial differences between identities, suggesting that these trait judgments are based to some degree on relatively invariant facial characteristics. We found greater between-identity variability for attractiveness judgements compared to both trustworthiness and dominance. Future research should further investigate the extent to which each trait dimension is tied to the identity of the faces.