Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions

People reliably and automatically make personality inferences from facial appearance despite little evidence for their accuracy. Although such inferences are highly inter-correlated, research has traditionally focused on studying specific traits such as trustworthiness. We advocate an alternative, data-driven approach to identify and model the structure of face evaluation. Initial findings indicate that specific trait inferences can be represented within a 2D space defined by valence/trustworthiness and power/dominance evaluation of faces. Inferences along these dimensions are based on similarity to expressions signaling approach or avoidance behavior and features signaling physical strength, respectively, indicating that trait inferences from faces originate in functionally adaptive mechanisms. We conclude with a discussion of the potential role of the amygdala in face evaluation.     

Gender roles in relation to assertiveness and eysenckian personality dimensions: Replication with a spanish population sample

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cross-national replicability of the usual pattern of associations observed in Anglo-Saxon samples between masculinity and femininity on the one hand and difficulty and distress in assertiveness and the major Eysenckian dimensions of personality on the other hand. Participants were 925 SpanishSs (54% females; and 95.5% “European or other white”). Both the masculinity theory of psychological well-being and the notion thathigh femininity would not be implicated in self-assessed psychologicaldistress ordysfunction were supported by the data. Higher-order analysis showed that masculinity loaded highly on Positive Affect, whereas femininity had its primary loading on Constraint. Tentative support was found for the femininity-humility hypothesis advanced by P. B. Zeldow, S. R. Clark, and D. C. Daugherty in 1985.     

What's the difference? Insider perspectives on the importance,content, and meaning of interpersonal differences

This study presents a new approach to examine how team members experience interpersonal differences. This approach offers a way to examine how team members experience their differences with specific other individuals, and how these differences are related to the amount of perceived conflict with these individuals in an organizational context. Data from a non‐profit governmental institution in The Netherlands were analysed, including 80 participants from 15 diverse teams. Five types of differences were salient to the individuals in this sample: differences related to extraversion; work pose; approach to work; task‐related expertise; and seniority. Furthermore, individuals tend to contrast positive and negative evaluations of differences related to extraversion and approaches to work, but to conceptualize positive and negative evaluations of task‐related expertise, seniority, and work pose as more mutually independent phenomena. Moreover, we found that differences related to task‐related expertise were negatively related to both task and relationship conflict. In contrast, differences related to extraversion were positively related to both task and relationship conflict. Finally, the approach‐to‐work cluster was positively related to only task conflict.