| Title |
What’s in a face? The role of facial features in ratings of dominance, threat, and stereotypicality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, August 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-021-00319-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather Kleider-Offutt, Ashley M. Meacham, Lee Branum-Martin, Megan Capodanno |
| Abstract |
Faces judged as stereotypically Black are perceived negatively relative to less stereotypical faces. In this experiment, artificial faces were constructed to examine the effects of nose width, lip fullness, and skin reflectance, as well as to study the relations among perceived dominance, threat, and Black stereotypicality. Using a multilevel structural equation model to isolate contributions of the facial features and the participant demographics, results showed that stereotypicality was related to wide nose, darker reflectance, and to a lesser extent full lips; threat was associated with wide nose, thin lips, and low reflectance; dominance was mainly related to nose width. Facial features explained variance among faces, suggesting that face-type bias in this sample was related to specific face features rather than particular characteristics of the participant. People's perceptions of relations across these traits may underpin some of the sociocultural disparities in treatment of certain individuals by the legal system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 78% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,984,036
of 24,520,187 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#94
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,502
of 423,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.