Individual differences in trust evaluations are shaped mostly by environments, not genes.

People evaluate a stranger's trustworthiness from their facial features in a fraction of a second, despite common advice "not to judge a book by its cover." Evaluations of trustworthiness have critical and widespread social impact, predicting financial lending, mate selection, and even criminal justice outcomes. Consequently, understanding how people perceive trustworthiness from faces has been a major focus of scientific inquiry, and detailed models explain how consensus impressions of trustworthiness are driven by facial attributes. However, facial impression models do not consider variation between observers. Here, we develop a sensitive test of trustworthiness evaluation and use it to document substantial, stable individual differences in trustworthiness impressions. Via a twin study, we show that these individual differences are largely shaped by variation in personal experience, rather than genes or shared environments. Finally, using multivariate twin modeling, we show that variation in trustworthiness evaluation is specific, dissociating from other key facial evaluations of dominance and attractiveness. Our finding that variation in facial trustworthiness evaluation is driven mostly by personal experience represents a rare example of a core social perceptual capacity being predominantly shaped by a person's unique environment. Notably, it stands in sharp contrast to variation in facial recognition ability, which is driven mostly by genes. Our study provides insights into the development of the social brain, offers a different perspective on disagreement in trust in wider society, and motivates new research into the origins and potential malleability of face evaluation, a critical aspect of human social cognition.

Are expression aftereffects fully explained by tilt adaptation?

Facial expressions are used as critical social cues in everyday life. Adaptation to expressions causes expression aftereffects. These aftereffects are thought to reflect the operation of face-selective neural mechanisms, and are used by researchers to investigate the nature of those mechanisms. However, recent evidence suggests that expression aftereffects could be at least partially explained by the inheritance of lower-level tilt adaptation through the visual hierarchy. We investigated whether expression aftereffects could be entirely explained by tilt adaptation. Participants completed an expression adaptation task in which we controlled for the influence of tilt by changing the orientation of the adaptor relative to the test stimuli. Although tilt adaptation appeared to make some contribution to the expression aftereffect, robust expression aftereffects still remained after minimizing tilt inheritance, indicating that expression aftereffects cannot be fully explained by tilt adaptation. There was also significant reduction in the expression aftereffects after inverting the adapting face, providing evidence that face-selective processing is involved in these aftereffects.

Do facial first impressions reflect a shared social reality?

Influential facial impression models have repeatedly shown that trustworthiness, youthful-attractiveness, and dominance dimensions subserve a wide variety of first impressions formed from strangers' faces, suggestive of a shared social reality. However, these models are built from impressions aggregated across observers. Critically, recent work has now shown substantial inter-observer differences in facial impressions, raising the important question of whether these dimensional models based on aggregated group data are meaningful at the individual observer level. We addressed this question with a novel case series approach, using factor analyses of ratings of twelve different traits to build individual models of facial impressions for different observers. Strikingly, three dimensions of trustworthiness, youthful/attractiveness, and competence/dominance appeared across the majority of these individual observer models, demonstrating that the dimensional approach is indeed meaningful at the individual level. Nonetheless, we also found differences in the stability of the competence/dominance dimension across observers. Taken together, results suggest that individual differences in impressions arise in the context of a largely common structure that supports a shared social reality.