MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941750362 · doi:10.1177/0956797619838762

A Facial-Action Imposter: How Head Tilt Influences Perceptions of Dominance From a Neutral Face

2019· article· en· W2941750362 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachary Witkower, Jessica L. Tracy

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyDominance (genetics)PerceptionFace perceptionHead (geology)Face (sociological concept)Action (physics)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyTilt (camera)CommunicationNeuroscienceGeometryLinguisticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on face perception tends to focus on facial morphology and the activation of facial muscles while ignoring any impact of head position. We raise questions about this approach by demonstrating that head movements can dramatically shift the appearance of the face to shape social judgments without engaging facial musculature. In five studies (total N = 1,517), we found that when eye gaze was directed forward, tilting one’s head downward (compared with a neutral angle) increased perceptions of dominance, and this effect was due to the illusory appearance of lowered and V-shaped eyebrows caused by a downward head tilt. Tilting one’s head downward therefore functions as an action-unit imposter, creating the artificial appearance of a facial action unit that has a strong effect on social perception. Social judgments about faces are therefore driven not only by facial shape and musculature but also by movements in the face’s physical foundation: the head.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207