MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974168380 · doi:10.1167/19.10.153b

Evaluating Trustworthiness: Differences in Visual Representations as a Function of Face Ethnicity

2019· article· en· W2974168380 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Gingras, Karolann Robinson, Daniel Fiset, Caroline Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrustworthinessPsychologyFace perceptionPerceptPerceptionFace (sociological concept)Social psychologyWhite (mutation)Cognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trustworthiness is rapidly and automatically assessed based on facial appearance, and it is one of the main dimensions of face evaluation (Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008). Few studies have investigated how we evaluate trustworthiness in faces of other ethnicities. The present study aimed at comparing how individuals imagine a trustworthy White or Black face. More specifically, the mental representations of a trustworthy White and Black face were revealed in 30 participants using Reverse Correlation (Mangini & Biederman, 2004). On each trial (500 per participant), two stimuli, created by adding sinusoidal white noise to an identical base face (White or Black, depending on the experimental condition), were presented side-by-side. The participant’s task was to decide which of the two looked most trustworthy. The noise patches corresponding to the chosen stimuli were summed to produce a classification image, representing the luminance variations associated with a percept of trustworthiness. A statistical threshold was found using the Stat4CI’s cluster test (Chauvin et al., 2005), a method that corrects for the multiple comparisons across all pixels while taking into account the spatial dependence inherent to coherent images (tcrit=3.0, k=246, p< 0.025). Results show that for a White face, perception of trustworthiness is associated with a lighter eye region; for a Black face, perception of trustworthiness is associated with a darker right eye and a lighter mouth. Statistically comparing both classification images (tcrit=3.0, k=246, p< 0.025) revealed that the eye region was more important in judging trustworthiness of White faces, while the mouth region was more important for Black faces. The present study shows that facial traits used to form the mental representation of trustworthiness differ with face ethnicity. More research will be needed to verify if this finding generalizes across populations of different ethnicities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.348 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207