Implicit bias and experience influence overall but not relative trustworthiness judgment of other-race faces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impressions of trustworthiness are formed quickly from faces. To what extent are these impressions shared among observers of the same or different races? Although high consensus of trustworthiness evaluation has been consistently reported, recent studies suggested substantial individual differences. For instance, negative implicit racial bias and low contact experience towards individuals of the other race have been shown to be related to low trustworthiness judgments for other-race faces. This pre-registered study further examined the effects of implicit social bias and experience on trustworthiness judgments of other-race faces. A relatively large sample of White (N = 338) and Black (N = 299) participants completed three tasks: a trustworthiness rating task of faces, a race implicit association test, and a questionnaire of experience. Each participant rated trustworthiness of 100 White faces and 100 Black faces. We found that the overall trustworthiness ratings for other-race faces were influenced by both implicit bias and experience with individuals of the other-race. Nonetheless, when comparing to the own-race baseline ratings, high correlations were observed for the relative differences in trustworthiness ratings of other-race faces for participants with varied levels of implicit bias and experience. These results suggest differential impact of social concepts (e.g., implicit bias, experience) vs. instinct (e.g., decision of approach-vs-avoid) on trustworthiness impressions, as revealed by overall vs. relative ratings on other-race faces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".