The Glasses Stereotype Revisited
Effects of Eyeglasses on Perception, Recognition, and Impression of Faces
Abstract
In face perception, besides physiognomic changes, accessories like eyeglasses can influence facial appearance. According to a stereotype, people who wear glasses are more intelligent, but less attractive. In a series of four experiments, we showed how full-rim and rimless glasses, differing with respect to the amount of face they cover, affect face perception, recognition, distinctiveness, and the attribution of stereotypes. Eyeglasses generally directed observers’ gaze to the eye regions; rimless glasses made faces appear less distinctive and resulted in reduced distinctiveness in matching and in recognition tasks. Moreover, the stereotype was confirmed but depended on the kind of glasses – rimless glasses yielded an increase in perceived trustworthiness, but not a decrease in attractiveness. Thus, glasses affect how we perceive the faces of the people wearing them and, in accordance with an old stereotype, they can lower how attractive, but increase how intelligent and trustworthy people wearing them appear. These effects depend on the kind of glasses worn.
References
2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: Should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17, 514–520. doi 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2006.01737.x
(1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 551–565. doi 10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.551
(2009). Viewpoint and center of gravity affect eye movements to human faces. Journal of Vision, 9(2), 1–16. doi 10.1167/9.2.7
(1988). Recognizing faces. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327. doi 10.1111/j. 2044–8295.1986.tb02199.x
(2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 256–284. doi 10.1016/j. cogpsych.2005.06.003
(2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of esthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134, 233–244. doi 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004
(1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271. doi 10.3758/BF03204507
(2005). Distinctiveness, typicality, and recollective experience in face recognition: A principal components analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 1032–1037. doi 10.3758/BF03206439
(1987). Effects of sex and glasses on attitudes toward intelligence and attractiveness. Psychological Reports, 60, 590.
(2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330–337. doi 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01519-9
(1991). Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1659–1680. doi 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00497.x
(1993). The effects of eyeglasses on perceptions of interpersonal-attraction. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 521–528.
(2000). The functional organization of the human ventral object vision pathway. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 370. doi 10.1080/00207594.2000.20000728
(1994). Person perception through facial photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard on judgments of occupation and personal qualities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 693–705. doi 10.1002/ejsp.2420240606
(2001). Gaze control for face learning and recognition in humans and machines. In , From fragments to objects: Segmentation processes in vision (pp. 463–481). New York: Elsevier.
(2005). Eye movements are functional during face learning. Memory and Cognition, 33(1), 98–106. doi 10.3758/BF03195300
(2001). Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 93–112. doi 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00065-9
(2009). Neural bases of eye and gaze processing: The core of social cognition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 843–863. doi 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009. 02.004
(2006). Face, eye and object early processing: What is the face specificity? Neuroimage, 29, 667–676. doi 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.041
(1998). A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20, 1254–1259. doi 10.1109/34.730558
(2010). Electrophysiological correlates of eye gaze adaptation. Journal of Vision, 10(12), 1–13. doi 10.1167/10.12.17
(1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121. doi 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x
(2008). Attention capture by faces. Cognition, 107(1), 330–342. doi 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.012
(1996). Line drawings of faces reduce configural processing. Perception, 25, 355–366. doi 10.1068/p250355
(1999). Matching person identity from facial line drawings. Perception, 28, 1171–1175. doi:10.1068/p2674
(1998). Local and relational aspects of face distinctiveness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 449–473. doi 10.1080/027249898391486
(2000). Inverting line drawings of faces. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 159–169. doi 10.1024//1421-0185.59.3.159
(2006). Face-specific configural processing of relational information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 19–29. doi 10.1348/000712605X54794
(1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 269–276. doi 10.1177/014616728172014
(1994). The effects of glasses and weight on perceptions of attractiveness and intelligence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 753–760.
(1985). Infants’ perception of facedness. In , Social perception in infants (pp. 73–100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
(1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. doi 10.1080/03637757409375845
(2009). Why does picture-plane inversion sometimes dissociate perception of features and spacing in faces, and sometimes not? Psychonomics Bulletin and Review, 16, 778–797. doi 10.3758/PBR.16.5.778
(2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110. doi 10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1
(1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. Nature, 368, 239–242. doi 10.1038/368239a0
(2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. doi 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208
(2010). Young without plastic surgery: Perceptual adaptation to the age of female and male faces. Vision Research, 50, 2570–2576. doi 10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.017
(1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245. doi 10.1080/14640749308401045
(1993). How wearing eyeglasses affects facial recognition. Current Psychology, 12, 151–162. doi 10.1007/ BF02686820
(1989). Affective responses to eyeglasses: Evidence of a sex difference. Journal of American Optometrist Association, 60, 609–611.
(1976). Effects of eye correctives on ratings of attractiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 562. doi 10.2466/PMS.42.2.562
(1943). The effect upon judgments of personality traits of varying a single factor in a photograph. Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 127–148. doi 10.1080/00224545.1943.9921704
(2009). How is the individuality of a face recognized? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 261, 469–474. doi 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.011
(1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161–204. doi 10.1080/14640749108400966
(1986a). The effects of distinctiveness in recognizing and classifying faces. Perception, 15, 525–535. doi 10.1068/p150525
(1986b). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 300–305. doi 10.1037/h0080101
(2007). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 195–206. doi 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.009
(2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114. doi 10.1016/s0001-6918(03)00052-0
(1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum.
(1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview.
(1992). Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life-span. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143–1152. doi 10.1037/0012–1649.28.6.1143
(2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185. doi 10.1023/ B:JONB.0000039648.30935.1b
(