Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 5.1: Zebrowitz, L. A. (2017). First impressions from faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 237–242.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416683996

Abstract: Although cultural wisdom warns us not to judge a book by its cover, we seem unable to inhibit this tendency even though it can lead to inaccurate impressions of people’s psychological traits and has significant social consequences. One explanation for this paradox is that first impressions from faces reflect overgeneralizations of adaptive impressions of categories of people with structurally similar faces (including babies, familiar or unfamiliar people, evolutionarily unfit people, and people expressing a variety of emotions). Research testing these overgeneralization hypotheses has elucidated why we form first impressions from faces, what impressions we form, and what cues influence these impressions. This article focuses on commonalities in impressions across diverse perceivers, with additional brief attention given to individual differences in impressions and impression accuracy.

Journal Article 5.2: Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 307–342.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539

Abstract: This meta-analysis investigates linguistic cues to deception and whether these cues can be detected with computer programs. We integrated operational definitions for 79 cues from 44 studies where software had been used to identify linguistic deception cues. These cues were allocated to six research questions. As expected, the meta-analyses demonstrated that, relative to truth-tellers, liars experienced greater cognitive load, expressed more negative emotions, distanced themselves more from events, expressed fewer sensory-perceptual words, and referred less often to cognitive processes. However, liars were not more uncertain than truth-tellers. These effects were moderated by event type, involvement, emotional valence, intensity of interaction, motivation, and other moderators. Although the overall effect size was small, theory-driven predictions for certain cues received support. These findings not only further our knowledge about the usefulness of linguistic cues to detect deception with computers in applied settings but also elucidate the relationship between language and deception.

Journal Article 5.3: Halabi, S., Statman, Y., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Attributions of responsibility and punishment for ingroup and outgroup members: The role of just world beliefs. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 104–115.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214546067

Abstract: People have a need to believe that the world is a just place. When confronted with injustice, this just world belief (JWB) is threatened. The present research, conducted in the context of relations between Israeli Jews and Arabs, examined how group membership of actor and participants’ beliefs in a just world affect attributions of responsibility and punishment as a function of culpability of the actor. In particular, after measuring their JWB, Jewish participants (n = 214) read a description of a Jewish or Arab driver who was guilty or nonguilty in a car accident in which an innocent pedestrian was injured. As predicted, participants attributed less blame and recommended less severe punishment for an ingroup than an outgroup member for the same event and stronger beliefs in a just world predicted recommendations for less severe punishment for ingroup members. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.