The Contribution of Emotion Perceptions and Their Overgeneralizations to Trait Impressions

By J. Montepare, Heidi Dobish. 2003

276 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/938071b0045ff87357da4443efcfab154d092ea4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Social Psychological Face Perception: Why Appearance Matters. (2008, unknown): “Moreover, these trait impressions are accompanied by preferential treatment of attractive people in a variety of domains, including interpersonal relations, occupational settings and the judicial system (Langlois et al., 2000; Zebrowitz, 1997).”
The socio-emotional basis of human interaction and communication: How we construct our social world (2013, background): “On the reception side, facial expressions of emotion are perceived as markers of personality (Hess, Blairy & Kleck, 2000; Montepare & Dobish, 2003; Todorov, 2010).”
Who Is the Boss and Who Is Not? Accuracy of Judging Status (2004, unknown): “... as an indicator of high status by perceivers (Wilson, 1968), in most cultures age is taken as a sign of status (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Mazur, 1985), attracting the gaze of others has been associated with high status (Chance, 1967), babyfaced individuals are perceived as weak (Zebrowitz”
Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. (2008, background): “These cues can be either dynamic, expressing emotional states [30], or invariant such as neoteneous facial features (Box 2) and features resembling emotional expressions [ 31 ].”
Valid Facial Cues to Cooperation and Trust (2010, background): “It is possible that overgeneralization of emotion perception, where the similarity of an individual’s neutral expression to standard expressions such as anger or happiness biases impressions of traits (Montepare & Dobish, 2003; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008), may influence decisions on whether to trust.”
Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning (2010, background): “Thus, they should instead be motivated to exaggerate the presentation of submissive behaviors and hence trust cues through pro-social displays and expressed vulnerability (e.g., sadness and fear; see Marsh, Adams, & Kleck, 2005; Montepare & Dobish, 2003).”
Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. (2015, background): “Similar findings have been obtained for other global attributes such as attractiveness, which people associate with competence and intelligence (Eagly et al. 1991), and masculinity/femininity, which people associate with dominance (Boothroyd et al. 2007, Buckingham et al. 2006, Oosterhof & Todorov…”
Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting (2010, background): “Faces that structurally resemble happy faces are perceived as trustworthy, whereas faces that resemble angry faces are perceived as untrustworthy (see also Montepare and Dobish 2003; Said et al. 2009).”
She’s Got the Look: Inferences from Female Chief Executive Officers’ Faces Predict their Success (2009, methodology): “…groups of coders rated the women’s faces for age (Montepare and Zebrowitz 1998), attractiveness (Heilman and Stopeck 1985), and affective expression (Montepare and Dobish 2003), which were used as covariates in the analyses because of their previously documented influence on social judgments of…”
The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. (2009, background): “Montepare & Dobish (2003) replicated the results using untrained targets, and further showed that the relationships between emotional expressions and trait 104 J.M. Madera, D.B. Smith / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 103–114”
The functional basis of face evaluation (2008, background): “There was also a tendency to classify extremely dominant faces (8 SD) as angry, consistent with prior findings (25–27), but this categorization was not significantly different from chance § .”
Decoding speech prosody in five languages (2006, background): “However, individuals may also wish to disguise their fear reactions to avoid being perceived as a lowdominance member of the social group (Montepare and Dobish 2003).”
Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception (2010, unknown): “For instance, Montepare and Dobish (2003) have shown that different facial expressions lead to different dominance and affiliation trait inferences (see also Knutson, 1996; Livingstone & Pearce, 2009).”