Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition

Abstract

Researchers have noted the resemblance across core models of social cognition, in which trait inferences centre on others’ intentions and abilities (for example, warmth, competence). Current views posit that this common ‘trait space’ originates from the adaptive utility of the dimensions, predicting a relatively fixed and universal architecture. In contrast, we hypothesize that perceivers learn conceptual knowledge of how traits correlate, which shapes trait inferences similarly across domains (for example, faces, person knowledge, stereotypes), from which a common trait space emerges. Here we show substantial overlap between the structures of perceivers’ conceptual and social perceptual trait spaces, across perceptual domains (studies 1–4) and that conceptual associations directly shape trait space (study 5). Furthermore, we find evidence that conceptual trait space is learned from social perception and actual personality structure (studies 6 and 7). Our findings suggest conceptual trait associations serve as a cornerstone in social perception, providing broad implications for the study of social behaviour.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Conceptual illustration of theoretical and analytic approach.
Fig. 2: Trait inferences across social cognition mirror conceptual knowledge.
Fig. 3: Individual differences in conceptual knowledge predict social perception.
Fig. 4: Conceptual associations directly shape trait inferences and space.
Fig. 5: Social perception and trait inferences influence conceptual trait space.

Data availability

Experiment materials information and all experiment de-identified data are publicly available at https://osf.io/2uzsx/. The materials used in this study are widely available.

Code availability

Data analysis script notebooks are publicly available at https://osf.io/2uzsx/.

References

  1. 1.

    Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation (Wiley, 1957).

  2. 2.

    Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. & Glick, P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 77–83 (2007).

  3. 3.

    Oosterhof, N. N. & Todorov, A. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11087–11092 (2008).

  4. 4.

    Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C. & Vivekananthan, P. A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9, 283–294 (1968).

  5. 5.

    Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P. & Xu, J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).

  6. 6.

    Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T. & Glick, P. The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 631–648 (2007).

  7. 7.

    Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41, 258–290 (1946).

  8. 8.

    Wojciszke, B. Morality and competence in person-and self-perception. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 16, 155–188 (2005).

  9. 9.

    Stolier, R. M., Hehman, E. & Freeman, J. B. A dynamic structure of social trait space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 197–200 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Schneider, D. J. Implicit personality theory: a review. Psychological Bull. 79, 294–309 (1973).

  11. 11.

    Peabody, D. & Goldberg, L. R. Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 552–567 (1989).

  12. 12.

    Digman, J. M. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1246–1256 (1997).

  13. 13.

    Lay, C. H. & Jackson, D. N. Analysis of the generality of trait-inferential relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 12, 12–21 (1969).

  14. 14.

    Thornton, M. A. & Tamir, D. I. Mental models accurately predict emotion transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5982–5987 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Tamir, D. I. & Thornton, M. A. Modeling the predictive social mind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 201–212 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Sutherland, C. A. et al. Facial first impressions across culture: data-driven modeling of Chinese and British perceivers’ unconstrained facial impressions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 521–537 (2018).

  17. 17.

    Stolier, R. M., Hehman, E., Keller, M. D., Walker, M. & Freeman, J. B. The conceptual structure of face impressions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9210–9215 (2018).

  18. 18.

    Xie, S. Y., Flake, J. K. & Hehman, E. Perceiver and target characteristics contribute to impression formation differently across race and gender. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 364–385 (2018).

  19. 19.

    Goldberg, L. R. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Pers. Psychol. Eur. 7, 7–28 (1999).

  20. 20.

    Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M. & Bandettini, P. Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2, 4 (2008).

  21. 21.

    Gara, M. A. & Rosenberg, S. Linguistic factors in implicit personality theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41, 450–457 (1981).

  22. 22.

    Hehman, E., Sutherland, C. A., Flake, J. K. & Slepian, M. L. The unique contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 513–529 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Goldberg, L. R. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48, 26–34 (1993).

  24. 24.

    Digman, J. M. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 417–440 (1990).

  25. 25.

    Vazire, S. Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 281–300 (2010).

  26. 26.

    Uleman, J. S. & Kressel, L. M. in Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (ed. Carlston, D. E.) 53–73 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Johnson, J. A. Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: development of the IPIP-NEO-120. J. Res. Pers. 51, 78–89 (2014).

  28. 28.

    Stolier, R. M. & Freeman, J. B. Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 795–797 (2016).

  29. 29.

    Brooks, J. A. & Freeman, J. B. Conceptual knowledge predicts the representational structure of facial emotion perception. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 581–591 (2018).

  30. 30.

    Cuddy, A. J. C. et al. Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 1–33 (2009).

  31. 31.

    Weisman, K., Dweck, C. S. & Markman, E. M. Rethinking people’s conceptions of mental life. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11374–11379 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Sutherland, C. A. et al. Social inferences from faces: ambient images generate a three-dimensional model. Cognition 127, 105–118 (2013).

  33. 33.

    Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C. & Alves, H. The ABC of stereotypes about groups: agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 675–709 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Collova, J., Sutherland, C. & Rhodes, G. Testing the functional basis of first impressions: dimensions for children’s faces are not the same as for adults’ faces. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 900–924 (2019).

  35. 35.

    Yzerbyt, V. Y., Kervyn, N. & Judd, C. M. Compensation versus halo: the unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1110–1123 (2008).

  36. 36.

    Kraft-Todd, G. T. et al. Empathic nonverbal behavior increases ratings of both warmth and competence in a medical context. PLoS One 12, e0177758 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Sutherland, C. A., Young, A. W., Mootz, C. A. & Oldmeadow, J. A. Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter‐stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. Br. J. Psychol. 106, 186–208 (2015).

  38. 38.

    Paunonen, S. V. & Ashton, M. C. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 524–539 (2001).

  39. 39.

    Burron, B. F., Carlson, K. A., Getty, G. R. & Jackson, D. N. The effects of informational characteristics on the perception of real and hypothetical target persons. Psychon. Sci. 23, 145–147 (1971).

  40. 40.

    Jackson, D. N. A model for inferential accuracy. Can. Psychol. 13, 185–195 (1972).

  41. 41.

    Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L. & Vohs, K. D. Gossip as cultural learning. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 111–121 (2004).

  42. 42.

    Paunonen, S. V. Consensus in personality judgments: moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 823–833 (1989).

  43. 43.

    Judd, C. M. & Park, B. Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 100, 109–128 (1993).

  44. 44.

    Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 519–545 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Tskhay, K. O. & Rule, N. O. Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: a review and meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17, 72–86 (2013).

  46. 46.

    Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T. & Rubinstein, R. S. Stereotype (in) accuracy in perceptions of groups and individuals. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 490–497 (2015).

  47. 47.

    Funder, D. C. On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychol. Rev. 102, 652–670 (1995).

  48. 48.

    Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23, 1–74 (1990).

  49. 49.

    Hehman, E., Xie, S. Y., Ofosu, E. K. & Nespoli, G. A. Assessing the point at which averages are stable: a tool illustrated in the context of person perception. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://psyarxiv.com/2n6jq (2018).

  50. 50.

    Ma, D. S., Correll, J. & Wittenbrink, B. The Chicago Face Database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behav. Res. Methods 47, 1122–1135 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Thornton, M. A. & Mitchell, J. P. Theories of person perception predict patterns of neural activity during mentalizing. Cereb. Cortex 28, 3505–3520 (2017).

  52. 52.

    Coleman, J. M. & Hong, Y.-Y. Beyond nature and nurture: the influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self Identity 7, 34–53 (2008).

  53. 53.

    Freeman, J. B., Stolier, R. M., Ingbretsen, Z. A. & Hehman, E. A. Amygdala responsivity to high-level social information from unseen faces. J. Neurosci. 34, 10573–10581 (2014).

  54. 54.

    Willis, J. & Todorov, A. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol. Sci. 17, 592–598 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. B. Meshar, J. A. Chwe, B. Barnett, H. Woo and C. Cogley for assistance in materials development and data collection. This work was supported in part by research grants NIH-F31-MH114505 (R.M.S.) and NSF-BCS-1654731 (J.B.F.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

R.M.S., E.H. and J.B.F. developed the theoretical perspective. R.M.S. developed the study concepts. All authors contributed to the study design. Testing and data collection were performed by R.M.S. R.M.S. and E.H. performed the data analysis and interpretation. R.M.S. drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed to edits and revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Correspondence to Ryan M. Stolier or Jonathan B. Freeman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stolier, R.M., Hehman, E. & Freeman, J.B. Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition. Nat Hum Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0800-6

Download citation