What processes drive social perception? When we meet a person for the first time, we tend to categorize them according to the categories to which they belong (among the main ones we find gender, age and ethnic group). Probably, this person will do the same with us, establishing what is called the categorization process. Whether based on social roles or other signals, identifying a person as belonging to a particular category allows us to make inferences about a number of important issues. We can infer, for example, what their intentions might be and what general personality traits might characterize them. By doing so, we can initiate appropriate social interaction and establish effective conversation. In this regard, by classifying a person as a young person or an adult, we are able to determine, quickly and without particular difficulty, what might be the most suitable and the least interesting topics of conversation. The ability to extract socially relevant information from other people is therefore of great importance, since our future thoughts and actions will depend on it. Moreover, dimensions of social categorization, especially related to outward appearance (such as gender and age), can be encoded even without other individual information. For example, a person might remember that their new neighbour is a young white man without remembering anything else about them.
Among all stimuli, the face of the person with whom we are interacting plays a key role in categorization processes. While this categorization is a key cognitive process because it organizes environmental stimuli quickly and functionally and helps us in our interactions, it can also lead to some negative consequences. In fact, there is an inherent tendency in people to go beyond the information provided by a face, thus drawing inferences about particular personal dispositions, such as mental states or personality traits. This occurs, for example, when a person's face evokes thoughts such as 'this person seems ill-intentioned to me ' or 'this person seems untrustworthy.' In the academic literature, the tendency to infer personality traits based on outward features (primarily the face, but also behaviour, clothing, and so on) has been widely studied and is known as the halo effect. These inferences are based on stereotypes and prejudices, which are regarded as an inevitable consequence of social categorization.
As discussed in a previous article in this collection (Let's Start with the Basics: Gender Stereotypes and Their Implications), stereotypes primarily contain two basic dimensions: warmth and competence. In this context, gender-based categorization of faces can modulate both of these dimensions. For example, the masculinity or femininity of a face plays a crucial role both in categorizing a person as female or male and in attributing personality based on pre-existing stereotypes. In fact, not only is a stereotypically feminine-looking woman more likely to be categorized as female, but she is also likely to be perceived as warmer (a stereotypically feminine trait), compared to a more masculine-looking woman. Spontaneous and automatic inferences about personality, on the other hand, are the result of overgeneralization effects, which are particularly evident for the gender dimension. For example, if a person's facial features resemble the facial features that are perceived as typical for a specific stereotypical group (e.g., women), the person is likely to be associated with the personality traits of the stereotypical group (e.g., affection), regardless of the person's gender. Consistent with this principle, studies that have investigated the link between impressions elicited by faces and gender stereotypes suggest that women whose appearance communicates traits inconsistent with the stereotypes of the category (e.g., a woman with a face judged to be particularly domineering or authoritarian) are more likely to be evaluated more negatively (e.g., as less trustworthy) than men with the same degree of stereotypical inconsistency communicated by their appearance (e.g., a man with a face judged to be particularly warm or caring).
Finally, it has been observed how gender-based categorization of faces is also able to modulate the second dimension of stereotyping, namely, the perception of a person's degree of competence. In particular, it is known how male faces are often perceived as more competent than female faces. Research conducted by Oh, Buck and Todorov (2019) revealed that people tend to judge masculine faces as more competent and trustworthy in professional contexts, even without any prior knowledge of that specific person. Similarly, other studies have observed how an increase in masculinity in the shape of a face leads to higher ratings about perceived dominance and lower ratings about emotionality, again showing how social category classification is intertwined with some inferences about personality traits.
The perception of faces is thus deeply influenced by gender stereotypes, which can distort the way we judge a person's competence, trustworthiness, and emotionality. Scientific studies suggest how male faces are more frequently perceived as authoritative and competent, while female faces are often associated with characteristics of vulnerability and endearment. The stereotypical attribution of personality traits from characteristics of femininity or masculinity carries with it significant implications for professional and social opportunities in which women, potentially perceived as less competent and more affectionate, may be discriminated against. This phenomenon is unfortunately evident in different social and work settings, as well as in political life and leadership roles, where women, compared to their male colleagues, often face additional obstacles to being recognized as equally trustworthy and competent.
These disparities are not limited to the work and leadership context, but are also experienced in contexts of severe socioeconomic hardship. For example, the next article will address gender differences related to homelessness.
