Search for: All records

Abstract Neurotypical (NT) individuals and individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) make different judgments of social traits from others’ faces; they also exhibit different social emotional responses in social interactions. A common hypothesis is that the differences in face perception in ASD compared with NT is related to distinct social behaviors. To test this hypothesis, we combined a face trait judgment task with a novel interpersonal transgression task that induces measures social emotions and behaviors. ASD and neurotypical participants viewed a large set of naturalistic facial stimuli while judging them on a comprehensive set of social traits (e.g., warm, charismatic, critical). They also completed an interpersonal transgression task where their responsibility in causing an unpleasant outcome to a social partner was manipulated. The purpose of the latter task was to measure participants’ emotional (e.g., guilt) and behavioral (e.g., compensation) responses to interpersonal transgression. We found that, compared with neurotypical participants, ASD participants’ self-reported guilt and compensation tendency was less sensitive to our responsibility manipulation. Importantly, ASD participants and neurotypical participants showed distinct associations between self-reported guilt and judgments of criticalness from others' faces. These findings reveal a novel link between perception of social traits and social emotional responses in ASD. 

Processing social information from faces is difficult for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, it remains unclear whether individuals with ASD make high-level social trait judgments from faces in the same way as neurotypical individuals. Here, we comprehensively addressed this question using naturalistic face images and representatively sampled traits. Despite similar underlying dimensional structures across traits, online adult participants with self-reported ASD showed different judgments and reduced specificity within each trait compared with neurotypical individuals. Deep neural networks revealed that these group differences were driven by specific types of faces and differential utilization of features within a face. Our results were replicated in well-characterized in-lab participants and partially generalized to more controlled face images (a preregistered study). By investigating social trait judgments in a broader population, including individuals with neurodevelopmental variations, we found important theoretical implications for the fundamental dimensions, variations, and potential behavioral consequences of social cognition. 

Abstract People readily (but often inaccurately) attribute traits to others based on faces. While the details of attributions depend on the language available to describe social traits, psychological theories argue that two or three dimensions (such as valence and dominance) summarize social trait attributions from faces. However, prior work has used only a small number of trait words (12 to 18), limiting conclusions to date. In two large-scale, preregistered studies we ask participants to rate 100 faces (obtained from existing face stimuli sets), using a list of 100 English trait words that we derived using deep neural network analysis of words that have been used by other participants in prior studies to describe faces. In study 1 we find that these attributions are best described by four psychological dimensions, which we interpret as “warmth”, “competence”, “femininity”, and “youth”. In study 2 we partially reproduce these four dimensions using the same stimuli among additional participant raters from multiple regions around the world, in both aggregated and individual-level data. These results provide a comprehensive characterization of trait attributions from faces, although we note our conclusions are limited by the scope of our study (in particular we note only white faces and English trait words were included). 

Abstract People spontaneously infer other people’s psychology from faces, encompassing inferences of their affective states, cognitive states, and stable traits such as personality. These judgments are known to be often invalid, but nonetheless bias many social decisions. Their importance and ubiquity have made them popular targets for automated prediction using deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs). Here, we investigated the applicability of this approach: how well does it generalize, and what biases does it introduce? We compared three distinct sets of features (from a face identification DCNN, an object recognition DCNN, and using facial geometry), and tested their prediction across multiple out-of-sample datasets. Across judgments and datasets, features from both pre-trained DCNNs provided better predictions than did facial geometry. However, predictions using object recognition DCNN features were not robust to superficial cues (e.g., color and hair style). Importantly, predictions using face identification DCNN features were not specific: models trained to predict one social judgment (e.g., trustworthiness) also significantly predicted other social judgments (e.g., femininity and criminal), and at an even higher accuracy in some cases than predicting the judgment of interest (e.g., trustworthiness). Models trained to predict affective states (e.g., happy) also significantly predicted judgments of stable traits (e.g., sociable), and vice versa. Our analysis pipeline not only provides a flexible and efficient framework for predicting affective and social judgments from faces but also highlights the dangers of such automated predictions: correlated but unintended judgments can drive the predictions of the intended judgments. 

Abstract Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by difficulties in social processes, interactions, and communication. Yet, the neurocognitive bases underlying these difficulties are unclear. Here, we triangulated the ‘trans-diagnostic’ approach to personality, social trait judgments of faces, and neurophysiology to investigate (1) the relative position of autistic traits in a comprehensive social-affective personality space, and (2) the distinct associations between the social-affective personality dimensions and social trait judgment from faces in individuals with ASD and neurotypical individuals. We collected personality and facial judgment data from a large sample of online participants (N = 89 self-identified ASD;N = 307 neurotypical controls). Factor analysis with 33 subscales of 10 social-affective personality questionnaires identified a 4-dimensional personality space. This analysis revealed that ASD and control participants did not differ significantly along the personality dimensions of empathy and prosociality, antisociality, or social agreeableness. However, the ASD participants exhibited a weaker association between prosocial personality dimensions and judgments of facial trustworthiness and warmth than the control participants. Neurophysiological data also indicated that ASD participants had a weaker association with neuronal representations for trustworthiness and warmth from faces. These results suggest that the atypical association between social-affective personality and social trait judgment from faces may contribute to the social and affective difficulties associated with ASD. 

Abstract Faces are among the most important visual stimuli that humans perceive in everyday life. While extensive literature has examined emotional processing and social evaluations of faces, most studies have examined either topic using unimodal approaches. In this review, we promote the use of multimodal cognitive neuroscience approaches to study these processes, using two lines of research as examples: ambiguity in facial expressions of emotion and social trait judgment of faces. In the first set of studies, we identified an event‐related potential that signals emotion ambiguity using electroencephalography and we found convergent neural responses to emotion ambiguity using functional neuroimaging and single‐neuron recordings. In the second set of studies, we discuss how different neuroimaging and personality‐dimensional approaches together provide new insights into social trait judgments of faces. In both sets of studies, we provide an in‐depth comparison between neurotypicals and people with autism spectrum disorder. We offer a computational account for the behavioral and neural markers of the different facial processing between the two groups. Finally, we suggest new practices for studying the emotional processing and social evaluations of faces. All data discussed in the case studies of this review are publicly available.