Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition

Nature Human Behaviour volume 4, pages 361–371 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Ryan M. Stolier

  2. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Eric Hehman

  3. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Jonathan B. Freeman

  4. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Jonathan B. Freeman

Authors
  1. Ryan M. Stolier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Hehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan B. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding authors

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

Check for updates. 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 4, 361–371 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0800-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0800-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing