Making a spectacle of yourself: The effect of glasses and sunglasses on face perception

Daisy L. Graham & Kay L. Ritchie*

School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

* Corresponding author

Email: kritchie@lincoln.ac.uk

University of Lincoln

Brayford Pool

Lincoln

UK

LN6 7TS

Abstract

We investigated the effect of wearing glasses and sunglasses on the perception of social traits

from faces, and on face matching. Participants rated images of people wearing no glasses,

glasses and sunglasses on three social traits (trustworthiness, competence and attractiveness).

Wearing sunglasses reduced ratings of trustworthiness. Participants also performed a

matching task (telling whether two images show the same person or not) with pairs of images

both wearing no glasses, glasses or sunglasses, and all combinations of eyewear. Incongruent

eyewear conditions (e.g. one image wearing glasses and the other wearing sunglasses etc.)

reduced performance. Further analysis comparing performance on congruent and incongruent

eyewear trials showed that our effects were driven by match trial performance, where

differences in eyewear decreased accuracy. For same-eyewear-condition pairs, performance

was poorer for pairs of images both wearing sunglasses than no glasses. Our results extend

and update previous research on the effect of eyewear on face perception.

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Introduction

We form first impressions of people very quickly, and these first impressions can have real-

world consequences. For example, people’s ratings of competence (Todorov, Mandisodza,

Goren, & Hall, 2005) and attractiveness (Lutz, 2010) can predict election results, and first

impressions from faces can predict whether or not someone is hired (Gilmore, Beehr, &

Love, 1986). These findings may lead to the assumption that a person’s attractiveness is a

stable property of their face, that is to say that a person is either attractive or not, irrespective

of the photograph used. The majority of research on social trait judgements from faces has

therefore used only one image of each identity. Recent research has shown, however, that

different images of the same person can give rise to very different first impressions (Jenkins,

White, Van Montfort, & Burton, 2011; Ritchie, Palermo, & Rhodes, 2017, Todorov & Porter,

2014). In fact, within-person variability in attractiveness has been shown in some cases to

exceed between-person variability (Jenkins et al., 2011).

Research using multiple images of each identity often uses ‘ambient images’, or naturally

occurring images which vary in many different aspects of the photograph, from person-

specific variability such as facial expression, to variability in the world such as lighting. It is

possible that many of these world- and person-specific differences between images may

influence the first impression generated by any specific image. One simple change a person

can make is whether they choose to wear glasses or sunglasses in a given photograph. An

older body of literature has looked specifically at the effect of glasses on first impressions

and suggested that glasses wearers are perceived as less attractive (e.g. Harris, 1991; Hasart

& Hutchinson, 1993) and more competent (Terry & Krantz, 1993) than people without

glasses. One study found that sunglasses wearers were perceived as less authoritative

(Bartolini et al., 1988), but to date there has been very little research on the effect of

sunglasses on the perception of social traits from faces.

It has been suggested that sunglasses may increase attractiveness because sunglasses increase

symmetry in the face (Brown, 2015). More symmetrical faces are judged as more attractive

(e.g. Jones et al., 2001; Perrett et al., 1999) and so by occluding the same portion of the face

on each side, sunglasses may cover any asymmetries, and by themselves being symmetrical,

may increase perceived attractiveness. Conversely, sunglasses may reduce perceived

trustworthiness because they render the eyes invisible. The eyes have been shown to be

important for making judgements of trustworthiness (Dotsch & Todorov, 2012) and so

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

occluding the eye region may make this judgement more difficult, or lead to lower

trustworthiness ratings.

In addition to forming first impressions from faces, we use face images to determine people’s

identity. For example, photo-ID images are used in various security settings such as border

control. Despite the widespread use of photo-ID, we are actually relatively poor at identifying

unfamiliar people, even from videos (Bruce et al, 1999) or when comparing a photo to a live

person (Kemp, Towell & Pike, 1997; Ritchie, Mireku & Kramer, in press). A task which is

frequently used to test unfamiliar face processing is a face matching task wherein participants

are shown pairs of images and asked to determine whether the two images show the same

person or two different people. Participants are consistently more accurate at the task with

familiar compared to unfamiliar faces (see Ritchie et al, 2015), and with unfamiliar faces, the

addition of glasses has been shown to have a negative effect on performance. In face

matching tasks when one image shows glasses and the other does not, performance is slower

(Leder, Forster & Gerger., 2011) and less accurate (Kramer & Ritchie, 2016). Recognition

memory accuracy has also been shown to be poorer when a person seen initially wearing

glasses is shown at the recognition phase without glasses (Leder et al., 2011). Research on

unfamiliar face identification has not looked at the effect of sunglasses. This is a pertinent

avenue for enquiry as security services and CCTV personnel are often tasked with searching

for people in crowds where people may be outdoors and potentially wearing sunglasses.

Here we extend previous work on social impressions of faces wearing glasses to test the

effect of glasses and sunglasses on perceptions of trustworthiness, competence and

attractiveness. We also extend previous research on the effect of glasses on unfamiliar face

matching performance to include sunglasses. It is possible that there is a relationship between

the first impressions we have of faces, and our ability to perceive two images as belonging to

the same person. For example, if we perceive two images of the same person as very different

in attractiveness (without knowing that those two photos show the same person), it is possible

that we may be less inclined to perceive those two images as portraying the same person in a

matching task. Therefore in the current study we structured our task in such a way that the

images participants saw in the face matching task were the exact images they had rated in the

previous trait rating task. We predicted that photos showing glasses would be rated as less

attractive (Harris, 1991; Hasart & Hutchinson, 1993) and more competent (Terry & Krantz,

1993) than images without glasses. We also predicted that photos showing sunglasses would

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

be rated as more attractive (due to increased symmetry) than photos shown without eyewear.

We also predicted that incongruencies in eyewear between two images would impair

performance on a face matching task (following Kramer & Ritchie, 2016), and that image

pairs including an image wearing sunglasses would result in lower performance due to the

increased concealment of the face. Finally we predicted a correlation between the difference

in social trait ratings between two images of the same person and accuracy in the face

matching task whereby larger differences in social trait ratings would correlate with poorer

accuracy on match trials.

Method

Participants

Forty-seven participants (12 male; mean age: 20 years, range: 18-54 years) took part in both

parts of the study. All were members of the University of Lincoln and took part voluntarily or

in return for course credits. All participants gave informed consent, and the study was given

ethical approval by the University of Lincoln School of Psychology Research Ethics

Committee.

Stimuli

Our stimuli were 60 identities (30 female) chosen to be unfamiliar to participants in the UK.

For each identity, we gathered two images without glasses, two with glasses, and two with

sunglasses, as well as 3 images of a foil identity (someone who resembled that person), one

image in each eyewear condition. Images were downloaded from Google Images (see Figure

1 for example stimuli). The images were ambient images as used in previous face matching

research (e.g. Dowsett & Burton, 2015; Ritchie et al., 2015), and sampled natural variability

in lighting, head angle, facial expression etc. All images were cropped to 380 x 570 pixels to

show the head and neck.

Design and Procedure

Participants completed a rating task followed by a matching task. For ease of explanation, we

describe the matching task first. In the matching task, participants saw pairs of images

presented simultaneously, and were asked to indicate whether the two images showed the

same person or two different people. Each identity was shown once in one of six image-pair

conditions: three congruent eyewear conditions – both images wore no glasses, both glasses,

both sunglasses, and three incongruent eyewear conditions – no glasses-glasses, no glasses-

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

sunglasses, glasses-sunglasses. Half of the trials in each eyewear condition were match trials

(two photos of the same identity) and half mismatch (one photo of the identity and one of

their foil). Each participant, therefore, completed ten trials in each eyewear condition, five

match trials and five mismatch trials (60 trials in total). The image pairs were shown in a

random order, with the presentation of identities in each condition counterbalanced between

participants.

In the preceding rating task, participants rated the exact images they would go on to see in the

matching task (120 images in total). Participants rated two images of each identity (or the

identity and the foil). Each participant rated each image for trustworthiness, competence, and

attractiveness on a seven-point scale. Participants saw each image once and gave all three

trait ratings concurrently. Participants were not told that they would go on to see the identities

again in a face matching task. The images were presented in a random order, one image at a

time, not blocked by identity, and participants were not told that they would see multiple

images of each person. We do not suspect that participants would have noticed that they were

seeing two images of each person (or the person and their foil).

Participants viewed the same images in the rating and matching task so that we could directly

determine whether the difference in ratings given to the two images of each identity

correlated with accuracy on the matching task with the same images. Although this means

that each participant saw all the images twice (once in the ratings task and once in the

matching task), we do not have reason to believe that seeing each face in isolation prior to the

matching task would have influenced matching performance.

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Figure 1. Example stimuli. All photographs show the same person. [Copyright restrictions

prevent publication of the face images used. The individual pictured in these images did not

appear in the experiment, and has given permission for their images to be reproduced here.]

Results

Social trait ratings

We carried out three repeated measures ANOVAs (one per trait) to investigate the effect of

eyewear on trait ratings. We found a significant effect of eyewear on ratings of

trustworthiness (F(2,92) = 29.20, p < .001, ηp2 = .39), and follow-up paired samples t-tests

(Bonferroni corrected) showed higher ratings for images wearing no glasses (M = 4.17) and

glasses (M = 4.25) than sunglasses (M = 3.70; no glasses vs sunglasses: t(46) = 5.30, p < .01,

d = .77; glasses vs sunglasses: t(46) = 6.90, p < .01, d = 1.01). There was a non-significant

difference between trustworthiness ratings for the no glasses vs glasses conditions:

t(46) = 1.30, p = .606, d = .19. There was a non-significant effect of eyewear on both

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

competence (F(2,92) = .446, p = .642, ηp2 = .01) and attractiveness ratings (F(2,92) = 1.85,

p = .162, ηp2 = .04, see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Data from the trait rating task. Error bars denote SEM.

Previous studies have shown that the degree of smiling in an image can influence trait ratings

of both trustworthiness (Hehman, Flake & Freeman, 2015; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008;

Todorov & Porter, 2014) and attractiveness (Todorov & Porter, 2014). Therefore in order to

determine whether our observed effects were due to the degree of smiling in the images as

opposed to the eyewear conditions, we ran a small secondary study. Twenty new participants

(4 male; mean age: 21 years, range: 19-34 years) rated all of the images used in the main

experiment for degree of smiling from not smiling at all to extremely smiling on a seven-

point scale. Cronbach’s alpha for each participant’s mean smiling rating for each of the three

conditions was .88. A repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant effect of eyewear

condition on the perceived degree of smiling (F(2,38) = 8.16, p < .01, ηp2 = .30). Bonferroni

comparisons showed that faces wearing no glasses (M = 3.15) were judged as smiling more

than both faces wearing glasses (M = 3.06) and faces wearing sunglasses (M = 2.87, both

ps < .05). There was a non-significant difference between degree of smiling for faces wearing

glasses and sunglasses (p = .091). This result does not entirely rule out the possibility that the

degree of smiling played a role in participants’ trait ratings of the sunglasses images

compared to other images. The sunglasses images were judged to be numerically the least

smiling images, but the difference between glasses and sunglasses images was non-

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

significant. It is possible that the combination of wearing sunglasses and smiling (numerically

but not significantly) least made the sunglasses images look the least trustworthy. However,

we would expect the degree of smiling to influence perceptions of attractiveness as well as

trustworthiness. We did not find a difference in attractiveness ratings for sunglasses images

compared to other images. This could again be due to smiling less than other images,

however the pattern of results for the smiling experiment (with no glasses images being

judged as smiling more than the glasses and sunglasses images) does not follow the pattern of

data form the trait ratings experiment. We therefore suggest that although it may play a role,

the degree of smiling does not fully explain the trait rating data.

Face matching

To investigate the effect of eyewear on unfamiliar face matching, we first compared

performance across the congruent (same eyewear) conditions to performance across the

incongruent (different eyewear) conditions using a paired samples t-test. Accuracy was

higher for the congruent conditions (M = 78.72%) than the incongruent conditions

(M = 74.96%), t(46) = 2.15, p = .037, d = 0.31. We also used signal detection measures

calculating d’ (sensitivity) and criterion (c, a measure of response bias) where hits are correct

responses when both images show the same identity and false alarms are incorrect responses

to different identity pairs. As with percent correct, d’ was significantly higher for the

congruent conditions (M = 1.55) than the incongruent conditions (M = 1.35), t(46) = 2.22,

p = .031, d = 0.32. We explored this effect further by carrying out a repeated measures

ANOVA on d’ values for the congruent conditions, which showed an effect of eyewear

(F(2,88) = 4.85, p = .010, ηp2 = .10), and follow-up paired samples t-tests (Bonferroni

corrected) showed higher d’ values for image pairs where both photos wore no glasses

(M = 1.67) compared to sunglasses (M = 1.32; t(46) = 2.61, p = .036, d = .38). There was a

marginal effect (of similar effect size to the no glasses vs sunglasses effect) for image pairs

where both photos wore glasses (M = 1.65) compared to sunglasses t(46) = 2.43, p = .057,

d = .35. There was a non-significant difference in d’ values for the no glasses and glasses

conditions t(46) = .19, p = 1, d = .03. A repeated measures ANOVA on d’ values for the

incongruent conditions showed a non-significant effect of eyewear (F(2,84) = .17, p = .848,

ηp2 < .01).

In addition to d’, we calculated criterion values, a measure of bias. We compared criterion

values for the congruent and incongruent conditions, and found more bias in the incongruent

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

(M = -0.28) than the congruent conditions (M = -0.09), t(46) = 4.46, p < .001, d = 0.65. This

shows that participants were more biased to respond that the two images showed two

different people in the incongruent conditions where the two images showed two different

eyewear conditions.

In addition, we can look at performance on match (both photos show the same person) and

mismatch trials (photos of two different people) for congruent and incongruent eyewear

conditions. A 2 (eyewear congruency: congruent, incongruent) x 2 (trial type: match,

mismatch) ANOVA showed a significant main effect of eyewear (F(1,46) = 4.60, p = .037,

ηp2 < .09), a significant main effect of trial type (F(1,46) = 25.05, p < .001, ηp

2 < .35), and a

significant interaction (F(1,46) = 19.82, p < .001, ηp2 < .30). Follow-up paired samples t-tests

(Bonferroni corrected) showed poorer performance on match trials for incongruent eyewear

conditions (M = 63.26%) than congruent conditions (M = 74.61%), t(46) = 4.20, p < .001, d =

0.61, and a non-significant difference between congruent (M = 82.84%) and incongruent

eyewear (M = 86.67%) for mismatch trials t(46) = 1.78, p = .164, d = 0.26 (see Figure 3, and

see supplementary table S1 for all data).

Figure 3. Data from the matching task. Error bars denote SEM.

We constructed the task in such a way that participants would rate each image that they

would subsequently see in the matching task. This allows us to examine whether the

difference in trait ratings of two images of the same person correlates with performance on

the matching task. To assess this, we took responses to only match trials (two images

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

showing the same identity). For each participant, we calculated the mean difference given to

all matching image pairs on each social trait. We then correlated these difference scores for

each trait with overall accuracy on match trials in the face matching task. We found no

significant correlations (trustworthiness: r = .25, p = .088; competence: r = .19, p = .196;

attractiveness: r = -.12, p = .409). Therefore in this case, differences in social trait ratings of

two images of the same person do not influence performance on a face matching task using

those same images.

Discussion

Here we have shown that wearing sunglasses makes a person look less trustworthy but did

not support our predictions that images wearing glasses would be rated as less attractive and

more competent, and images wearing sunglasses as more attractive. Where older research

showed lower attractiveness ratings for faces wearing glasses, more recent research showed a

more nuanced effect whereby only rimmed but not rimless glasses produced this effect

(Leder et al., 2011). Here we found no negative effect of glasses wearing on attractiveness.

This may be due to the fact that glasses wearing has become more fashionable in recent years

and so no longer bears the stigma attached in the past. Previous research has shown that

symmetry increases attractiveness (e.g. Jones et al., 2001; Perrett et al., 1999), and sunglasses

are both symmetrical and may occlude any asymmetries in the face. We therefore predicted

that sunglasses would increase attractiveness, however we did not find support for this idea.

Instead, we have shown that sunglasses decrease perceived trustworthiness, which may be

explained by the importance of the eyes in the perception of trustworthiness (Dotsch &

Todorov, 2012) such that occluding the eyes decreases the perception of trustworthiness in

the face.

Here, we also sought to combine the areas of first impression formation and face matching,

and predicted that two images of the same person which are rated as less similar on social

traits are more difficult to match in a face matching task. We did not find a correlation

between the mean difference in trait ratings of two images of the same person and mean

accuracy with those images in the match trials of a face matching task, therefore here we

have not found a relationship between differences in trait ratings and matching accuracy.

The results of our face matching task supported our prediction that when two images are

presented in different eyewear conditions, unfamiliar face matching is more difficult than

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

when the two images show the same eyewear condition. Moreover, when both images are

pictured wearing sunglasses, performance is poorer than when they both show no glasses.

This result extends previous research which found slower (Leder et al., 2011) and poorer

performance (Kramer & Ritchie, 2016) for image pairs showing one photo with glasses and

one without. Our effect is driven by match trials, where incongruent eyewear conditions

produce poorer performance than congruent eyewear conditions (see Figure 3). This effect is

not present for mismatch trials. This provides an interesting theoretical point whereby small

changes in appearance seem to lead to the perception of a change in identity. This effect of

congruency on the stable perception of identity ties in with the encoding specificity principle

(Tulving & Thomson, 1973) which has been shown previously in face perception research

(Leder & Carbon, 2005). The authors argued that whole-to-part superiority in face learning

(whereby recognising facial parts presented in the context of a full face is easier than

recognising parts presented alone) can be explained by the encoding specificity principle as

only the precise encoded information is retrieved. In an adaptation of the standard task,

participants saw facial parts at encoding, and recognition of parts was disrupted when shown

in the context of a full face. The encoding specificity principle can also be used as a

framework to explain our results whereby small changes between images lead to the

perception of identity change. Our task does not rely on memory, but the same principle

could be applied to the perceptual task of face matching.

Our results are important for face matching in forensic settings such as identifying faces in

crowds where people may be wearing glasses or sunglasses. Current standard tests of face

matching ability such as the Glasgow Face Matching Test (Burton, White, & McNeill, 2010)

only include images with no eyewear, and so forensic training tasks based on such tests may

not reflect the real-world problem of glasses and sunglasses in face matching. In one

unfamiliar face matching study, mismatch trials were incorrectly accepted as a match more

often (by both students and police officers) when both images wore identical glasses,

indicating that fraudsters who adjust their appearance to match the person they are

impersonating may be more successful than those who do not (Wirth & Carbon, 2017). In

fact, deliberate disguise has been shown to reduce performance in a face matching task for

both viewers who are unfamiliar and those who are familiar with the targets (Noyes &

Jenkins, in press). In their evasion condition, Noyes and Jenkins (in press) gave participants a

previously taken image of themselves and asked participants to make themselves look as

different from that image as possible. In a face matching task, unfamiliar viewers responded

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

correctly on only 60% of trials in this condition, and familiar viewers were only 86% correct.

That study did not use sunglasses, and so it is possible that with the addition of sunglasses,

both familiar and unfamiliar viewers would have performed even more poorly. Future

research should investigate the limits of familiar and unfamiliar face recognition under

conditions of disguise including the use of sunglasses.

Our results show that not only does wearing sunglasses make you look less trustworthy, they

also make you more difficult to recognise. In fact, any change in eyewear between two

images leads to reduced face matching accuracy.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Louis Kernahan and Samile A. Escobar Abadia for data collection on

the smiling rating task.

References

Bartolini, T., Kresge, J., McLennan, M., Windham, B., Buhr, T. A., & Pryor, B. (1988).

Perceptions of personal characteristics of men and women under three conditions of

eyewear. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67(3), 779-782.

Brown, V. (2015). Cool shades: the history and meaning of sunglasses. London, UK:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M. , & Miller, P.

(1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 339-360.

Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A., (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test.

Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286-291.

Dotsch, R., & Todorov, A. (2011). Reverse correlating social face perception. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 562-571.

Dowsett, A. J., & Burton, A. M. (2015). Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform

individuals and provide a route to training. British Journal of Psychology, 106(3), 433-

445.

Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986) Effects of applicant sex, applicant

physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions.  Journal

of Occupational Psychology, 59, 103–109.

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Harris, M. B. (1991). Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 21, 1659–1680.

Hasart, J. K., & Hutchinson, K. L. (1993). The effects of eyeglasses on perceptions of

interpersonal-attraction. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 521–528.

Hehman, E., Flake, J. K., & Freeman, J. B. (2015). Static and dynamic facial cues

differentially affect the consistency of social evaluations. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1123–1134.

Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011) Variability in photos of the

same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323.

Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I.

(2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes”

explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 22, 417-429.

Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs,

credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 211.222.

Kramer, R. S. S., & Ritchie, K. L. (2016). Disguising Superman: How glasses affect

unfamiliar face matching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 841-845.

Lutz, G. (2010). The electoral success of beauties and beasts. Swiss Political Science

Review, 16, 457–480.

Leder, H., Forster, M., & Gerger, G. (2011). The glasses stereotype revisited. Swiss Journal

of Psychology, 70(4), 211-222.

Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). When context hinders! Learn-test compatibility in face

recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A(2), 235-250.

Noyes, E., & Jenkins, R. (in press). Deliberate disguise in face identification. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Applies. Advance online publication.

Oosterhof, N. N, & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087–

11092.

Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R.

(1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20,

295-307.

Ritchie, K. L., Mireku, M. O., & Kramer, R. S. S. (in press). Face averages and multiple

images in a live matching task. British Journal of Psychology. Advance online

publication.

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Ritchie, K. L., Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2017). Forming impressions of facial

attractiveness is mandatory. Scientific Reports, 7, 469.

Ritchie, K. L., Smith, F. G., Jenkins, R., Bindemann, M., White, D. & Burton, A. M.  (2015).

Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining

the photo-ID paradox. Cognition, 141, 161-169.

Terry, R. L., & Krantz, J. H. (1993). Dimensions of trait attributions associated with

eyeglasses, men's facial hair, and women's hair length. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 23(21), 1757-1769.

Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of

competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.

Todorov, A., & Porter, J. M. (2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different

facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1404–1417.

Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval responses in

episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 359-380.

Wirth, B. E., & Carbon, C. C. (2017). An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional

experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 138-157.

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17