Abstract
Consumers often make judgments about service providers based solely on their photograph (e.g., on a billboard, on the Internet) before interacting with them face-to-face. This first impression is important for marketers to understand because it influences service provider selection and evaluation. This research explores the nature and subsequent influence of initial judgments made from static images. The results of two studies indicate that (1) judgments based on nonverbal cues can be surprisingly accurate, particularly of personality traits relevant to the domain in which the target is being judged, and (2) initial nonverbal cues-based judgments influence subsequent judgments of a target’s actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The extant research on static images has focused on judgments of personality and character traits (e.g., honesty, intelligence, health, etc.). Our research is the first, to our knowledge, to examine the accuracy of judgments of an unknown target’s job performance made on the basis of static images.
The photographs used in this research contain physical appearance cues (of which general physical attractiveness is one element) and static representations of some kinesic cues (facial expression and eye gaze).
All photographs and performance measures used were obtained with permission from the targets.
To ensure true thin-slice judgments, participants in each study were also asked if they had ever seen or met the target before the study. No participants indicated that they had seen or met the targets before.
The reader may note that some relatively large correlations in Tables 1 and 2 are not statistically significant. This is because, following Ambady and Rosenthal (1993), targets are used as the unit of analysis rather than judges (participants). Because correlations were computed across judges, study 1A has an n of five targets (financial consultants) and study 1B an n of six targets (professors) vs an n corresponding to the number of participants. This analysis resulted in three degrees of freedom in the financial consultant study and four degrees of freedom in the professor study. The critical value for r at three degrees of freedom (at the p < 0.05 level) is a correlation of 0.878. The critical value for r at four degrees of freedom (at the p < 0.05 level) is .811.
Although the paragraph was originally used by Srull and Wyer (1979) in a category accessibility study, we elected to use it here because it was designed to be ambiguous in regards to a specific personality trait. Because the target’s purported actions in the paragraph can be interpreted as either hostile or not, judgments made by participants of the target’s hostility are primarily influenced by the perceivers’ initial nonverbal cues-based impression rather than by cues in the written paragraph.
References
Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgment accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 32 (pp. 201–271) San Diego: Academic.
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 518–529.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming Impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.
Berry, D. S., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the Physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266–279.
Berry, D. S., & Finch Wero, J. L. (1993). Accuracy in face perception: A view from ecological psychology. Journal of Personality, 61, 497–520.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.
Bonoma, T. V., & Felder, L. C. (1977). Nonverbal communication in marketing: Toward a communicational analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 169–180.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233.
Hulbert, J., & Capon, N. (1972). Interpersonal communication in marketing: An overview. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 27–34.
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2005). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Lachman, S. J., & Bass, A. R. (1985). A direct experiment of halo effect. Journal of Psychology, 119, 535–540.
Leigh, T. W., & Summers, J. O. (2002). An initial evaluation of industrial buyers’ impressions of salespersons’ nonverbal cues. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 22, 41–53.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for the unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 450–456.
Nowicki, S. Jr., & Duke, M. P. (2000). Nonverbal receptivity: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy (DANVA). In J. A. Hall & F. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahawah: Erlbaum.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 421–427.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston.
Schul, P. L., & Lamb, C. W. (1982). Decoding nonverbal and vocal communications: A laboratory study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10, 154–164.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660–1672.
Stewart, D. W., Hecker, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). It’s more than what you say: Assessing the influences of nonverbal communication in marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 303–322.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.
Zajonc, R. B. (1963). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 9(2), 1–27.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.
Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 123–131.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 238–249.
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to ‘bad genes’ and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 167–185.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks Raj Raghunathan and Julie Irwin for their guidance throughout the process of conducting this research and Susan Broniarczyk, Andrea Godfrey, Kelly Haws, Wayne Hoyer, and Robert Peterson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. The paper was written while the author was a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walker Naylor, R. Nonverbal cues-based first impressions: Impression formation through exposure to static images. Market Lett 18, 165–179 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9010-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9010-5