The use of videoconferencing platforms has globally risen to facilitate face-to-face communication since the onset of COVID-19. But how do our first impressions of people we meet on Zoom compare to in-person interactions? Specifically, do we view others\' personalities as accurately (in line with their unique personality) and normatively (in line with the average, desirable personality) as in-person? Across two Zoom first-impression round-robin studies (exploratory study: N = 567, Dyads = 3,053; preregistered replication: N = 371, Dyads = 1,961), which we compared to an in-person round-robin study (N = 306; Dyads = 1,682), people viewed others\' personalities as accurately and as normatively on Zoom as in-person. Moreover, people better liked interaction partners they viewed more accurately and normatively. However, in interactions of poorer audio-video quality, people viewed others less accurately, less normatively, and liked them less. Overall, through a screen, our impressions of others are as accurate and normative as face-to-face, but it depends on the quality of that screen.

Voices elicit rich first impressions of what the person we are hearing might be like. Research stresses that these impressions from voices are shared across different listeners, such that people on average agree which voices sound trustworthy or old and which do not. However, can impressions from voices also be shaped by the \'ear of the beholder\'? We investigated whether - and how - listeners\' idiosyncratic, personal preferences contribute to first impressions from voices. In two studies (993 participants, 156 voices), we find evidence for substantial idiosyncratic contributions to voice impressions using a variance portioning approach. Overall, idiosyncratic contributions were as important as shared contributions to impressions from voices for inferred person characteristics (e.g., trustworthiness, friendliness). Shared contributions were only more influential for impressions of more directly apparent person characteristics (e.g., gender, age). Both idiosyncratic and shared contributions were reduced when stimuli were limited in their (perceived) variability, suggesting that natural variation in voices is key to understanding this impression formation. When comparing voice impressions to face impressions, we found that idiosyncratic and shared contributions to impressions similarly across modality when stimulus properties are closely matched - although voice impressions were overall less consistent than face impressions. We thus reconceptualise impressions from voices as being formed not only based on shared but also idiosyncratic contributions. We use this new framing to suggest future directions of research, including understanding idiosyncratic mechanisms, development, and malleability of voice impression formation.

Impressions of trustworthiness are formed quickly from faces. To what extent are these impressions shared among observers of the same or different races? Although high consensus of trustworthiness evaluation has been consistently reported, recent studies suggested substantial individual differences. For instance, negative implicit racial bias and low contact experience towards individuals of the other race have been shown to be related to low trustworthiness judgments for other-race faces. This pre-registered study further examined the effects of implicit social bias and experience on trustworthiness judgments of other-race faces. A relatively large sample of White (N = 338) and Black (N = 299) participants completed three tasks: a trustworthiness rating task of faces, a race implicit association test, and a questionnaire of experience. Each participant rated trustworthiness of 100 White faces and 100 Black faces. We found that the overall trustworthiness ratings for other-race faces were influenced by both implicit bias and experience with individuals of the other-race. Nonetheless, when comparing to the own-race baseline ratings, high correlations were observed for the relative differences in trustworthiness ratings of other-race faces for participants with varied levels of implicit bias and experience. These results suggest differential impact of social concepts (e.g., implicit bias, experience) vs. instinct (e.g., decision of approach-vs-avoid) on trustworthiness impressions, as revealed by overall vs. relative ratings on other-race faces.

Children infer personality traits from faces when they are asked explicitly which face appears nice or mean. Less is known about how children use face-trait information implicitly to make behavioral evaluations. We used the Ambiguous Situations Protocol to explore how children use face-trait information to form interpretations of ambiguous situations when the behavior or intention of the target child was unclear. On each trial, children (N = 144, age range = 4-11.95 years; 74 girls, 67 boys, 3 gender not specified; 70% White, 10% other or mixed race, 5% Asian, 4% Black, 1% Indigenous, 9% not specified) viewed a child\'s face (previously rated high or low in niceness) before seeing the child\'s face embedded within an ambiguous scene (Scene Task) or hearing a vignette about a misbehavior done by that child (Misbehavior Task). Children described what was happening in each scene and indicated whether each misbehavior was done on purpose or by accident. Children also rated the behavior of each child and indicated whether the child would be a good friend. Facial niceness influenced children\'s interpretations of ambiguous behavior (Scene Task) by 4 years of age, and ambiguous intentions (Misbehavior Task) by 6 years. Our results suggest that the use of face-trait cues to form interpretations of ambiguous behavior emerges early in childhood, a bias that may lead to differential treatment for peers perceived with a high-nice face versus a low-nice face.

When listeners hear a voice, they rapidly form a complex first impression of who the person behind that voice might be. We characterize how these multivariate first impressions from voices emerge over time across different levels of abstraction using electroencephalography and representational similarity analysis. We find that for eight perceived physical (gender, age, and health), trait (attractiveness, dominance, and trustworthiness), and social characteristics (educatedness and professionalism), representations emerge early (~80 ms after stimulus onset), with voice acoustics contributing to those representations between ~100 ms and 400 ms. While impressions of person characteristics are highly correlated, we can find evidence for highly abstracted, independent representations of individual person characteristics. These abstracted representationse merge gradually over time. That is, representations of physical characteristics (age, gender) arise early (from ~120 ms), while representations of some trait and social characteristics emerge later (~360 ms onward). The findings align with recent theoretical models and shed light on the computations underpinning person perception from voices.

First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters\' judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (M = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (M = 3.02, p < .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (M = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (M = 3.96 p < .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (M = 6.61, M = 6.65 respectively, p = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups\' Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners\' performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.

UNASSIGNED: Although autism inclusion and acceptance has increased in recent years, autistic people continue to face stigmatization, exclusion, and victimization. Based on brief 10-second videos, non-autistic adults rate autistic adults less favourably than they rate non-autistic adults in terms of traits and behavioural intentions. In the current study, we extended this paradigm to investigate the first impressions of autistic and non-autistic children by non-autistic adult raters and examined the relationship between the rater\'s own characteristics and bias against autistic children.
UNASSIGNED: Segments of video recorded interviews from 15 autistic and 15 non-autistic children were shown to 346 undergraduate students in audio with video, audio only, video only, transcript, or still image conditions. Participants rated each child on a series of traits and behavioural intentions toward the child, and then completed a series of questionnaires measuring their own social competence, autistic traits, quantity and quality of past experiences with autistic people, and explicit autism stigma.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, autistic children were rated more negatively than non-autistic children, particularly in conditions containing audio. Raters with higher social competence and explicit autism stigma rated autistic children more negatively, whereas raters with more autistic traits and more positive past experiences with autistic people rated autistic children more positively.
UNASSIGNED: These rapid negative judgments may contribute to the social exclusion experienced by autistic children. The findings indicate that certain personal characteristics may be related to more stigmatised views of autism and decreased willingness to interact with the autistic person. The implications of the findings are discussed in relation to the social inclusion and well-being of autistic people.

A common assertion is that, based around prominent character traits, first impressions are spontaneously extracted from faces. Specifically, mere exposure to a person is sufficient to trigger the involuntary extraction of core personality characteristics (e.g., trustworthiness, dominance, competence), an outcome that supports a range of significant judgments (e.g., hiring, investing, electing). But is this in fact the case? Noting ambiguities in the extant literature, here we used a repetition priming procedure to probe the extent to which impressions of dominance are extracted from faces absent the instruction to evaluate the stimuli in this way. Across five experiments in which either the character trait of interest was made increasingly obvious to participants (Expts. 1-3) or attention was explicitly directed toward the faces to generate low-level/high-level judgments (Expts. 4 & 5), no evidence for the spontaneous extraction of first impressions was observed. Instead, priming only emerged when judgments of dominance were an explicit requirement of the task at hand. Thus, at least using a priming methodology, the current findings contest the notion that first impressions are a mandatory product of person perception.

Along with a classical immune system, we have evolved a behavioral one that directs us away from potentially contagious individuals. Here I show, using publicly available cross-cultural data, that this adaptation is so fundamental that our first impressions of a male stranger are largely driven by the perceived health of his face. Positive (likeable, capable, intelligent, trustworthy) and negative (unfriendly, ignorant, lazy) first impressions are affected by facial health in adaptively different ways, inconsistent with a mere halo effect; they are also modulated by one\'s current state of health and inclination to feel disgusted by pathogens. These findings, which replicated across two countries as different as the USA and India, suggest that instinctive perceptions of badness and goodness from faces are not two sides of the same coin but reflect the (nonsymmetrical) expected costs and benefits of interaction. Apparently, pathogens run the show-and first impressions come second. Lay Summary: Our first impressions of strangers (whether they seem trustworthy, intelligent, unfriendly, or aggressive) are shaped by how healthy their faces look and by our unconscious motivation to avoid infections. Bad and good impressions turn out to reflect the concrete, potentially vital, expected costs and benefits of interacting with our fellow humans. Apparently, pathogens run the show-and first impressions come second.

We offer a response to six commentaries on our target article \'Understanding trait impressions from faces\'. A broad consensus emerged with authors emphasizing the importance of increasing the diversity of faces and participants, integrating research on impressions beyond the face, and continuing to develop methods needed for data-driven approaches. We propose future directions for the field based on these themes.