The effect of face masks on the perception of trustworthiness and competence in individuals with autistic traits

Abstract

Facial expressions play a crucial role in social communication, influencing judgments of trustworthiness and competence. While previous research has examined how face masks affect trust and competence in general populations, little is known about their impact on individuals with high autistic traits, who often rely more on the mouth region for social cue interpretation. The present study investigates the effects of face masks on perceptions of trustworthiness and competence as a function of high and low autistic traits. Results show that masked faces are generally perceived as more trustworthy and competent than unmasked faces. The effect of mask wearing on trustworthiness and competence ratings was not affected by autistic traits, suggesting that participants, regardless of their level of autistic traits, adjusted their judgements using available facial cues.

Keywords

face masks trustworthiness competence social perception autistic traits

Introduction

Faces play a vital role in social communication, with most interactions relying on facial expressions to convey emotions and non-verbal cues. Face masks that cover the nose and mouth impede the recognition and interpretation of facial expressions (Barrick et al., 2021; Grundmann et al., 2021), thereby diminishing individuals’ ability to assess emotions in social contexts (Spitzer, 2020) and increasing the likelihood of misunderstandings (Carbon, 2020). Given that facial expressions are critical for evaluating intentions, focus and personality traits, their obstruction may adversely affect judgements of trustworthiness and competence—factors essential for effective social and professional integration (Hopfensitz & Mantilla, 2023; Todorov et al., 2009, 2015).

Trustworthiness and Competence

Trustworthiness plays a vital role in first impressions, shaping judgements of honesty, reliability and integrity. Facial cues, especially mouth visibility and expressions, are crucial for assessing trustworthiness (Bylianto & Chan, 2023). Dynamic signals such as smiles enhance perceived trustworthiness (Centorrino et al., 2015; Krumhuber et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 2012). The face mask covers these cues, raising questions about masks’ impact on trust perceptions. Research shows mixed findings on masks and trustworthiness. Some studies suggest masks enhance perceived trustworthiness by demonstrating professionalism and responsibility (Fang & Kawakami, 2024; Oldmeadow & Gogan, 2024; Wang et al., 2024). Wang et al. (2024) found that in an investment game, face masks increased perceived trustworthiness for low-trustworthy faces by hiding negative trust cues, while reducing trustworthiness for high-trustworthy faces by blocking positive facial trust signals. Similarly, Fang and Kawakami (2024) found that faces wearing masks were consistently perceived as more trustworthy than unmasked faces. Conversely, Bylianto and Chan (2023) found that face masks significantly reduced perceptions of trustworthiness by obscuring critical facial cues, even though participants focused more on the eye region to compensate for the occluded lower face. By obscuring these cues, face masks disrupt emotion recognition but generally increase perceived trustworthiness, likely by reducing negative signals and bias (Guo et al., 2022; Oldmeadow & Koch, 2021).

Competence, involving judgements of capability and professionalism, depends on both dynamic and structural facial cues (Hopfensitz & Mantilla, 2023), with expressive signals such as smiles enhancing perceived competence (Min & Hu, 2022; Wang et al., 2017) and stable features like facial sexual dimorphism also contributing to competence judgements (Oh et al., 2019; Walker & Wänke, 2017; Wen et al., 2020). Some studies report no change as a function of face mask on competence perception (Guo et al., 2022; Oldmeadow & Koch, 2021), while others find increases (Stosic et al., 2024), likely moderated by expression, facial structure and observer characteristics (Grundmann et al., 2021; Kamatani et al., 2021; Marini et al., 2021). Masks may increase perceived competence by signalling professionalism and medical expertise (Fang & Kawakami, 2024; Klucarova, 2022). For example, masked individuals are often judged as more competent due to associations with health professionals, and similar effects are observed in service contexts where masks convey professionalism (Klucarova, 2022; Liang & Wu, 2022). Conversely, masks can reduce perceived competence by obscuring facial cues and impairing emotion recognition (Grahlow et al., 2022), making it harder to convey competence; this also hinders positive first impressions of competence and trustworthiness (Bennetts et al., 2022).

Autism

For individuals high in autistic traits, masks may amplify existing challenges in face perception (Pazhoohi et al., 2021). Autism is associated with difficulties in social interaction and communication, having intense interests, and engaging in repetitive behaviours (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Individuals displaying the broad autism phenotype (BAP) exhibit elevated autistic traits and related challenges at sub-clinical levels, consistent with a dimensional view of autism as a spectrum in which traits are continuously distributed across the population rather than confined to categorical diagnoses (Bernier et al., 2012; De Groot & Van Strien, 2017; Morrison et al., 2018; Wheelwright et al., 2010).

Individuals with autism and those exhibiting the BAP have been found to gaze less at the eyes (Adolphs et al., 2008; Cuve et al., 2018; Moriuchi et al., 2017; Spezio et al., 2007; Wieckowski & White, 2017) and focus or rely more on the mouth for social interpretation (Adolphs et al., 2008; Fujioka et al., 2016; Klin et al., 2002; Spezio et al., 2007; Wieckowski & White, 2017). These different patterns of face exploration may explain the difficulties experienced by individuals with autism and those displaying the BAP in interpreting social cues or facial expressions (Cha & Kim, 2023; Uljarevic & Hamilton, 2013; Wieckowski & White, 2017). However, other studies have found no difference between neurotypicals and individuals with autism or those exhibiting the BAP in terms of fixations to the mouth (Hernandez et al., 2009) or the eyes (Sawyer et al., 2012), or their ability to recognise expressions (Jones et al., 2011; Soto-Icaza et al., 2022).

Current Study

The growing body of research on the impact of face masks on perceptions of trustworthiness and competence has primarily focused on specific contexts, such as professional or healthcare settings (Klucarova, 2022; Liang & Wu, 2022), or the general population (Grundmann et al., 2021), leaving a notable gap in exploring how mask usage might affect the social difficulties faced by individuals higher in autistic traits. This is particularly relevant for individuals higher in autistic traits, who show atypical face-scanning strategies (e.g., reduced eye fixation and greater reliance on the mouth). The current study aims to address this research gap by investigating the effect of face masks on perceptions of trustworthiness and competence as a function of autistic traits. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether the presence of face masks differentially affects the challenges faced by individuals higher in autistic traits, compared to those lower in autistic traits, in forming judgements of trustworthiness and competence. Moreover, stimulus sex and participant sex were included as factors, as prior research shows that both target and perceiver sex can systematically influence evaluations of trustworthiness and competence (Dong et al., 2018; Oh et al., 2019; Wen et al., 2020).

Methods

Participants

A total of 287 participants (83 men and 204 women), between the ages of 18 and 31 years (M = 20.29, SE = 2.04), were recruited from the University of British Columbia human subject pool. Participants were compensated with course credits for their time, and all participants provided informed consent prior to taking part in the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee at the University of British Columbia before the recruitment process began. Data were collected in spring 2021.

Stimuli and Procedure

Images of 25 male and 25 female faces, which totals 50 faces were obtained from the FACES database (Ebner et al., 2010). The faces were aged between 19 and 31 years with a neutral expression. Another set of 50 stimuli of the same identities were created by superimposing a facial mask on the original images (Figure 1). Each set of stimuli which included masked and unmasked faces were randomised and presented in separate blocks. After consenting to participate in the study, participants answered socio-demographic questions.¹ Participants also completed an AQ-10 Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-10; Allison et al., 2012) questionnaire. Participants were asked to respond to 10 statements on a four-point scale from 1 (definitely agree) to 4 (definitely disagree). Following the scoring guidelines outlined by the developers of the AQ-10, individuals obtaining a total score of six or higher are recommended for referral for a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation for autism (Allison et al., 2012). Based on this criterion, participants were categorised into high scorers (N = 144, M = 7.00, SD = 1.06) and low scorers (N = 143, M = 3.98, SD = 0.96).

Figure 1.

Examples of young female and male faces used.

This was a within-subjects experimental design and participants randomly observed either the block with facial masks first or the block with unmasked faces first. Participants were asked to respond to the questions ‘How trustworthy do you find this person?’ and ‘How competent do you find this person?’ on a seven-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very).

Results

Trustworthiness

A linear mixed-effects model was conducted to examine the effects of AQ-10, participant sex (a between-participant variable), stimulus sex and mask condition (within-participant variables) on trustworthiness ratings, with participants as random factor to account for repeated measures. Variance components indicated substantial between-participant variability (σ² = 0.63, SD = 0.79) relative to residual variance (σ² = 1.21, SD = 1.10), corresponding to an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.34.

Results showed significant main effects for stimuli sex and mask condition (Table 1). Participants rated female faces (M = 3.79, SE = 0.05) as more trustworthy compared to male faces (M = 3.45, SE = 0.05). Also, participants rated masked faces (M = 3.67, SE = 0.05) as more trustworthy compared to unmasked faces (M = 3.47, SE = 0.05).

Table 1.

Estimates for the effects of Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-10) facial mask, stimuli sex and participant sex on the ratings of trustworthiness in faces.

			95% CI
Effect	β	SE	Lower	Upper	df	t	p
(Intercept)	3.81	0.08	3.65	3.98	317.7	45.54	< .001***
AQ10 (low)	0.11	0.12	−0.12	0.33	317.7	0.92	.36
Participant sex (male)	0.05	0.15	−0.23	0.34	317.7	0.36	.72
Stimuli sex (male)	−0.44	0.01	0.42	0.47	28401	30.87	< .001***
Mask (unmasked)	−0.20	0.01	0.17	0.23	28,401	13.71	<.001***
AQ10 × Participant sex	−0.01	0.22	−0.43	0.41	317.7	−0.05	.96
AQ10 × Stimuli sex	−0.02	0.04	−0.11	0.06	28,400	−0.47	.64
Participant sex × Stimuli sex	0.31	0.06	0.20	0.42	28,400	5.60	<.001***
AQ10 × Mask	−0.06	0.04	−0.15	0.03	28,400	−1.32	.19
Participant sex × Mask	0.05	0.06	−0.06	0.16	28,400	0.81	.42
Stimuli sex × Mask	0.00	0.04	−0.10	0.08	28,400	−0.19	.85
AQ10 × Participant sex × Stimuli sex	−0.03	0.08	−0.19	0.12	28,400	−0.42	.67
AQ10 × Participant sex × Mask	0.00	0.08	−0.13	0.19	28,400	0.37	.71
AQ10 × Stimuli sex × Mask	−0.01	0.06	−0.11	0.13	28,400	0.21	.84
Participant sex × Stimuli sex × Mask	−0.06	−0.08	−0.21	0.09	28,400	−0.77	.44
AQ10 × Participant sex × Stimuli sex × Mask	0.15	0.15	−0.07	0.38	28,400	1.33	.19

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The Participant Sex × Stimuli Sex interaction was significant; female participants rated female faces (M = 3.75, SE = 0.06) as more trustworthy than male faces (M = 3.16, SE = 0.06, p < .001). Male participants also rated female faces (M = 3.83, SE = 0.09) as more trustworthy compared to male faces (M = 3.53, SE = 0.09, p < .001), but as reflected by the interaction, this difference was less pronounced for the male participants.

Competence

The same linear mixed model was conducted to investigate the effects of AQ-10, participant sex, stimuli sex and presence/absence of facial masks on the ratings of competence, with participants as a random effect. Participant-level variance (σ² = 0.71, SD = 0.84) relative to residual variance (σ² = 1.11, SD = 1.05) yielded an ICC of 0.39, indicating that a substantial proportion of variance in competence judgements was attributable to stable between-participant differences.

Results showed significant main effects for AQ-10, stimuli sex and mask condition (Table 2). Participants with low AQ-10 scores (M = 4.04, SE = 0.08) rated faces higher on competence than participants with high AQ-10 scores (M = 3.90, SE = 0.08). As for stimuli sex, participants rated female faces (M = 4.07, SE = 0.06) as more competent compared to male faces (M = 3.87, SE = 0.06). Results also revealed that participants rated masked faces (M = 4.06, SE = 0.06) as more competent compared to unmasked faces (M = 3.87, SE = 0.06).

Table 2.

Estimates for the effects of Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-10) facial mask, stimuli sex and participant sex on the ratings of competence in faces.

			95% CI
Effect	β	SE	Lower	Upper	df	t	p
(Intercept)	4.02	0.09	3.85	4.19	311.3	45.59	< .001***
AQ10 (low)	0.28	0.12	0.05	0.52	311.3	2.34	.02 *
Participant sex (male)	0.14	0.15	−0.16	0.44	311.3	0.90	.37
Stimuli sex (male)	−0.20	0.01	0.17	0.23	28,401	14.56	< .001***
Mask (unmasked)	−0.19	0.01	0.16	0.23	28,401	13.65	<.001***
AQ10 × Participant sex	−0.31	0.22	−0.75	0.14	311.3	−1.35	.18
AQ10 × Stimuli sex	−0.05	0.04	−0.13	0.03	28,400	−1.27	.20
Participant sex × Stimuli sex	0.19	0.05	0.08	0.29	28,400	3.55	<.001***
AQ10 × Mask	0.02	0.04	−0.07	0.10	28,400	0.37	.72
Participant sex × Mask	−0.11	0.05	−0.22	0.00	28,400	−2.05	.04 *
Stimuli sex × Mask	−0.01	0.04	−0.10	0.07	28,400	−0.31	.76
AQ10 × Participant sex × Stimuli sex	0.04	0.08	−0.11	0.20	28,400	0.56	.58
AQ10 × Participant sex × Mask	0.14	0.08	−0.01	0.30	28,400	1.80	.07
AQ10 × Stimuli sex × Mask	−0.06	0.06	−0.17	0.06	28,400	−0.95	.34
Participant sex × Stimuli sex × Mask	0.00	0.07	−0.14	0.15	28,400	0.04	.97
AQ10 × Participant sex × Stimuli sex × Mask	0.00	0.01	−0.21	0.23	28,400	0.08	.94

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Results from the analysis also showed significant Participant Sex × Stimuli Sex and Participant Sex × Mask two-way interactions. As for the Participant Sex × Stimuli Sex interaction, women rated female faces (M = 4.09, SE = 0.06) as more competent than male faces (M = 3.78, SE = 0.06, p < .001). Similarly, men rated female faces (M = 4.05, SE = 0.09) as more competent than male faces (M = 3.96, SE = 0.09, p < .001), though as reflected by the interaction, this difference was less marked for the male participants. As for the Participant Sex × Mask interaction, female participants rated masked faces (M = 4.02, SE = 0.06) as more competent than unmasked faces (M = 3.58, SE = 0.06, p < .001). Similarly, male participants also rated masked faces (M = 4.11, SE = 0.09) as more competent than unmasked faces (M = 3.90, SE = 0.09, p < .001), though again, as reflected by the interaction, for the male participants this difference was less severe.

Additional generalized linear mixed model analyses treating AQ-10 as a continuous predictor are reported in the Supplemental materials. These analyses produced the same substantive pattern of findings as the main categorical analyses: AQ-10 did not significantly interact with mask condition for either trustworthiness or competence ratings.

Discussion

The present study investigated the effects of face masks on perceptions of trustworthiness and competence, particularly in individuals with high autistic traits. Results indicated that masked faces were rated as more trustworthy than unmasked faces, supporting prior research suggesting that masks can enhance perceptions of trustworthiness by obscuring negative facial cues (Fang & Kawakami, 2024; Wang et al., 2024). This effect was observed regardless of participant sex or AQ-10 scores, suggesting a generalised pattern across individuals. Female faces were perceived as more trustworthy than male faces (especially by female participants), a pattern that aligns with previous literature on gender-based social perception biases (Buckingham et al., 2006). This gendered pattern of trust perception suggests that social expectations and biases may influence the way individuals evaluate trustworthiness, particularly in masked interactions.

Despite the significant effects observed, no significant interactions were found between autistic traits (AQ-10 scores) and mask condition in trustworthiness judgements. This suggests that the effect of face masks on trust perceptions was similar across individuals with both high and low autistic traits. While previous studies have highlighted that individuals with autistic traits rely more on the mouth for social cue interpretation (Adolphs et al., 2008; Fujioka et al., 2016), the present findings suggest that the obstruction of the lower face did not disproportionately impact their trustworthiness evaluations. Importantly, the literature on gaze allocation and eye avoidance in autism is mixed, and several factors may account for these inconsistencies. At the individual level, co-occurring alexithymia has been shown to better predict reduced attention to the eye region than autism itself, suggesting that variability in alexithymic traits across samples may underlie divergent findings (Cuve et al., 2021). At the methodological level, gaze patterns are highly sensitive to task demands, stimulus characteristics and analytic approaches, with evidence indicating that neither reduced eye gaze nor increased mouth reliance generalises across contexts (Guillon et al., 2014), and that effect sizes vary substantially depending on stimulus type and regions of interest (Frazier et al., 2017). Within this framework, the absence of an interaction in the present study may reflect the specific task structure and static stimuli employed, which may allow participants to flexibly rely on alternative cues such as the eye region—known to play a central role in trust judgements (Bylianto & Chan, 2023)—or to engage compensatory processing strategies. Similar to trustworthiness, our findings indicated that masked faces were rated as more competent than unmasked faces, aligning with prior studies showing that masks can enhance competence judgements due to their association with professionalism (Klucarova, 2022; Liang & Wu, 2022).

Moreover, participants with lower AQ-10 scores (i.e., those with fewer autistic traits) rated faces as more competent than those with higher AQ-10 scores. This suggests that individuals with higher autistic traits may differ in how they evaluate competence when facial cues are partially obscured, potentially reflecting differences in social evaluations (Pazhoohi et al., 2021). However, as with trustworthiness, no significant interactions were observed between AQ-10 scores and mask condition, indicating that the impact of face masks on competence judgements did not differ significantly between those with high and low autistic traits. Finally, given the number of predictors and interaction terms included, the study may have been underpowered to detect smaller or higher-order effects, and these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Implications and Future Directions

These findings hold important implications for understanding how individuals, including those with autistic traits, navigate social interactions in masked environments. The overall increase in positive evaluations of masked faces suggests that mask-wearing may play a role in shaping first impressions, particularly in professional and social settings. These findings have practical implications for workplace interactions, healthcare settings and other environments where trust and competence judgements are critical. However, given the reliance of individuals with autistic traits on mouth visibility for social cue processing, future research should explore whether prolonged mask use creates additional communication challenges for this population, particularly in nuanced social contexts.

Despite these contributions, the study has several limitations. First, the study primarily focused on young adult participants, limiting the generalisability of the findings to other age groups. Older adults, for example, may process masked faces differently due to age-related changes in face perception or varying levels of exposure to mask-wearing in different social contexts. Future research should explore whether these effects hold across diverse age groups and cultural backgrounds. Second, while the study assessed autistic traits using the AQ-10 within a non-clinical sample, it did not include individuals with a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum condition based on standard diagnostic criteria (e.g., The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Given that clinically diagnosed individuals may experience heightened difficulties in face perception, future research should examine how mask-wearing influences their real-world social interactions and whether specific coping strategies emerge in response. Moreover, the facial stimuli were randomly selected and not controlled or matched for perceived attractiveness, which may have influenced judgements of trustworthiness and competence. Future research would benefit from systematically controlling or measuring attractiveness.

Conclusion

In summary, the study highlights that face masks influence perceptions of trustworthiness and competence, with masked faces generally being rated more favourably. However, the impact of face masks on social judgements did not differ significantly based on AQ-10 scores. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how face masks shape social evaluations and offer insights into the broader implications of mask-wearing in professional and interpersonal settings, particularly for individuals with autistic traits.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pec-10.1177_03010066261456095 - Supplemental material for The effect of face masks on the perception of trustworthiness and competence in individuals with autistic traits

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pec-10.1177_03010066261456095 for The effect of face masks on the perception of trustworthiness and competence in individuals with autistic traits by Farid Pazhoohi, Maryam Rostami-Aghoui, Leilani Forby, Keina Aoki and Alan Kingstone in Perception

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Farid Pazhoohi

Alan Kingstone

Ethical Considerations

The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as it pertains to research with human participants.

Consent to Participate

All participants consented to taking part in the study.

Author Contribution(s)

Farid Pazhoohi: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Maryam Rostami-Aghoui: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft.

Leilani Forby: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft.

Keina Aoki: Formal analysis; Writing – original draft.

Alan Kingstone: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Authors will share upon request.

Code Availability

Authors will share upon request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Adolphs

Spezio

M. L.

Parlier

Piven

(2008). Distinct face-processing strategies in parents of autistic children. Current Biology, 18(14), 1090–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.073

Allison

Auyeung

Baron-Cohen

(2012). Toward brief “red flags” for autism screening: The short autism spectrum quotient and the short quantitative checklist in 1,000 cases and 3,000 controls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(2), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.11.003

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5TM, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Barrick

E. M.

Thornton

M. A.

Tamir

D. I.

(2021). Mask exposure during COVID-19 changes emotional face processing. PLoS ONE, 16(10), e0258470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258470

Bennetts

R. J.

Johnson Humphrey

Zielinska

Bate

(2022). Face masks versus sunglasses: Limited effects of time and individual differences in the ability to judge facial identity and social traits. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00371-z

Bernier

Gerdts

Munson

Dawson

Estes

(2012). Evidence for broader autism phenotype characteristics in parents from multiple-incidence autism families. Autism Research, 5(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.226

Buckingham

DeBruine

L. M.

Little

A. C.

Welling

L. L.

Conway

C. A.

Tiddeman

B. P.

Jones

B. C.

(2006). Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.03.001

Bylianto

L. O.

Chan

K. Q.

(2023). Face masks inhibit facial cues for approachability and trustworthiness: An eyetracking study. Current Psychology, 42(31), 26996–27007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03705-8

Carbon

C. C.

(2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566886

10.

Centorrino

Djemai

Hopfensitz

Milinski

Seabright

(2015). Honest signaling in trust interactions: Smiles rated as genuine induce trust and signal higher earning opportunities. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.08.001

11.

Cha

W.-J.

Kim

(2023). Diminished emotion recognition with reduced face gaze in complex situation in individuals with broad autism phenotype. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 23(4), 100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100399

12.

Cuve

H. C.

Castiello

Shiferaw

Ichijo

Catmur

Bird

(2021). Alexithymia explains atypical spatiotemporal dynamics of eye gaze in autism. Cognition, 212, 104710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104710

13.

Cuve

H. C.

Gao

Fuse

(2018). Is it avoidance or hypoarousal? A systematic review of emotion recognition, eye-tracking, and psychophysiological studies in young adults with autism spectrum conditions. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 55, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2018.07.002

14.

De Groot

Van Strien

J. W.

(2017). Evidence for a broad autism phenotype. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0021-9

15.

Dong

Liu

Jia

(2018). Effects of facial expression and facial gender on judgment of trustworthiness: The modulating effect of cooperative and competitive settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02022

16.

Ebner, N. C., Riediger, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2010). FACES-A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.351

17.

Fang

Kawakami

(2024). Changing perceptions of people wearing masks: Two years of living in a pandemic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(6), 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3069

18.

Frazier

T. W.

Strauss

Klingemier

E. W.

Zetzer

E. E.

Hardan

A. Y.

Eng

Youngstrom

E. A.

(2017). A meta-analysis of gaze differences to social and nonsocial information between individuals with and without autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(7), 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.05.005

19.

Fujioka

Inohara

Okamoto

Masuya

Ishitobi

Saito

D. N.

Jung

Arai

Matsumura

Fujisawa

T. X.

Narita

Suzuki

Tsuchiya

K. J.

Mori

Katayama

Sato

Munesue

Okazawa

Tomoda

, … Kosaka

(2016). Gazefinder as a clinical supplementary tool for discriminating between autism spectrum disorder and typical development in male adolescents and adults. Molecular Autism, 7(1), 19–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-016-0083-y

20.

Grahlow

Rupp

C. I.

Derntl

(2022). The impact of face masks on emotion recognition performance and perception of threat. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0262840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262840

21.

Grundmann

Epstude

Scheibe

(2021). Face masks reduce emotion-recognition accuracy and perceived closeness. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0249792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249792

22.

Guillon

Hadjikhani

Baduel

Rogé

(2014). Visual social attention in autism spectrum disorder: Insights from eye tracking studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.013

23.

Guo

Hare

Liu

C. H.

(2022). Impact of face masks and viewers’ anxiety on ratings of first impressions from faces. Perception, 51(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211065230

24.

Hernandez

Metzger

Magné

Bonnet-Brilhault

Roux

Barthelemy

Martineau

(2009). Exploration of core features of a human face by healthy and autistic adults analyzed by visual scanning. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.023

25.

Hopfensitz

Mantilla

(2023). Smiles behind a mask are detectable and affect judgments of attractiveness, trustworthiness, and competence. Journal of Economic Psychology, 98, 102660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2023.102660

26.

Jones

C. R. G.

Pickles

Falcaro

Marsden

A. J. S.

Happé

Scott

S. K.

Sauter

Tregay

Phillips

R. J.

Baird

Simonoff

Charman

(2011). A multimodal approach to emotion recognition ability in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02328.x

27.

Kamatani

Ito

Miyazaki

Kawahara

J. I.

(2021). Effects of masks worn to protect against COVID-19 on the perception of facial attractiveness. i-Perception, 12(3), 20416695211027920. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211027920

28.

Klin

Jones

Schultz

Volkmar

Cohen

(2002). Visual fixation patterns during viewing of naturalistic social situations as predictors of social competence in individuals with autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(9), 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.809

29.

Klucarova

(2022). Do masks matter? Consumer perceptions of social media influencers who wear face masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Psychology, 71(2), 695–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12345

30.

Krumhuber

Manstead

A. S.

Cosker

Marshall

Rosin

P. L.

Kappas

(2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 7(4), 730–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.730

31.

Liang

(2022). Effects of COVID-19 on customer service experience: Can employees wearing facemasks enhance customer-perceived service quality? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.12.004

32.

Marini

Ansani

Paglieri

Caruana

Viola

(2021). The impact of facemasks on emotion recognition, trust attribution and re-identification. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 5577. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84806-5

33.

Min

H. K.

(2022). Revisiting the effects of smile intensity on judgments of warmth and competence: The role of industry context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102, 103152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103152

34.

Moriuchi

J. M.

Klin

Jones

(2017). Mechanisms of diminished attention to eyes in autism. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.15091222

35.

Morrison

K. E.

Chambers

L. K.

Faso

D. J.

Sasson

N. J.

(2018). The content and function of interests in the broad autism phenotype. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 49, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2018.02.002

36.

Buck

E. A.

Todorov

(2019). Revealing hidden gender biases in competence impressions of faces. Psychological Science, 30(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618813092

37.

Oldmeadow

J. A.

Gogan

(2024). Masks wearing off: Changing effects of face masks on trustworthiness over time. Perception, 53(5-6), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066241237430

38.

Oldmeadow

J. A.

Koch

(2021). Effects of face masks on person perception. Perception, 50(10), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211045172

39.

Pazhoohi

Forby

Kingstone

(2021). Facial masks affect emotion recognition in the general population and individuals with autistic traits. PLoS ONE, 16(9), e0257740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257740

40.

Sawyer

A. C. P.

Williamson

Young

R. L.

(2012). Can gaze avoidance explain why individuals with Asperger’s syndrome can’t recognise emotions from facial expressions? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(4), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1283-0

41.

Schmidt

Levenstein

Ambadar

(2012). Intensity of smiling and attractiveness as facial signals of trustworthiness in women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(3), 964–978. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.09.21.PMS.114.3.964-978

42.

Soto-Icaza

Beffara-Bret

Vargas

Aboitiz

Billeke

(2022). Differences in cortical processing of facial emotions in broader autism phenotype. PLoS ONE, 17(1), e0262004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262004

43.

Spezio

M. L.

Adolphs

Hurley

R. S. E.

Piven

(2007). Abnormal use of facial information in high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 929–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0232-9

44.

Spitzer

(2020). Masked education? The benefits and burdens of wearing face masks in schools during the current Corona pandemic. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 20, 100138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100138

45.

Stosic

M. D.

Helwig

Ruben

M. A.

(2024). More than meets the eyes: Bringing attention to the eyes increases first impressions of warmth and competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221128114

46.

Todorov

Olivola

C. Y.

Dotsch

Mende-Siedlecki

(2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831

47.

Todorov

Pakrashi

Oosterhof

N. N.

(2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813

48.

Uljarevic

Hamilton

(2013). Recognition of emotions in autism: A formal meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1695-5

49.

Walker

Wänke

(2017). Caring or daring? Exploring the impact of facial masculinity/femininity and gender category information on first impressions. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0181306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181306

50.

Wang

Lin

Sun

Y. H. P.

Wang

(2024). Influence of protective clothing and masks on facial trustworthiness in an investment game: Insights from a Chinese population study. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00565-7

51.

Wang

Mao

Y. J.

Liu

(2017). Smile big or not? Effects of smile intensity on perceptions of warmth and competence. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw062

52.

Wen

Zuo

Coley

J. D.

Wang

(2020). Do we see masculine faces as competent and feminine faces as warm? Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial perception. Evolutionary Psychology, 18(4), 1474704920980642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704920980642

53.

Wheelwright

Auyeung

Allison

Baron-Cohen

(2010). Defining the broader, medium and narrow autism phenotype among parents using the autism spectrum quotient (AQ). Molecular Autism, 1(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2040-2392-1-10

54.

Wieckowski

A. T.

White

S. W.

(2017). Eye-gaze analysis of facial emotion recognition and expression in adolescents with ASD. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1204924

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.00 MB