A thesis paper for my ATLAS Capstone Class. Please respect my work.

1. BUNCHER 1
Elizabeth Buncher
ATLS 4010-010
October 2015
Purified Perception
Capstone Thesis Paper
---------------
The eye has always been a symbol of wisdom and interpersonal-orientation
throughout the recorded history of mankind. From hieroglyphs in ancient Egyptian
times, to Aristotle’s theories, and even on the American dollar, the power of this
symbol philosophizes intuition. In our current social state, it is the prevalence of
superficial judgments that has led to the resurgence of face-value perception
studies. Thus forming the basis of “Purified Perception”— my artistic thesis
comprised of a series of photographic isolations of the eyes, a comment on
socialized perceptions of other and their reliance on feature-oriented judgments. If
eyes are the windows to the soul, then we should theoretically gain significant
insight to individuals photographed in these portraits through the perception of the
other.
Originally referred to as Physiognomy, popularized in 18th century Europe, is
the study of judgments of personality indicated through facial parts. What was once
discredited as a pseudoscience, due to its relationship with Franz Joseph Gall’s
theory of Phrenology, has been resurrected with the new title of “Face-ism”; named
for its significant impact on the ways in which people seem to develop their
perceptions of others.

2. BUNCHER 2
Before delving too much into the physical factors that influence a person’s
perception of others, one must address the psychological barriers of self and other
subsequent frameworks that influence the construction of perception. Through the
work of psychologist, such as Frederic Bartlett, Solomon Asch, and George Kelly, it
has been discovered that we all have “schemas” that individualize the way we
perceive information, especially in terms of automatic thinking processes. The term
schema refers to the organized patterns of thoughts and behaviors that influence
the way we perceive and understand information and sensory items in the social
world (DiMaggio). Such schemas are specific to an individual as a result the
naturalistic and environmental factors influencing the development of psyche and
personality. As novelist George Gissing stated, “it is the mind which created the
world about us, and even though we stand side by side in the same meadow, my
eyes will never see what is beheld by yours,” meaning that this innate way of
encoding is specific to the individual and their personal impression based on prior
knowledge and experiences. Two people will always have differentiating
perceptions of the same stimuli; this is the basis of which our individuation stands
true.
When introduced to a new face, our automatic thinking kicks in unconscious,
unintentional, and involuntary thought processes, then utilize schemas to develop a
perception of their persona. It is this low-effort thinking process which paves the
way for our biased, snap- judgments of character. In a matter of seconds, we rely on
our most predominant and accessible schemas to fill in the gaps of the unknown.
The key word being “accessible”, meaning that the schemas and concepts that are at

3. BUNCHER 3
the forefront of our minds are more likely to be utilized. For example, lets say Stacie
is announcing her plans, to study abroad in Europe, to her two best friends. The
friend who had just finished watching the movie Taken, starring Liam Neeson,
would probably responding with a warning about Stacie’s safety. Contrasting the
reaction of her other friend, who has been socialized into an understanding of
Europe from the travel channel and would likely respond with congratulatory
excitement. Each friend was primed by their individual recent experiences and
subsequently responds accordingly, regardless of Stacie’s presentation of the news.
Typically it is the most recent and the most traumatic/meaningful schemas that our
mind will initially utilize in the development of perception. Our highly stigmatized
experiences – those heavy, emotionally weighted, traumatic and dramatic memories
– tend to influence our perceptions the most, which consequentially paves the way
for the miss-projection of self onto other.
This projection of self can be both beneficial and harmful depending on the
nature of the perception. It is very possible that the people viewing my portraits
could be dealing with some insecurities of self, and the projection of their own
issues may fill the ambiguity of the individuals in the photographs. Although this
may be problematic in other aspects of the social would, it is beneficial to the
reception of my work. For what is art if it doesn’t instill a personal connection
and/or reactive emotion of those in observance.
In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s The Conduct of Life, he writes “An eye can
threaten like a loaded and leveled gun, or can insult like hissing or kicking; or, in its
altered mood, by beams of kindness, it can make the heart dance with joy…One of

4. BUNCHER 4
the most wonderful things in nature in a glance of the eye, it transcends speech, it is
the bodily symbol of identity,” (Emerson). This to say that eyes are not only the
windows to the soul but are the gateway to the conscious and unconscious
emotions.
It has been theorized that alongside our personalized schemas, there are
physical factors that influence our perceptions of other individuals. A furrowed
brow, chiseled chin, mousy nose, the eye circumference, as well as the width
between the eyes, are some of the more common features repeatedly present in the
attribution of characteristics in personality perception. Regardless of its basis in
theory, there in no questioning that these features are stigmatized in the
sociological American culture. These snap-decisions of characteristic assessment are
much more than a theory because we act upon these opinions in all aspects of life;
they are contributing factors to the development of the schemas of our observations
and heavily linked to emotion.
Numerous publications by Christopher Olivola, assistant professor at
Carnegie Mellon Institute, have suggested that your aspects of a person’s facial
structure can be the basis of determining such characteristics as trustworthiness,
amicability, competence, and dominance (Olivola 2014). In an article published by
BBC in July of 2015, author David Robinson attributes “face-ism” to our obsession
with celebrity culture, especially in terms of physical beauty. He references a
statistic published by economist Daniel Hamermesh, which states that there is a 10
to 12% increase in pay for professionals that are considered attractive (Robinson
2015). Without being too concerned with what defines a person as attractive, the

5. BUNCHER 5
take-away from Hamermesh’s statistic is the success associated with positively
perceived physique.
In rebuttal of such “face-ism” theories, researchers Friederike Funk and
Alexander Todorov, argue that this human tendency “needs to be corrected, or at
least mitigate, because faces are not valid predictors of a person’s traits,” (Olivola,
2014. CELL PRESS). Although further research in this field has in fact yielded
clinical invalidity in terms of accuracy of such face-value perceptions, the prevalence
of these socialized stigmas remain influential to the study of social observation. In
other words, the cues of socialization may not be in congruence with clinical
assessments of personality, but that does not negate their importance due to the
widespread utilization of these face-value stigmas.
It is important to clarify the manner in which this matter of validity does, in
fact, bear weight. This is when these superficial impressions become predictors of
important social outcomes. Such as in politics, legal matters of the court, and
militant operations, there could be serious ethical problems and consequences that
can result from such invalid, physique based, judgments of character. Relating back
to the way schemas categorize information, much of the judgment of facial features
is a result of their direct correlation with a specific emotion— as evident in even the
most juvenile of facets, such as emojis, as well as medical facets, such as the popular
“How are you feeling today?” chart used my medical practitioners. Both mediums of
which, rely on a series of elementary depictions of facial expressions; there couldn’t
be a more concrete example of popularized “face-ism” immersion in today’s culture.

6. BUNCHER 6
Modern psychology has suggested that we tend to be psychologically
resistant to remedial action of inference due to a possible overconfidence of self.
Which is to imply that, in terms of established perceptions of others, people often
neglect to restructure their initial perceptions of character even when evidence of
incongruence is abruptly apparent or attainable. Such suggestion sprouts the
possibility of serious ethical problems that may result from such a physique-based
judgment of character, in congruence with the disregard of restructuring initial
perceptions. These snap-decisions of characteristic assessment are proving to be
much more than initial, fleeting observations because we rely upon these opinions
in all aspects of life, everything from a task as medial as determining friend vs. foe to
establishing opinions of the people campaigning to lead our country. The latter of
which has been historically evident in the way politicians tenaciously carry
themselves throughout their campaigns, especially in regards to televised
campaigning and graphic media. The resounding amount of people that admitted to
being influenced by the televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon is one of the
more telling examples of this “face-ism” theory of perception (history.com). It is the
advantage of media exposure that public figures utilize in order to gain supporters
based on superficial aesthetics. However, this could also be detrimental to their
campaign and even more-so detrimental to its potential effects on voters. This push
for aesthetic influence could consequentially have a detrimental effect on the
accuracy of our judgment and decision making skills because these surface-level
attributions seem to develop into lasting judgments of character. As Emerson so

7. BUNCHER 7
eloquently put it, “When the eyes say one thing, and the tongue another, a practiced
man relies on the language of the first” (The Conduct of Life, 1860).
Luckily, it is this emphasis on visual perception that elicits an effective
communication between ambiguous portrait photography and the viewers receiving
them. Essential to this process are the eyes of both parties, encompassing the
theories proposed through social interaction research and “face-ism” perceptions.
Thus, in a correlational manner, solidifying the importance of the eyes to
interpersonal interaction; not just as the windows to the soul but also as the
foundation of which we develop our assumptions of character. The isolation of the
eyes serves to eliminate other compounding variables in the structure of a face, thus
assisting in the instinctive socialized discernment of persona and purification of
perception. Regardless of clinical accuracy, regardless of individualized schemas of
perception, and regardless of stigmatized facial-features, as philosopher Robertson
Davies once said, “the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend”.

8. BUNCHER 8
Bibliography
Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. Social Psychology. 7th ed.
N.p.: Pearson Education, 2010. Print. Global Edition.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review Of Sociology, 23263-287.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Conduct of Life. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1860. Print.
Hasan, Ali and Fumerton, Richard, "Knowledge by Acquaintance vs. Description",
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/knowledge-
acquaindescrip/>.
Olivola CY, Todorov A (2010) Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the
diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 46: 315–324.
Olivola, C. Y., Funk, F., & Todorov, A. (2014). Social attributions from faces bias
human choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 566-570.
Olivola, Christopher. "Open Minded? Here's How Much Facial Stereotyping
Influences Your Decisions." The Conversation. US PILOT, 22 Oct. 2014. Web.
18 Oct. 2015.
Olivola, Christopher, et. all. "Impressions Shaped by Facial Appearance Foster
Biased Decisions." Online Journal Posting. Eurekalert.org. CELL PRESS, 21
Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
"The Kennedy-Nixon Debates." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 20
Oct. 2015.
Rezlescu, C., Duchaine, B., Olivola, C. Y., & Chater, N. (2012). Unfakeable facial
configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without
information about past behavior. PLoS-ONE, 7, e34293.