Perceptions of Creepiness and the “Kubrick Stare”

Perceptions of Creepiness and the “Kubrick Stare” | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceptions of Creepiness and the “Kubrick Stare” Elle Lévesque, Melissa Howse, Jessica Doyle, Margo Watt, Yanna Kachafanas, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Nonverbal Behavior → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Creepiness is a commonly experienced but little understood construct. The present study examined the impact of target facial image gender and orientation on perceptions of creepiness, and whether perceptions varied by participant sex and discomfort with ambiguity (DAS). Participants [ n = 137, 68.6% female; M age = 23.71 (9.73) years] rated the creepiness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness of 44 target images – 11 male and 11 female images, in each of two conditions: upright and downward tilted head or “Kubrick stare”. After controlling for participant age, results did not vary significantly by participant sex or DAS level (high vs. low). As predicted, creepiness ratings were significantly higher in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition and for male (vs. female) faces with the magnitude of difference significantly higher for male (vs. female) faces in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition; η 2 = .46 [lower limit = .35 and upper limit = .54] vs. η 2 = .32 [lower limit = .21 and upper limit = .41], respectively. There was no association between creepiness and trustworthiness in either condition. Results extend our understanding of how we perceive creepiness and the importance of face orientation in social processing. creepy discomfort with ambiguity facial orientation risk perception Figures Figure 1 Introduction Creepiness refers to a sensation of uneasiness, discomfort, and/or fear arising from particular people, places, or situations. Creepiness is a common experience yet little understood. While Freud did not use the term “creepiness”, his reference to the uncanny rings eerily familiar. According to Freud (1919), the uncanny ( unheimlich) represents the sense of discomfort induced by ambiguity – dissonance between what is familiar and unfamiliar. Indeed, in the first published study on “the nature of creepiness”, McAndrew and Koehnke (2016) concluded that the sensation of creepiness is an emotional response to the ambiguity of threat; an alert to maintain vigilance during times of uncertainty. In reaching this conclusion, McAndrew and Koehnke (2016) examined the responses of 1341 community participants (77% women; M age = 29 years) to questions about the physical appearance, behavioural patterns, occupations, and hobbies of a creepy person. Participants reported getting “creeped out” by people who displayed unusual physical characteristics (e.g., dishevelment), non-normative behaviours (e.g., standing too close), and certain hobbies (e.g., collecting or watching things). Men (vs. women) were more commonly perceived as creepy, and women (vs. men) were more apt to associate creepiness with a sexual threat. Participants commonly believed that creepy people were unpredictable, purposely hiding something, and intending to do them harm. Watt et al. (2017) also sought to elucidate the physical and behavioural characteristics associated with creepiness. In their first study, 185 undergraduates (74% women, M age = 19.16 years) were asked to describe characteristics presumed to define creepiness. Results showed that men who were 31 to 50 years of age, with ectomorphic (linear) body-types, and disheveled appearance (e.g., poor hygiene, dishevelment, and general unattractiveness) were more apt to be perceived as creepy. Judgements of creepiness were evoked by non-normative conduct, and behaviour deemed socially unacceptable (e.g., staring or avoiding eye contact, invading personal space, making inappropriate comments); odd physical appearance in mannerisms and dress. Judgements tended to be made “instantly” (intuitively) and relied largely on the eyes. In Watt et al.’s (2017) second study, 48 participants (81% women, M age = 19.45 years) were asked to rate the attractiveness, trustworthiness, and creepiness of 45 static facial images using the Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI; Porter et al., 2008). Images were derived from three groups: Neutral (from University of Stirling’s Psychological Image Collection; Minear et al., 2004), AMW (derived from America’s Most Wanted), and “ Creepy ” (derived from the previous pilot study). Participants were instructed to follow their intuitive reaction in rating each face. Of the three groups, the creepy images were found to be the least attractive, least trustworthy, and most creepy. Following from previous findings, Doyle et al. (2022) sought to further investigate the role of ambiguity and eyes in judgements of creepiness. Study 1 participants ( N = 254; 79% women; M age = 31.05 years) completed self-report measures of three theoretically similar constructs: (1) discomfort with ambiguity (i.e., discomfort with a situational lack of definitive meaning, measured by The Multidimensional Attitude Toward Ambiguity Scale - Discomfort with Ambiguity; Lauriola et al., 2016); (2) intolerance of uncertainty (i.e., a disposition resulting from negative beliefs about the implications of uncertainty, measured by the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12; Carleton et al., 2007); and (3) fear of the unknown (i.e., tendency to be afraid when information about a situation or stimulus is lacking, measured by the Fear of the Unknown Scale; Harrison & Haneghan, 2011). Results showed that high discomfort with ambiguity was the most predictive of high creepiness ratings. In a second study, Doyle et al. (2022) complemented subjective self-reporting to creepy faces with objective measurement. Eye tracking software was used to assess participants’ attention to eye-and non-eye regions when presented with two “ Creepy ” and two Neutral male facial images (matched for hair, eye colour, and facial hair) derived from Study 1. Thirty-two undergraduates (66.7% women; M age = 19.97 years) were shown each of the four facial images, presented individually and separated by a visual mask in two sequential viewing blocks. Each face was viewed for two seconds, twice. While participants did not show differential attendance to, or avoidance of, the “ Creepy ” versus Neutral images, they did fixate significantly longer on the eye (vs. non-eye) regions across all facial images. Doyle et al. (2022) concluded that, because static images cannot provide the behavioural and contextual cues typical of real-life social interactions, future research should use animated images to enhance ecological validity. Doyle et al.’s (2022) recommendation to use animated images fits with research showing that facial motion and patterned configurations are important for inferring emotion (Bould et al., 2008; Scherer et al., 2019). Facial motion introduces potential ambiguity. With this in mind, Lévesque and Watt (2022) tested whether adding subtle motion to static facial images would affect perceptions of creepiness. Participants included 326 community members and 102 undergraduates (77.5% women, M age = 20.21 years) who were randomly assigned to view 18 faces drawn from the same three facial image groups (“Creepy,” AMW, Neutral) used by Watt et al. (2017) and Doyle et al. (2022). Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: static images versus dynamic images (animated via Python3) and rated images on the same three traits (attractiveness, trustworthiness, creepiness) using the ATI measure (Porter et al., 2008). The dynamic facial images consisted of three different motion pattern types: (1) staring straight on; (2) staring with blinking; and (3) slight gaze shift and returned gaze to center. It was expected that any motion type would yield more polarized (extreme) ATI ratings than the static images. No prediction was made as to the direction of polarization. Contrary to predictions, results showed no significant difference between static and dynamic facial image conditions. While facial motion did not seem to change perceptions of creepiness, Lévesque and Watt (2022) questioned whether facial orientation would. For example, a well-known cinematic technique, known as the “Kubrick stare”, involves having characters display a downward head tilt, while continuing to look straight ahead, during scenes meant to convey unsettling subject matter. Perhaps, the best example is Jack Nicholson’s ominous glare as the character Jack Torrance in The Shining (Kubrick, 1980). The “Kubrick stare” is intended to signify that the character is unstable or possibly deranged, and something intense is apt to happen. In other words, it is meant to be unnerving (see Ferrier, 2023). Possible explanations for the “Kubrick stare” effect come from research on how emotions are perceived based on facial expressions. For example, Mondloch and Maurer (2008) found that, as faces deviate from an upright position, our holistic facial processing abilities (i.e., processing faces as a Gestalt ) diminish. When the head is tilted downward, the mouth appears to curve slightly upward giving the impression of a smile, which is typically associated with friendliness, but it also narrows the distance between the eyes and the mouth, which has been found to convey the impression of anger (see Lyons et al., 2000). In short, the downward tilted head introduces threat ambiguity (i.e., rendering it difficult to know if the stare is friendly or angry, or if the person is a friend or foe). In a series of five studies with over 1500 participants, Witkower and Tracey (2019) found that when a head was tilted downward and eye gaze directed forward, perceptions of dominance increased . They explained that tilting the head downward creates a visual illusion of facial dynamics suggesting propensity to use intimidation or threat to influence others. This suggestion impacts social perceptions and may account for why the Kubrick stare is so popular in mystery, thriller, and horror movies. The present study investigated whether facial orientation – head tilted downward – would influence perceptions of creepiness. Creepiness ratings of neutral faces (i.e., no expression, relaxed musculature) displaying a downward head tilt while staring directly ahead (i.e., “Kubrick Stare”) were compared to ratings for the same neutral faces in an upright position. Facial images were drawn (with permission) from a diverse sample of standardized (neutral) faces compiled by Witkower and Tracey (2019). The following predictions were proffered: H1. Facial images in the Kubrick stare condition would be perceived as creepier than the same faces presented in the upright position. H2. Male (vs. female) faces would be perceived as creepier, especially in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition. H3 . Female (vs. male) participants would confer higher ratings of creepiness for both image groups (male & female faces) and orientations (Kubrick stare & upright). H4. Participants with greater discomfort with ambiguity would confer higher creepiness ratings across target image groups (male & female faces) and orientation (Kubrick stare & upright). Method and Procedure Participants Out of a total of 430 respondents, 288 were removed during data cleaning for missing values and screening for bots; and five outliers were removed in assessment of violation of assumptions. The final sample numbered 137 (68.6% female); 94 undergraduate psychology students (85.1% female) and 43 community respondents recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (30.0% female). Measures and Materials Demographics Questionnaire Participants completed an author-constructed questionnaire that inquired about age, sex, gender identity, and ethnic identification. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate their current legal sex and provided the options of female, male, intersex, X (none), other, and prefer not to say. All participants identified as being either female (68.3%) or male (31.7%), with M age = 23.71 ( SD = 9.73) years. Regarding gender, participants were asked to indicate all items that best described them with the options: non-binary (1.4%); two-spirit (0.7%), transgender (2.1%), man (29.6%), woman, (64.8%), other/comments (1.4%). Participants identified as White (81.7%); Black or African American/Canadian (5.6%); Asian (3.5%); Hispanic, Latino, Spanish origin (2.8%); First Nations (2.1%); American Indian (2.1%); Middle Eastern or North African (0.7%); or Other (0.7%). Multidimensional Attitude Toward Ambiguity Scale – Discomfort with Ambiguity The Discomfort with Ambiguity subscale (DAS; Lauriola et al., 2016) is comprised of seven items that assess personal responses to ambiguous stimuli in interpersonal, social, and occupational contexts. On a 7-point Likert scale (1 = I strongly agree , 7 = I strongly agree ), participants respond to items such as “I am just a little uncomfortable with people unless I feel that I can understand their behaviour.” Higher scores on the DAS indicate more pronounced discomfort with situations wherein the meaning or motive is unclear. The DAS has been found to demonstrate good reliability and internal consistency (Doyle et al., 2022; Lauriola et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was .82 indicating very good internal consistency. For the purposes of the present study, two DAS groups were created via median split score of 35 with n = 75 less than or equal to 35, and n = 67 greater than 35. The two DAS groups did not differ significantly by age, t (134 ) = .45, p = .65; sex, X 2 = .20, p = .72; or sample type (undergraduate vs. MTurk), X 2 = 1.90, p = .45. Facial Image Stimuli Facial image stimuli were derived with permission from Dr. Zachary Witkower, at the University of British Columbia Emotion and Self Lab. A detailed description of procedures used to capture the facial images, as well as any inclusion and exclusion criteria, can be found in Witkower and Tracy (2019). Facial images – ‘targets’ – were captured conveying a neutral expression in the upper and lower face. Each target displayed two different head angles – a neutral front-facing angle and a tilted angle where targets tilted their heads downward between 10° and 15° while looking into the camera (i.e., the Kubrick stare; Witkower & Tracy, 2019). In the present study, the number of male and female targets was balanced across conditions and by racial/ethnic composition (i.e., White and East Asian). Only target images for whom racial composition could be confirmed were included. Additional images were excluded due to potentially distracting features, such as poor lighting, accessories worn by the target, and minimal angle differences in facial orientation. The final selection of facial image stimuli included 44 images in total: 11 male target pairs (2 White, 9 East Asian) and 11 female target pairs (2 White, 9 East Asian). Assessment of Traits Inventory The Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI; Porter et al., 2008) is a rating sheet used to capture respondents’ immediate judgements after viewing a target facial image. As in Doyle et al. (2022) and Watt et al. (2017), participants in the present study were asked to provide ratings of creepiness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness for each of the 44 target images (11 male and 11 female in each of the two conditions: Kubrick stare and upright) on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = not at all , 10 = extremely ). Participants were asked to rate the image reflexively based on their immediate response to the face. Mean scores for all three ATI characteristics were computed for each category of target by orientation: male – upright, male – tilted (Kubrick stare), female – upright, female – tilted (Kubrick stare). Following the rating instructions, two commitment questions were presented whereby participants were asked to commit to (1) providing thoughtful and honest ratings in response to each face, and (2) providing ratings that reflected their immediate response to the presented face. If participants were unsure or unable to commit to either question, then the survey ended. Additional Questions At the end of the survey, participants were asked to respond to three questions about the ease with which they rated creepiness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness, respectively. Ratings were made on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = very easy , 4 = very hard ). Finally, open-ended responses were invited as to whether a particular feature of the facial images facilitated or impeded the ease with which they made their ratings. Procedure This study received clearance from the university’s Research Ethics Board [#26184]. Participants were required to provide informed consent and were assured that survey responses would be anonymous and confidential. After completing the online survey (delivered via Qualtrics), participants viewed a debriefing page apprising them of the study’s objectives. Data Analytic Approach To test that creepiness ratings would be higher in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition, a 4-way mixed repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with orientation (upright vs. tilted down) and target (male vs. female facial images) as the within-subjects variables, and participant sex (male vs. female) and DAS group (low vs. high) as between-subjects variables. The assumptions of normality and sphericity were met. Box's M test of equality of covariances was significant 80.19, p < .001, so Pillai's trace criterion was used as it is more robust to departures from assumptions. Bivariate correlations were used to assess associations among key variables of interest. Results Descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The undergraduate sample was disproportionately female (85.1%) and significantly younger than the MTurk sample: t (40.98) = 9.43, p <.001; 18.90 ( SD = 2.62) and 35.28 ( SD = 10.84) years, respectively. Consequently, age was included as a covariate in all analyses. Undergraduate and MTurk samples did not differ significantly in DAS scores t = 1.08, p = .28; 34.86 ( SD = 7.39) and 33.40 ( SD = 7.50), respectively. The mean DAS score for all participants was 34.27 ( SD = 7.41); median = 35.0; Range = 11-49, which is significantly higher than the mean score reported by Lauriola et al. (2016). Hypotheses Testing H1: As predicted, the mixed repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect for ORIENTATION , F (1,131) = 46.93, p < .001; η p 2 = .26, with creepiness ratings in the Kubrick stare condition significantly higher than in the upright condition, EM = 5.51 ( SE = .14) versus EM = 3.70 ( SE = .14), respectively. After controlling for participant age, F (1, 131) = 6.78, p = .01, there was no significant interaction between ORIENTATION and participant sex, F (1, 131) = .05, p = .83, or DAS level, F (1, 131) = 2.16, p = .14. H2: As predicted , there was a significant main effect of TARGET SEX F (1, 131) = 46.89, p < .001; η p 2 = .26, with male targets rated significantly creepier than female targets, EM = 5.11 ( SE = .13) versus EM = 4.11 ( SE = .14), respectively. After controlling for participant age, F( 1, 131) = 12.98, p = .001, there was no significant interaction between TARGET SEX and participant sex, F (1, 131) = .62, p = .25, or DAS level, F (1, 131) = 1.68, p = .20. There was a significant interaction between ORIENTATION and TARGET SEX F (1, 131) = 10.68, p < .001. Follow-up pairwise comparisons of the simple effects indicated that male (vs. female) target images were deemed significantly creepier in both the Kubrick stare and upright conditions, [Male Kubrick EM = 6.16 ( SE = .16) vs. Female Kubrick EM = 4.85 ( SE = .16) and Male Upright EM = 4.04 ( SE = .15) vs. Female Upright EM = 3.36 ( SE = .15)] implying that the detected interaction was magnitude driven, rather than due to directional differences. Further examination of effect sizes suggested that the magnitude of the difference between male and female faces was greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition (Kubrick: η p 2 = .46, lower limit = .35 and upper limit = .54; upright: η p 2 = .32, lower limit = .21 and upper limit = .41). See Figure 1. After controlling for participant age, F (1, 131) = 2.51, p =.11, there was no significant interaction between target image orientation and participant sex, F (1, 132) = .08, p = .78, or DAS level, F (1, 132) = 0.54, p = .47. Bivariate Correlations In both orientation conditions, female participants’ perceptions of creepiness correlated positively with perceptions of attractiveness and trustworthiness. The pattern was different for male participants whose perceptions of creepiness were not associated with trustworthiness in either condition and not associated with attractiveness in the Kubrick stare condition. Across both conditions, both male and female participants’ perceptions of attractiveness were highly positively correlated with trustworthiness with shared variance ranging from 75% to 85%. See Table 4. Open Ended Responses About Difficulty Assigning Ratings and Influential Features At the end of the survey, participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale how difficult it had been for them to assign ratings and if there was a particular facial image feature that made it easier or difficult for them to do so. Overall, most participants found it easy to assign creepiness and attractiveness ratings, but more difficult to assign trustworthiness ratings. See Table 5. Of the 119 participants who responded to what influenced their judgements, 46 (38.7%) cited the tilt or angle of the head as indicative of creepiness. A few cited the eyebrows and particularly the images where the targets were “Looking up through their eyebrows or scrunched faces”. Many mentioned facial expressions but did not clearly define or explain what they meant. Twenty-six participants (21.8%) cited the eyes specifically as impacting their decision. “You can see the “creepiness” in a person’s eyes.” A number of participants mentioned how difficult it was to judge trustworthiness from photos and how, the more attractive was the image, the less creepy it was. At least three participants mentioned gender as an influencing factor in that they perceived males to be creepier and less trustworthy than women. One participant offered that: “The saying ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ really came to life during this survey. Each photo can tell a story”. Discussion The present study investigated the impact of target facial image gender and orientation (upright or downward tilted head) on perceptions of creepiness and whether perceptions varied by perceiver sex and dispositional discomfort with ambiguity (DAS). As predicted (H1), there was a main effect of orientation, with results showing that a downward tilted head, or “Kubrick stare”, yielded significantly higher creepiness ratings than an upright tilted head. Also as predicted (H2), there was a main effect of target gender whereby male target images were perceived to be creepier than female faces. A significant interaction between target gender and orientation showed that the magnitude of difference in perceptions of creepiness of male (vs. female) images was significantly greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition. After controlling for age, neither participant sex nor DAS level (high vs. low) were found to influence creepiness ratings. Finding that facial orientation, specifically a downward tilted head or “Kubrick stare”, increases perceptions of creepiness fits with extant empirical and cinematic literature. A downward tilted head reduces facial processing abilities (Mondloch & Maurer, 2008 ) and constrains our ability to read facial cues. Facial cues are one of our primary sources of social information, allowing us to draw inferences about a person’s intentions or trustworthiness (Baccolo & Macchi Cassia, 2019 ; Willis & Todorov, 2006 ). For example, Witkower and Trace (2019) found that a downward tilted head, coupled with eye gaze directed forward, created a visual illusion of facial dynamics suggesting dominance, potential intimidation, or threat to influence others. A facial orientation that confounds our ability to process facial information and changes how information is interpreted could give way to cognitive and affective ambiguity surrounding the target’s intentions. Threat ambiguity has been identified as playing a key role in perceptions of creepiness (Doyle et al., 2022 ; McAndrew & Koehnke, 2016 ; Watt et al., 2017 ). This could explain why the cinematic “Kubrick stare” technique is so effective in disquieting audiences. This facial orientation seems to signal to the perceiver that the target’s intentions are unclear and potentially sinister. The significant interaction between orientation and target gender showed that the effect of facial orientation varied between male and female target images. Indeed, while male targets elicited significantly higher creepiness ratings across both upright and tilted conditions as compared to female targets, the effect size was significantly greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) orientation. This finding fits with literature, such as McAndrew and Koehnke ( 2016 ) and Watt et al. ( 2017 ), both of which found that males were more apt to be perceived as creepy than females. It is possible that the ambiguity created by a facial orientation that inhibits social information processing is enhanced when the facial target is male, leading to more pronounced perceptions of creepiness. Moreover, the downward tilted head is known to increase perceptions of dominance (Witkower & Tracey, 2019), and cross-culturally males tend to demonstrate more social dominance than females (Pratto et al., 2006 ). It seems likely that judging male (vs. female) images as creepier reflects a societal understanding that, generally speaking, males pose more physical threat to females than vice versa. Related is the lack of correlation between creepiness and trustworthiness, especially for male images. On the other hand, people’s “concept of creepy” seems to be more nuanced. For example, prima facie, commonly reported features of creepiness (e.g., disheveled, unhygienic, socially awkward, ectomorphic; Watt et al., 2017 ) would not seem to signify physical threat. Certainly, more research is needed to tease apart the objective and subjective components of creepiness. Given the literature, it had been expected that female (vs. male) participants and those with higher (vs. lower) discomfort with ambiguity would confer higher ratings of creepiness across target image groups (male & female faces) and orientation (Kubrick stare & upright). Contrary to predictions, no significant differences were found in creepiness ratings based on participant sex or discomfort with ambiguity after controlling for participant age given that the undergraduate sample was disproportionately female and significantly younger than the MTurk sample. It is recommended that future research investigate the role of participant age in creepiness judgements and its possible interaction with sex and discomfort with ambiguity. Discomfort with ambiguity – ambiguity intolerance or ambiguity aversion (Furnham & Marks, 2013 ) – reflects a dispositional “dis-ease” when one is unable to discern a clear meaning in the present moment due to insufficient information (Ellsberg, 1961 ). Discomfort with ambiguity impels one toward increased distress and risk aversion (Jach & Smillie, 2019 ; Petrocchi et al., 2022 ), and interpreting threat in ambiguous situations or interactions (Chen & Lovibond, 2016 ). Some research has found that men tend to experience greater discomfort when faced with situations with no obvious solution, or people whose intentions are unclear (Firoozabadi & Bahredar, 2011 ; Srivastava, 2023 ), while at least one study has found that males demonstrate higher ambiguity acceptance than females (Cuppelo et al., 2023). The present results, however, are consistent with research that has shown no sex differences in ambiguity tolerance (Kamran, 2011 ; Lamberton et al., 2005 ). Findings from the current study carry interesting theoretical and real-life implications. Results show that a downward tilted face orientation enhances ambiguity, possibly by limiting facial processing abilities. Obscuring facial processing impedes social information processing, hindering our ability to infer the other’s intentions. This ambiguity appears to increase perceptions of creepiness. Not only do facial cues influence perceptions of another person, but they also inform our social decision-making (Jaeger et al., 2019 ). Neta and colleagues (e.g., Neta et al., 2011 , 2017 ) found evidence to support their hypothesis that negative (vs. positive) responses to ambiguity are more automatic, which seems to align with Watt et al.’s ( 2017 ) finding that perceptions of creepiness are made quickly and intuitively. Being perceived as creepy could lead to social consequences, such as ostracization and stigmatization. For example, faces with ambiguous features are perceived as creepier than faces drawn from America’s Most Wanted (Doyle et al., 2022 ; Watt et al., 2017 ). Ambiguous facial features could influence assessments of risk in criminal justice settings. Recent research by Olivera et al. (2021) suggests that there are meaningful ramifications for justice-involved participants who are perceived as creepy. Results of the present study must be considered in light of certain limitations. Firstly, we based our analyses on static facial images, which could decrease ecological validity of the findings by limiting dynamic and multimodal social information inherent to everyday social interactions. This method is consistent with previous work on creepiness (e.g., Doyle et al., 2022 ; Watt et al., 2017 ) and images were procured with the permission of previous researchers who went to commendable lengths to generate and standardize the images (see Witkower & Tracey, 2019). To address this limitation in the future and consistent with the suggestion of others (e.g., Doyle et al., 2022 ), future research could generate video-based stimuli that capture actors with “creepy” appearances and displaying “creepy” behaviours and expressions. Increasing AI options also should be explored. Secondly, after comprehensive data cleaning and conditioning, a relatively small sample size remained especially of male participants. Although the sample size was clearly sufficient to detect relevant effects, we provide a note of caution with respect to generalizability of findings. Whereas the role of ambiguity in creepiness perceptions seems well established, further explanations have been proffered. Most recently, Kjeldgaard-Christiansen and Clasen ( 2023 ) have proposed a role for mentalization (i.e., ability to apprehend the mind of another person and possibly predict their behaviour) in perceptions of creepiness. Disrupted mentalization has been linked to mental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum), attachment and personality problems (e.g., neuroticism). To date, studies of creepiness have focused on the target of perceptions rather than the perceiver. Future research could benefit by examining the perceivers and whether they differ in how they judge creepy facial images based on mentalizing capacities (Dimitrijevic et al., 2018 ). Declarations Author Contribution E.L., M. H., J.D., and M.W. wrote the main manuscript text; M. W. and M. H. analyzed data and prepared tables; M.H. and C.L. prepared figures; YK did referencing and formatting; PH provided expertise and consulted with her research assistant M. H.; all authors except PH reviewed the manuscript. References Baccolo, E., & Macchi Cassia, V. (2019). Individual differences in perceptual sensitivity and representation of facial signals of trustworthiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 45 (2), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000601 Bould, E., Morris, N., & Wink, B. (2008). Recognising subtle emotional expressions: The role of facial movements. Cognition and Emotion , 22 (8) , 1569-1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801921156 Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. A. P., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21 , 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 Chen, J. T.-H., & Lovibond, P. F. (2016). Intolerance of uncertainty is associated with increased threat appraisal and negative affect under ambiguity but not uncertainty . Behavior Therapy , 47 (1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.09.004 Cuppello S., Treglown, L., & Furnham, A. (2023). Intelligence, personality and tolerance of ambiguity. Journal of Intelligence , 11 (6), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060102 Dimitrijevic, A., Hanak, N., Altaras, A., & Jolic Marjanovic, Z. (2018). The mentalization scale (MentS) : A self-report measure for the assessment of mentalizing capacity. Journal of Personality Assessment , 100 (3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1310730 Doyle, J. N., Watt, M. C., Howse, M., Blair, K., & Hauf, P. (2022). What is creepiness? The underlying role of ambiguity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 54 (3), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000269 Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 75 (4), 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324 Ferrier, A. (2023, March 22). The cinematic gaze: The meaning behind the trademark Stanley Kubrick stare . Far Out. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/cinematic-gaze-meaning-behind-the-trademark-kubrick-stare/ Firoozabadi, A., & Bahredar, M. J. (2011). P02-419-Ambiguity tolerance in students entering medical school (SHIRAZ-2006). European Psychiatry, 26, 1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(11)72720-1 Furnham, A. & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4 (9) , 717-728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102 Freud, S. (1919). ‘Das Unheimliche [The Uncanny]’, Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works 24 vols, ed. and trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1953) vol. 17, pp. 217-252. Harrison, G., & Haneghan, J. P. V. (2011). The gifted and the shadow of the night: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities and their correlation to insomnia, death anxiety, and fear of the unknown. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34 (4) , 669-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400407 Jach, H. K., & Smillie, L. D. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.003 Jaeger, B., Evans, A. M., Stel, M., & van Beest, I. (2019). Explaining the persistent influence of facial cues in social decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 148 (6), 1008-1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000591 Kamran, S. K. (2011). Effects of Gender on Ambiguity Tolerance of Iranian English Language Learners. Journal of Education and Practice , 2 (11&12), 25-33. Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, J., & Clasen, M. (2023). Creepiness and the uncanny. Style , 57 (3), 322-349. https://doi.org/10.5325/style.57.3.0322 Kubrick, S. (Director). (1980). The shining [Film]. Lamberton, B., Fedorowicz, J., & Roohani, S. J. (2005). Tolerance for ambiguity and IT competency among accountants. Journal of Information Systems , 19 (1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.2005.19.1.75 Lauriola, M., Foschi, R., Moscae, O., & Weller, J. (2016). Attitude toward ambiguity: Empirically robust factors in self-report personality scales. Assessment, 23 (3), 353-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115577188 Lévesque, E., & Watt, M. C. (2022). The crux of creepiness. The role of motion in perceptions of creepiness [Unpublished Honours thesis, St. Francis Xavier University]. Lyons, M. J., Campbell, R., Plante, A., Coleman, M., Kamachi, M., & Akamatsu, S. (2000). The Noh mask effect: Vertical viewpoint dependence of facial expression perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 267 (1459) , 2239-2245. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1274 McAndrew, F. T., & Koehnke, S. S. (2016). On the nature of creepiness. New Ideas in Psychology, 43, 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.03.003 Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 630-633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206543 Mondloch, C. J., & Maurer, D. (2008). The effect of face orientation on holistic processing. Perception, 37 (8), 1175-1186. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6048 Neta, M., Cantelon, J., Haga, Z., Mahoney, C. R., Taylor, H. A., & Davis, F. C. (2017). The impact of uncertain threat on affective bias: Individual differences in response to ambiguity. Emotion, 17 (8), 1137-1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000349 Neta, M., Davis, F. C., & Whalen, P. J. (2011). Valence resolution of ambiguous facial expressions using an emotional oddball task. Emotion , 11 (6), 1425-1433. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022993 Olivera-La Rosa, A., Chuquichambi, E. G., Carmona, C. A., Arango-Tobón, O. E., Amador, O., Rosselló, J., & Ingram, G. P. D. (2021). The “Joker” laugh: Social judgments towards affective deviants in a sample of young offenders and callous unemotional traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 183 , 111148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111148 Petrocchi, S., Iannello, P., Ongaro, G., Antonietti, A., & Pravettoni, G. (2022). The interplay between risk and protective factors during the initial height of the COVID-19 crisis in Italy: The role of risk aversion and intolerance of ambiguity on distress. Current Psychology , 41 , 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01601-1 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17 (1), 271-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772 Porter, S., England, L., Juodis, M., ten Brinke, L., & Wilson, K. (2008). Is the face a window to the soul? Investigation of the accuracy of intuitive judgments of the trustworthiness of human faces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(3), 171-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.40.3.171 Scherer, K. R., Ellgring, H., Dieckmann, A., Unfried, M., & Mortillaro, M. (2019). Dynamic facial expression of emotion and observer inference. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00508 Srivastava, R. (2023). Gender differences in frustration and ambiguity tolerance during covid-19 pandemic in India. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues , 43 , 22072-22080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05507-y Watt, M. C., Maitland, R. A., & Gallagher, C. E. (2017). A case of the “Heeby Jeebies”: An examination of intuitive judgements of creepiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 49 (1) , 58-69. http://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000066 Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science , 17 (7), 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x Witkower, Z., & Tracy, J. L. (2019). A facial-action imposter: How head tilt influences perceptions of dominance from a neutral face. Psychological Science, 30 (6) , 893-906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619838762 Tables Table 1. General descriptive statistics for total sample N=137. PARTICIPANTS TOTAL N=137 FEMALE N=94 MALE N=43 t / X 2 p Mean Age (SD) Range 23.71 (9.73) 18-72 years 20.48 (5.50) 30.95 (12.87) (1,47.83) = 5.07 <.001 Mean DAS Total (SD) Range 34.15 (7.42) 11-49 34.17 (7.67) 34.09 (6.89) (1,135) = 0.06 .13 Table 2. Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI) ratings by Target Image Orientation and Sex collapsed over Participant Sex and DAS group Condition UPRIGHT KUBRICK STARE Target Female Images Male Images Female Images Male Images Creepy 3.28 (1.67) 4.01 (1.65) 4.79 (1.70) 6.12 (1.71) Attractive 4.93 (1.75) 4.08 (1.84) 4.58 (1.640) 3.39 (1.67) Trustworthy 5.43 (1.60) 4.98 (1.62) 4.30 (1.60) 3.49 (1.64) Table 3. Means and standard deviations (SD) for all variables of interest in RM ANOVA Orientation UPRIGHT Target FEMALE IMAGES MALE IMAGES Participant Sex F M F M DAS Group Low High Low High Low High Low High Creepy 3.00 (1.59) 2.90 (1.14) 3.55 (1.76) 4.41 (2.16) 3.62 (1.42) 3.97 (1.52) 3.86 (1.80) 4.95 (1.94) Attractive 4.69 (1.80) 4.53 (1.64) 5.31 (1.60) 5.90 (1.69) 3.86 (1.76) 3.29 (1.29) 4.72 (1.85) 5.60 (1.96) Trustworthy 5.30 (1.65) 5.06 (1.55) 5.60 (1.49) 6.30 (1.47) 4.96 (1.58) 4.24 (1.23) 5.46 (1.56) 6.19 (1.72) Orientation KUBRICK STARE Target Image FEMALE IMAGES MALE IMAGES Participant Sex F M F M DAS Group Low High Low High Low High Low High Creepy 4.43 (1.65) 4.71 (1.61) 4.50 (1.64) 5.96 (1.68) 5.62 (1.64) 6.50 (1.67) 5.56 (1.67) 6.81 (1.63) Attractive 4.28 (1.59) 4.10 (1.47) 4.69 (1.80) 4.53 (1.64) 3.26 (1.65) 2.65 (1.08) 4.07 (1.71) 4.62 (1.86) Trustworthy 4.16 (1.66) 3.72 (1.23) 4.90 (1.46) 5.27 (1.75) 3.51 (1.78) 2.69 (0.94) 4.20 (1.55) 4.52 (1.80) Table 4. Bivariate correlations among ATI ratings of facial images across both conditions. UPRIGHT CONDITION Creepy Attractive Trustworthy Creepiness --- .39** .30** Attractiveness .29** --- .75** Trustworthiness .17 .77** --- KUBRICK STARE CONDITION Creepy Attractive Trustworthy Creepiness --- .25** .19* Attractiveness -.08 --- .76** Trustworthiness -.15 .85** --- Note. Female target images above the diagonal and male target images below the diagonal. Table 5. Participant reporting of difficulty in assigning ATI ratings 1= very easy 2=mostly easy 3= mostly hard 4=very hard Creepiness 19% 58.4% 20.4% 2.2% Attractiveness 30.7% 38.7% 27.7% 2.9% Trustworthiness 11.7% 31.4% 38.0% 19.0% Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SamplePhotos.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Journal of Nonverbal Behavior → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 13 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Jan, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Dec, 2024 Reviews received at journal 02 Dec, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Nov, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Nov, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 11 Nov, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Nov, 2024 First submitted to journal 10 Nov, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5427838","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":383052778,"identity":"3508dbf6-73c1-417c-9f39-fb8c5b30b7de","order_by":0,"name":"Elle Lévesque","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elle","middleName":"","lastName":"Lévesque","suffix":""},{"id":383052779,"identity":"7f012db6-f33f-422d-9b49-40ca96b9b2c5","order_by":1,"name":"Melissa Howse","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melissa","middleName":"","lastName":"Howse","suffix":""},{"id":383052780,"identity":"c300eb5c-3095-434b-ade8-3da26be3cabd","order_by":2,"name":"Jessica Doyle","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New Brunswick","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jessica","middleName":"","lastName":"Doyle","suffix":""},{"id":383052781,"identity":"981c78e7-f4b0-4277-b7c3-ae2d3edb2471","order_by":3,"name":"Margo Watt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Margo","middleName":"","lastName":"Watt","suffix":""},{"id":383052782,"identity":"d6d14d4e-60bf-469d-82c0-f4da7dc2ef0b","order_by":4,"name":"Yanna Kachafanas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yanna","middleName":"","lastName":"Kachafanas","suffix":""},{"id":383052783,"identity":"9fe91c4c-c262-4161-a8b4-b0fe20e4d8cb","order_by":5,"name":"Christopher Lively","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christopher","middleName":"","lastName":"Lively","suffix":""},{"id":383052784,"identity":"37534720-6437-4ca7-9339-991da100633d","order_by":6,"name":"Petra Hauf","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"St. Francis Xavier University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Petra","middleName":"","lastName":"Hauf","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-10 23:38:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-025-00487-y","type":"published","date":"2025-07-10T15:56:52+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":71561095,"identity":"866db3c9-8acf-4c3e-ab87-893bd854a5d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-16 16:56:57","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34144,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEstimated marginal means (and standard errors) for Creepiness Ratings for Orientation by Target Sex.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5427838/v1/82c7542deed1dbc1616c6a89.png"},{"id":86699216,"identity":"f288a705-f8b0-4cf7-ade3-93a5a056072d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 16:01:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1075394,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5427838/v1/84387120-31df-4ac9-94a0-bba0163a907f.pdf"},{"id":71561096,"identity":"ce9e442a-c80b-40be-b140-20e132fb8f22","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-16 16:56:57","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":98839,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SamplePhotos.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5427838/v1/7e3c559b50137a3e37ebfc07.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceptions of Creepiness and the “Kubrick Stare”","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCreepiness refers to a sensation of uneasiness, discomfort, and/or fear arising from particular people, places, or situations. Creepiness is a common experience yet little understood. While Freud did not use the term \u0026ldquo;creepiness\u0026rdquo;, his reference to the uncanny rings eerily familiar. According to Freud (1919), the uncanny (\u003cem\u003eunheimlich)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erepresents the sense of discomfort induced by ambiguity \u0026ndash; dissonance between what is familiar and unfamiliar. Indeed, in the first published study on \u0026ldquo;the nature of creepiness\u0026rdquo;,\u0026nbsp;McAndrew and Koehnke (2016) concluded that the sensation of creepiness is an emotional response to the ambiguity of threat; an alert to maintain vigilance during times of uncertainty. In reaching this conclusion, McAndrew and Koehnke (2016) examined the responses of 1341 community participants (77% women; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 29 years) to questions about the physical appearance, behavioural patterns, occupations, and hobbies of a creepy person. Participants reported getting \u0026ldquo;creeped out\u0026rdquo; by people who displayed unusual physical characteristics (e.g., dishevelment), non-normative behaviours (e.g., standing too close), and certain hobbies (e.g., collecting or watching things). Men (vs. women) were more commonly perceived as creepy, and women (vs. men) were more apt to associate creepiness with a sexual threat. Participants commonly believed that creepy people were unpredictable, purposely hiding something, and intending to do them harm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWatt et al. (2017)\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealso sought to elucidate the physical and behavioural characteristics associated with creepiness. In their first study, 185 undergraduates (74% women, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 19.16 years) were asked to describe characteristics presumed to define creepiness. Results showed that men who were 31 to 50 years of age, with ectomorphic (linear) body-types, and disheveled appearance (e.g., poor hygiene, dishevelment, and general unattractiveness) were more apt to be perceived as creepy. Judgements of creepiness were evoked by non-normative conduct, and behaviour deemed socially unacceptable (e.g., staring or avoiding eye contact, invading personal space, making inappropriate comments); odd physical appearance in mannerisms and dress. Judgements tended to be made \u0026ldquo;instantly\u0026rdquo; (intuitively) and relied largely on the eyes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Watt et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2017) second study, 48 participants (81% women, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 19.45 years) were asked to rate the attractiveness, trustworthiness, and creepiness of 45 static facial images using the Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI; Porter et al., 2008). Images were derived from three groups: \u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e (from University of Stirling\u0026rsquo;s Psychological Image Collection; Minear et al., 2004), \u003cem\u003eAMW\u003c/em\u003e (derived from America\u0026rsquo;s Most Wanted), and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eCreepy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (derived from the previous pilot study). Participants were instructed to follow their intuitive reaction in rating each face. Of the three groups, the creepy images were found to be the least attractive, least trustworthy, and most creepy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing from previous findings, Doyle et al. (2022) sought to further investigate the role of ambiguity and eyes in judgements of creepiness. Study 1 participants (\u003cem\u003eN\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 254; 79% women;\u003csub\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 31.05 years) completed self-report measures of three theoretically similar constructs: (1) \u003cem\u003ediscomfort with ambiguity\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., discomfort with a situational lack of definitive meaning, measured by The Multidimensional Attitude Toward Ambiguity Scale - Discomfort with Ambiguity; Lauriola et al., 2016); (2) \u003cem\u003eintolerance of uncertainty\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., a disposition resulting from negative beliefs about the implications of uncertainty, measured by the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12; Carleton et al., 2007); and (3) \u003cem\u003efear of the unknown\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., tendency to be afraid when information about a situation or stimulus is lacking, measured by the Fear of the Unknown Scale; Harrison \u0026amp; Haneghan, 2011). Results showed that high discomfort with ambiguity was the most predictive of high creepiness ratings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a second study, Doyle et al. (2022) complemented subjective self-reporting to creepy faces with objective measurement. Eye tracking software was used to assess participants\u0026rsquo; attention to eye-and non-eye regions when presented with two \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eCreepy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and two \u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e male facial images (matched for hair, eye colour, and facial hair) derived from Study 1. Thirty-two undergraduates (66.7% women; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e= 19.97 years) were shown each of the four facial images, presented individually and separated by a visual mask in two sequential viewing blocks. Each face was viewed for two seconds, twice. While participants did not show differential attendance to, or avoidance of, the \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eCreepy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; versus\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNeutral\u003c/em\u003e images, they did fixate significantly longer on the eye (vs. non-eye) regions across all facial images. Doyle et al. (2022) concluded that, because static images cannot provide the behavioural and contextual cues typical of real-life social interactions, future research should use animated images to enhance ecological validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoyle et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2022) recommendation to use animated images fits with\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eresearch showing that facial motion and patterned configurations are important for inferring emotion (Bould et al., 2008; Scherer et al., 2019). Facial motion introduces potential ambiguity. With this in mind, L\u0026eacute;vesque and Watt (2022) tested whether adding subtle motion to static facial images would affect perceptions of creepiness. Participants included 326 community members and 102 undergraduates (77.5% women,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;M\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e= 20.21 years) who were randomly assigned to view 18 faces drawn from the same three facial image groups (\u0026ldquo;Creepy,\u0026rdquo; AMW, Neutral) used by Watt et al. (2017) and Doyle et al. (2022). Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: static images versus dynamic images (animated via Python3) and rated images on the same three traits (attractiveness, trustworthiness, creepiness) using the ATI measure (Porter et al., 2008). The dynamic facial images consisted of three different motion pattern types: (1) staring straight on; (2) staring with blinking; and (3) slight gaze shift and returned gaze to center. It was expected that any motion type would yield more polarized (extreme) ATI ratings than the static images. No prediction was made as to the direction of polarization. Contrary to predictions, results showed no significant difference between static and dynamic facial image conditions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile facial motion did not seem to change perceptions of creepiness, L\u0026eacute;vesque and Watt (2022) questioned whether facial orientation would. For example, a well-known cinematic technique, known as the \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo;, involves having characters display a downward head tilt, while continuing to look straight ahead, during scenes meant to convey unsettling subject matter. Perhaps, the best example is Jack Nicholson\u0026rsquo;s ominous glare as the character Jack Torrance in \u003cem\u003eThe Shining\u003c/em\u003e (Kubrick, 1980). The \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo; is intended to signify that the character is unstable or possibly deranged, and something intense is apt to happen. In other words, it is meant to be unnerving (see Ferrier, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePossible explanations for the \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo; effect come from research on how emotions are perceived based on facial expressions. For example, Mondloch and Maurer (2008) found that, as faces deviate from an upright position, our holistic facial processing abilities (i.e., processing faces as a \u003cem\u003eGestalt\u003c/em\u003e) diminish. When the head is tilted downward, the mouth appears to curve slightly upward giving the impression of a smile, which is typically associated with friendliness, but it also narrows the distance between the eyes and the mouth, which has been found to convey the impression of anger (see Lyons et al., 2000).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn short, the downward tilted head introduces threat ambiguity (i.e., rendering it difficult to know if the stare is friendly or angry, or if the person is a friend or foe).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn a series of five studies with over 1500 participants, Witkower and Tracey (2019) found that when a head was tilted downward and eye gaze directed forward, perceptions of dominance increased\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThey explained that tilting the head downward creates a visual illusion of facial dynamics suggesting propensity to use intimidation or threat to influence others. This suggestion impacts social perceptions and may account for why\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe Kubrick stare is so popular in mystery, thriller, and horror movies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated whether facial orientation \u0026ndash; head tilted downward \u0026ndash; would influence perceptions of creepiness. Creepiness ratings of neutral faces (i.e., no expression, relaxed musculature) displaying a downward head tilt while staring directly ahead (i.e., \u0026ldquo;Kubrick Stare\u0026rdquo;) were compared to ratings for the same neutral faces in an upright position. Facial images were drawn (with permission) from a diverse sample of standardized (neutral) faces compiled by Witkower and Tracey (2019). The following predictions were proffered:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1.\u003c/strong\u003e Facial images in the Kubrick stare condition would be perceived as\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ecreepier than the same faces presented in the upright position.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2.\u003c/strong\u003e Male (vs. female) faces would be perceived as creepier, especially in the\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKubrick stare (vs. upright) condition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3\u003c/strong\u003e. Female (vs. male) participants would confer higher ratings of creepiness for\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eboth image groups (male \u0026amp; female faces) and orientations (Kubrick stare \u0026amp; upright).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4.\u003c/strong\u003e Participants with greater discomfort with ambiguity would confer higher creepiness ratings across target image groups (male \u0026amp; female faces) and orientation (Kubrick stare \u0026amp; upright).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method and Procedure","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of a total of 430 respondents, 288 were removed during data cleaning for missing values and screening for bots; and five outliers were removed in assessment of violation of assumptions. The final sample numbered 137 (68.6% female); 94 undergraduate psychology students (85.1% female) and 43 community respondents recruited from Amazon\u0026rsquo;s Mechanical Turk (30.0% female). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e Demographics Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eParticipants completed an author-constructed questionnaire that inquired about age, sex, gender identity, and ethnic identification. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate their current legal sex and provided the options of female, male, intersex, X (none), other, and prefer not to say. All participants identified as being either female (68.3%) or male (31.7%), with \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eage \u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= 23.71 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 9.73) years. Regarding gender, participants were asked to indicate all items that best described them with the options: non-binary (1.4%); two-spirit (0.7%), transgender (2.1%), man (29.6%), woman, (64.8%), other/comments (1.4%). Participants identified as White (81.7%); Black or African American/Canadian (5.6%); Asian (3.5%); Hispanic, Latino, Spanish origin (2.8%); First Nations (2.1%); American Indian (2.1%); Middle Eastern or North African (0.7%); or Other (0.7%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultidimensional Attitude Toward Ambiguity Scale \u0026ndash; Discomfort with Ambiguity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe Discomfort with Ambiguity subscale (DAS; Lauriola et al., 2016) is comprised of seven items that assess personal responses to ambiguous stimuli in interpersonal, social, and occupational contexts. On a 7-point Likert scale (1 = \u003cem\u003eI strongly agree\u003c/em\u003e, 7 = \u003cem\u003eI strongly agree\u003c/em\u003e), participants respond to items such as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am just a little uncomfortable with people unless I feel that I can understand their behaviour.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Higher scores on the DAS indicate more pronounced discomfort with situations wherein the meaning or motive is unclear. The DAS has been found to demonstrate good reliability and internal consistency (Doyle et al., 2022; Lauriola et al., 2016). Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha in the present study was .82 indicating very good internal consistency. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the purposes of the present study, two DAS groups were created via median split score of 35 with \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 75 less than or equal to 35, and \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 67 greater than 35. The two DAS groups did not differ significantly by age, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(134\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e= .45, \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e= .65; sex, \u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2 \u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .72; or sample type (undergraduate vs. MTurk), \u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2 \u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= 1.90, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .45.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e \u003cem\u003eFacial Image Stimuli\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eFacial image stimuli were derived with permission from Dr. Zachary Witkower, at the University of British Columbia Emotion and Self Lab. A detailed description of procedures used to capture the facial images, as well as any inclusion and exclusion criteria, can be found in Witkower and Tracy (2019). Facial images \u0026ndash; \u0026lsquo;targets\u0026rsquo; \u0026ndash; were captured conveying a neutral expression in the upper and lower face. Each target displayed two different head angles \u0026ndash; a neutral front-facing angle and a tilted angle where targets tilted their heads downward between 10\u0026deg; and 15\u0026deg; while looking into the camera (i.e., the Kubrick stare; Witkower \u0026amp; Tracy, 2019). In the present study, the number of male and female targets was balanced across conditions and by racial/ethnic composition (i.e., White and East Asian). Only target images for whom racial composition could be confirmed were included. Additional images were excluded due to potentially distracting features, such as poor lighting, accessories worn by the target, and minimal angle differences in facial orientation. The final selection of facial image stimuli included 44 images in total: 11 male target pairs (2 White, 9 East Asian) and 11 female target pairs (2 White, 9 East Asian).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e Assessment of Traits Inventory\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI; Porter et al., 2008) is a rating sheet used to capture respondents\u0026rsquo; immediate judgements after viewing a target facial image. As in Doyle et al. (2022) and Watt et al. (2017), participants in the present study were asked to provide ratings of creepiness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness for each of the 44 target images (11 male and 11 female in each of the two conditions: Kubrick stare and upright) on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = \u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e, 10 = \u003cem\u003eextremely\u003c/em\u003e). Participants were asked to rate the image reflexively based on their immediate response to the face. Mean scores for all three ATI characteristics were computed for each category of target by orientation: male \u0026ndash; upright, male \u0026ndash; tilted (Kubrick stare), female \u0026ndash; upright, female \u0026ndash; tilted (Kubrick stare). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFollowing\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ethe rating instructions, two commitment questions were presented whereby participants were asked to commit to (1) providing thoughtful and honest ratings in response to each face, and (2) providing ratings that reflected their immediate response to the presented face. If participants were unsure or unable to commit to either question, then the survey ended. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional Questions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the end of the survey, participants were asked to respond to three questions about the ease with which they rated creepiness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness, respectively. Ratings were made on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = \u003cem\u003every easy\u003c/em\u003e, 4 = \u003cem\u003every hard\u003c/em\u003e). Finally, open-ended responses were invited as to whether a particular feature of the facial images facilitated or impeded the ease with which they made their ratings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eProcedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received clearance from the university\u0026rsquo;s Research Ethics Board [#26184]. Participants were required to provide informed consent and were assured that survey responses would be anonymous and confidential. After completing the online survey (delivered via Qualtrics), participants viewed a debriefing page apprising them of the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analytic Approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test that creepiness ratings would be higher in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition, a 4-way mixed repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with orientation (upright vs. tilted down) and target (male vs. female facial images) as the within-subjects variables, and participant sex (male vs. female) and DAS group (low vs. high) as between-subjects variables. The assumptions of normality and sphericity were met. Box\u0026apos;s M test of equality of covariances was significant 80.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, so \u003cem\u003ePillai\u0026apos;s trace criterion was used as it is more robust to departures\u003c/em\u003e from assumptions. Bivariate correlations were used to assess associations among key variables of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The undergraduate sample was disproportionately female (85.1%) and significantly younger than the MTurk sample: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(40.98) = 9.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001; 18.90 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 2.62) and 35.28 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 10.84) years, respectively. Consequently, age was included as a covariate in all analyses. Undergraduate and MTurk samples did not differ significantly in DAS scores \u003cem\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 1.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .28; 34.86 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 7.39) and 33.40 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 7.50), respectively. The mean DAS score for all participants was 34.27 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 7.41); median = 35.0; Range = 11-49, which is significantly higher than the mean score reported by Lauriola et al. (2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypotheses Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u003c/strong\u003e As predicted, the mixed repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect for \u003cstrong\u003eORIENTATION\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,131) = 46.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001; \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .26, with creepiness ratings in the Kubrick stare condition significantly higher than in the upright condition, \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.51 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .14) versus \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 3.70 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .14), respectively. After controlling for participant age, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 6.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .01, there was no significant interaction between \u003cstrong\u003eORIENTATION\u003c/strong\u003e and participant sex, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = .05, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .83, or DAS level, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 2.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .14.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2:\u003c/strong\u003e As predicted\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e there was a significant main effect of \u003cstrong\u003eTARGET SEX\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 46.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001; \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .26,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewith male targets rated significantly creepier than female targets, \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.11 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .13) versus \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.11 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .14), respectively. After controlling for participant age, \u003cem\u003eF(\u003c/em\u003e1, 131) = 12.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .001, there was no significant interaction between \u003cstrong\u003eTARGET SEX\u003c/strong\u003e and participant sex, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = .62, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .25, or DAS level, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 1.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .20.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was a significant interaction between \u003cstrong\u003eORIENTATION\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eTARGET SEX\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 10.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001. Follow-up pairwise comparisons of the simple effects indicated that male (vs. female) target images were deemed significantly creepier in both the Kubrick stare and upright conditions, [Male Kubrick \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 6.16 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .16) vs. Female Kubrick \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.85 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .16) and Male Upright \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.04 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .15) vs. Female Upright \u003cem\u003eEM\u003c/em\u003e = 3.36 (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .15)] implying that the detected interaction was magnitude driven, rather than due to directional differences. Further examination of effect sizes suggested that the magnitude of the difference between male and female faces was greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition (Kubrick:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .46, lower limit = .35 and upper limit = .54; upright:\u0026nbsp;\u0026eta;\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e= .32, lower limit = .21 and upper limit = .41). See Figure 1. After controlling for participant age, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 131) = 2.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e=.11, there was no significant interaction between target image orientation and participant sex, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 132) = .08, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .78, or DAS level, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 132) = 0.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .47.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBivariate Correlations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eIn both orientation conditions, female participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of creepiness correlated positively with perceptions of attractiveness and trustworthiness. The pattern was different for male participants whose perceptions of creepiness were not associated with trustworthiness in either condition and not associated with attractiveness in the Kubrick stare condition. Across both conditions, both male and female participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of attractiveness were highly positively correlated with trustworthiness with shared variance ranging from 75% to 85%. See Table 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpen Ended Responses About Difficulty Assigning Ratings and Influential Features\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the end of the survey, participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale how difficult it had been for them to assign ratings and if there was a particular facial image feature that made it easier or difficult for them to do so. Overall, most participants found it easy to assign creepiness and attractiveness ratings, but more difficult to assign trustworthiness ratings. See Table 5. Of the 119 participants who responded to what influenced their judgements, 46 (38.7%) cited the tilt or angle of the head as indicative of creepiness. A few cited the eyebrows and particularly the images where the targets were\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Looking up through their eyebrows or scrunched faces\u0026rdquo;.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003eMany mentioned facial expressions but did not clearly define or explain what they meant.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eTwenty-six participants (21.8%) cited the eyes specifically as impacting their decision. \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You can see the \u0026ldquo;creepiness\u0026rdquo; in a person\u0026rsquo;s eyes.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eA number of participants mentioned how difficult it was to judge trustworthiness from photos and how, the more attractive was the image, the less creepy it was. At least three participants mentioned gender as an influencing factor in that they perceived males to be creepier and less trustworthy than women. One participant offered that: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The saying \u0026lsquo;don\u0026rsquo;t judge a book by its cover\u0026rsquo; really came to life during this survey. Each photo can tell a story\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated the impact of target facial image gender and orientation (upright or downward tilted head) on perceptions of creepiness and whether perceptions varied by perceiver sex and dispositional discomfort with ambiguity (DAS). As predicted (H1), there was a main effect of orientation, with results showing that a downward tilted head, or \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo;, yielded significantly higher creepiness ratings than an upright tilted head. Also as predicted (H2), there was a main effect of target gender whereby male target images were perceived to be creepier than female faces. A significant interaction between target gender and orientation showed that the magnitude of difference in perceptions of creepiness of male (vs. female) images was significantly greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition. After controlling for age, neither participant sex nor DAS level (high vs. low) were found to influence creepiness ratings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinding that facial orientation, specifically a downward tilted head or \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo;, increases perceptions of creepiness fits with extant empirical and cinematic literature. A downward tilted head reduces facial processing abilities (Mondloch \u0026amp; Maurer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and constrains our ability to read facial cues. Facial cues are one of our primary sources of social information, allowing us to draw inferences about a person\u0026rsquo;s intentions or trustworthiness (Baccolo \u0026amp; Macchi Cassia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Willis \u0026amp; Todorov, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Witkower and Trace (2019) found that a downward tilted head, coupled with eye gaze directed forward, created a visual illusion of facial dynamics suggesting dominance, potential intimidation, or threat to influence others. A facial orientation that confounds our ability to process facial information and changes how information is interpreted could give way to cognitive and affective ambiguity surrounding the target\u0026rsquo;s intentions. Threat ambiguity has been identified as playing a key role in perceptions of creepiness (Doyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; McAndrew \u0026amp; Koehnke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Watt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This could explain why the cinematic \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo; technique is so effective in disquieting audiences. This facial orientation seems to signal to the perceiver that the target\u0026rsquo;s intentions are unclear and potentially sinister.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant interaction between orientation and target gender showed that the effect of facial orientation varied between male and female target images. Indeed, while male targets elicited significantly higher creepiness ratings across both upright and tilted conditions as compared to female targets, the effect size was significantly greater in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) orientation. This finding fits with literature, such as McAndrew and Koehnke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Watt et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), both of which found that males were more apt to be perceived as creepy than females. It is possible that the ambiguity created by a facial orientation that inhibits social information processing is enhanced when the facial target is male, leading to more pronounced perceptions of creepiness. Moreover, the downward tilted head is known to increase perceptions of dominance (Witkower \u0026amp; Tracey, 2019), and cross-culturally males tend to demonstrate more social dominance than females (Pratto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). It seems likely that judging male (vs. female) images as creepier reflects a societal understanding that, generally speaking, males pose more physical threat to females than vice versa. Related is the lack of correlation between creepiness and trustworthiness, especially for male images. On the other hand, people\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;concept of creepy\u0026rdquo; seems to be more nuanced. For example, prima facie, commonly reported features of creepiness (e.g., disheveled, unhygienic, socially awkward, ectomorphic; Watt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) would not seem to signify physical threat. Certainly, more research is needed to tease apart the objective and subjective components of creepiness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the literature, it had been expected that female (vs. male) participants and those with higher (vs. lower) discomfort with ambiguity would confer higher ratings of creepiness across target image groups (male \u0026amp; female faces) and orientation (Kubrick stare \u0026amp; upright). Contrary to predictions, no significant differences were found in creepiness ratings based on participant sex or discomfort with ambiguity after controlling for participant age given that the undergraduate sample was disproportionately female and significantly younger than the MTurk sample. It is recommended that future research investigate the role of participant age in creepiness judgements and its possible interaction with sex and discomfort with ambiguity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscomfort with ambiguity \u0026ndash; ambiguity intolerance or ambiguity aversion (Furnham \u0026amp; Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026ndash; reflects a dispositional \u0026ldquo;dis-ease\u0026rdquo; when one is unable to discern a clear meaning in the present moment due to insufficient information (Ellsberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1961\u003c/span\u003e). Discomfort with ambiguity impels one toward increased distress and risk aversion (Jach \u0026amp; Smillie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Petrocchi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and interpreting threat in ambiguous situations or interactions (Chen \u0026amp; Lovibond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Some research has found that men tend to experience greater discomfort when faced with situations with no obvious solution, or people whose intentions are unclear (Firoozabadi \u0026amp; Bahredar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Srivastava, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while at least one study has found that males demonstrate higher ambiguity acceptance than females (Cuppelo et al., 2023). The present results, however, are consistent with research that has shown no sex differences in ambiguity tolerance (Kamran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Lamberton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from the current study carry interesting theoretical and real-life implications. Results show that a downward tilted face orientation enhances ambiguity, possibly by limiting facial processing abilities. Obscuring facial processing impedes social information processing, hindering our ability to infer the other\u0026rsquo;s intentions. This ambiguity appears to increase perceptions of creepiness. Not only do facial cues influence perceptions of another person, but they also inform our social decision-making (Jaeger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Neta and colleagues (e.g., Neta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found evidence to support their hypothesis that negative (vs. positive) responses to ambiguity are more automatic, which seems to align with Watt et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) finding that perceptions of creepiness are made quickly and intuitively. Being perceived as creepy could lead to social consequences, such as ostracization and stigmatization. For example, faces with ambiguous features are perceived as creepier than faces drawn from America\u0026rsquo;s Most Wanted (Doyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Watt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Ambiguous facial features could influence assessments of risk in criminal justice settings. Recent research by Olivera et al. (2021) suggests that there are meaningful ramifications for justice-involved participants who are perceived as creepy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the present study must be considered in light of certain limitations. Firstly, we based our analyses on static facial images, which could decrease ecological validity of the findings by limiting dynamic and multimodal social information inherent to everyday social interactions. This method is consistent with previous work on creepiness (e.g., Doyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Watt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and images were procured with the permission of previous researchers who went to commendable lengths to generate and standardize the images (see Witkower \u0026amp; Tracey, 2019). To address this limitation in the future and consistent with the suggestion of others (e.g., Doyle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), future research could generate video-based stimuli that capture actors with \u0026ldquo;creepy\u0026rdquo; appearances and displaying \u0026ldquo;creepy\u0026rdquo; behaviours and expressions. Increasing AI options also should be explored. Secondly, after comprehensive data cleaning and conditioning, a relatively small sample size remained especially of male participants. Although the sample size was clearly sufficient to detect relevant effects, we provide a note of caution with respect to generalizability of findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhereas the role of ambiguity in creepiness perceptions seems well established, further explanations have been proffered. Most recently, Kjeldgaard-Christiansen and Clasen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) have proposed a role for mentalization (i.e., ability to apprehend the mind of another person and possibly predict their behaviour) in perceptions of creepiness. Disrupted mentalization has been linked to mental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum), attachment and personality problems (e.g., neuroticism). To date, studies of creepiness have focused on the target of perceptions rather than the perceiver. Future research could benefit by examining the perceivers and whether they differ in how they judge creepy facial images based on mentalizing capacities (Dimitrijevic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eE.L., M. H., J.D., and M.W. wrote the main manuscript text; M. W. and M. H. analyzed data and prepared tables; M.H. and C.L. prepared figures; YK did referencing and formatting; PH provided expertise and consulted with her research assistant M. H.; all authors except PH reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaccolo, E., \u0026amp; Macchi Cassia, V. (2019). Individual differences in perceptual sensitivity and representation of facial signals of trustworthiness. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000601\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBould, E., Morris, N., \u0026amp; Wink, B. (2008). Recognising subtle emotional expressions: The role of facial movements. \u003cem\u003eCognition and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(8)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 1569-1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801921156\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarleton, R. N., Norton, M. A. P., \u0026amp; Asmundson, G. J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders, 21\u003c/em\u003e, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, J. T.-H., \u0026amp; Lovibond, P. F. (2016). Intolerance of uncertainty is associated with increased threat appraisal and negative affect under ambiguity but not uncertainty\u003cem\u003e. Behavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.09.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuppello S., Treglown, L., \u0026amp; Furnham, A. (2023). Intelligence, personality and tolerance of ambiguity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDimitrijevic, A., Hanak, N., Altaras, A., \u0026amp; Jolic Marjanovic, Z. (2018). The mentalization scale (MentS) : A self-report measure for the assessment of mentalizing capacity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1310730\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoyle, J. N., Watt, M. C., Howse, M., Blair, K., \u0026amp; Hauf, P. (2022). What is creepiness? The underlying role of ambiguity. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 54\u003c/em\u003e(3), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000269\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(4), 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerrier, A. (2023, March 22). \u003cem\u003eThe cinematic gaze: The meaning behind the trademark Stanley \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eKubrick stare\u003c/em\u003e. Far Out. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/cinematic-gaze-meaning-behind-the-trademark-kubrick-stare/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiroozabadi, A., \u0026amp; Bahredar, M. J. (2011). P02-419-Ambiguity tolerance in students entering medical school (SHIRAZ-2006). \u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychiatry, 26, \u003c/em\u003e1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(11)72720-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFurnham, A. \u0026amp; Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. \u003cem\u003ePsychology, 4\u003c/em\u003e(9)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 717-728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreud, S. (1919). \u0026lsquo;Das Unheimliche [The Uncanny]\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eStandard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works\u003c/em\u003e 24 vols, ed. and trans. James Strachey (London: The Hogarth Press, 1953) vol. 17, pp. 217-252.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrison, G., \u0026amp; Haneghan, J. P. V. (2011). The gifted and the shadow of the night: Dabrowski\u0026rsquo;s overexcitabilities and their correlation to insomnia, death anxiety, and fear of the unknown. \u003cem\u003eJournal for the Education of the Gifted, 34\u003c/em\u003e(4)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 669-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321103400407\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJach, H. K., \u0026amp; Smillie, L. D. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality, 79,\u003c/em\u003e 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaeger, B., Evans, A. M., Stel, M., \u0026amp; van Beest, I. (2019). Explaining the persistent influence of facial cues in social decision-making. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: General\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e148\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1008-1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000591\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamran, S. K. (2011). Effects of Gender on Ambiguity Tolerance of Iranian English Language Learners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(11\u0026amp;12), 25-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKjeldgaard-Christiansen, J., \u0026amp; Clasen, M. (2023). Creepiness and the uncanny. \u003cem\u003eStyle\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(3), 322-349. https://doi.org/10.5325/style.57.3.0322\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKubrick, S. (Director). (1980). The shining [Film].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamberton, B., Fedorowicz, J., \u0026amp; Roohani, S. J. (2005). Tolerance for ambiguity and IT competency among accountants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.2005.19.1.75\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLauriola, M., Foschi, R., Moscae, O., \u0026amp; Weller, J. (2016). Attitude toward ambiguity: Empirically robust factors in self-report personality scales. \u003cem\u003eAssessment, 23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 353-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115577188\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026eacute;vesque, E., \u0026amp; Watt, M. C. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThe crux of creepiness. The role of motion in perceptions of creepiness\u003c/em\u003e [Unpublished Honours thesis, St. Francis Xavier University]. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLyons, M. J., Campbell, R., Plante, A., Coleman, M., Kamachi, M., \u0026amp; Akamatsu, S. (2000). The Noh mask effect: Vertical viewpoint dependence of facial expression perception. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 267\u003c/em\u003e(1459)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 2239-2245. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1274\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcAndrew, F. T., \u0026amp; Koehnke, S. S. (2016). On the nature of creepiness. \u003cem\u003eNew Ideas in \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePsychology, 43,\u003c/em\u003e 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.03.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinear, M., \u0026amp; Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Research Methods, Instruments, \u0026amp; Computers, 36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 630-633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206543\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMondloch, C. J., \u0026amp; Maurer, D. (2008). The effect of face orientation on holistic processing. \u003cem\u003ePerception, 37\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1175-1186. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeta, M., Cantelon, J., Haga, Z., Mahoney, C. R., Taylor, H. A., \u0026amp; Davis, F. C. (2017). The impact of uncertain threat on affective bias: Individual differences in response to ambiguity. \u003cem\u003eEmotion, 17\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1137-1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000349\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeta, M., Davis, F. C., \u0026amp; Whalen, P. J. (2011). Valence resolution of ambiguous facial expressions using an emotional oddball task. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1425-1433. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022993\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlivera-La Rosa, A., Chuquichambi, E. G., Carmona, C. A., Arango-Tob\u0026oacute;n, O. E., Amador, O., Rossell\u0026oacute;, J., \u0026amp; Ingram, G. P. D. (2021). The \u0026ldquo;Joker\u0026rdquo; laugh: Social judgments towards affective deviants in a sample of young offenders and callous unemotional traits. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 183\u003c/em\u003e, 111148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111148\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePetrocchi, S., Iannello, P., Ongaro, G., Antonietti, A., \u0026amp; Pravettoni, G. (2022). The interplay between risk and protective factors during the initial height of the COVID-19 crisis in Italy: The role of risk aversion and intolerance of ambiguity on distress. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01601-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePratto, F., Sidanius, J., \u0026amp; Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Social Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 271-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorter, S., England, L., Juodis, M., ten Brinke, L., \u0026amp; Wilson, K. (2008). Is the face a window to the soul? Investigation of the accuracy of intuitive judgments of the trustworthiness of human faces. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(3),\u003c/em\u003e 171-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.40.3.171\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, K. R., Ellgring, H., Dieckmann, A., Unfried, M., \u0026amp; Mortillaro, M. (2019). Dynamic facial expression of emotion and observer inference. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 10\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00508\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSrivastava, R. (2023). Gender differences in frustration and ambiguity tolerance during covid-19 pandemic in India. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e, 22072-22080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05507-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatt, M. C., Maitland, R. A., \u0026amp; Gallagher, C. E. (2017). A case of the \u0026ldquo;Heeby Jeebies\u0026rdquo;: An examination of intuitive judgements of creepiness. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Behavioural \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eScience, 49\u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003cem\u003e, \u003c/em\u003e58-69. http://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000066\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillis, J., \u0026amp; Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 17\u003c/em\u003e(7),\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e592-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWitkower, Z., \u0026amp; Tracy, J. L. (2019). A facial-action imposter: How head tilt influences perceptions of dominance from a neutral face. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science, 30\u003c/em\u003e(6)\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e 893-906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619838762\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1. General descriptive statistics for total sample N=137.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePARTICIPANTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTOTAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN=137\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFEMALE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN=94\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMALE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN=43\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et /\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Age (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRange\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.71 (9.73)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-72 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.48 (5.50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.95 (12.87)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1,47.83) = 5.07\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 167px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean DAS Total (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRange\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.15 (7.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.17 (7.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.09 (6.89)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1,135) = 0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Assessment of Traits Inventory (ATI) ratings by Target Image Orientation and Sex collapsed over Participant Sex and DAS group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCondition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 255px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUPRIGHT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKUBRICK STARE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTarget\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale Images\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMale Images\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemale Images\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMale Images\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.28 (1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.01 (1.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.79 (1.70)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.12 (1.71)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.93 (1.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.08 (1.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.58 (1.640)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.39 (1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.43 (1.60)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.98 (1.62)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.30 (1.60)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.49 (1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Means and standard deviations (SD) for all variables of interest in RM ANOVA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"680\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrientation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 586px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUPRIGHT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTarget\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFEMALE IMAGES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMALE IMAGES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDAS Group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.59)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.90 (1.14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.55 (1.76)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.41\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.42)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.94)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.69 (1.80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.53 (1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.31 (1.60)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.90 (1.69)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.86 (1.76)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.72 (1.85)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.60\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.30 (1.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.55)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.60 (1.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.47)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.96 (1.58)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.24\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.46 (1.56)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.19\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.72)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 680px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrientation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 586px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKUBRICK STARE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTarget\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFEMALE IMAGES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMALE IMAGES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Sex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDAS Group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLow\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHigh\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.43 (1.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.71 (1.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.68)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.62 (1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.50\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.81\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.63)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.28 (1.59)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.47)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.69\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.53\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.26 (1.65)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.07 (1.71)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.86)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.16 (1.66)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.72 (1.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.90 (1.46)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.27 (1.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.51 (1.78)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.69\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.94)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.20 (1.55)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.52\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Bivariate correlations among ATI ratings of facial images across both conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUPRIGHT CONDITION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractiveness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.75**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKUBRICK STARE CONDITION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractiveness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.76**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.85**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e---\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote.\u003c/strong\u003e Female target images above the diagonal and male target images below the diagonal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. Participant reporting of difficulty in assigning ATI ratings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1= very easy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2=mostly easy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3= mostly hard\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4=very hard\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCreepiness\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttractiveness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-nonverbal-behavior","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jonb","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Nonverbal Behavior](http://link.springer.com/journal/10919)","snPcode":"10919","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10919/3","title":"Journal of Nonverbal Behavior","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"creepy, discomfort with ambiguity, facial orientation, risk perception","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCreepiness is a commonly experienced but little understood construct. The present study examined the impact of target facial image gender and orientation on perceptions of creepiness, and whether perceptions varied by participant sex and discomfort with ambiguity (DAS). Participants [\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;137, 68.6% female; M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 23.71 (9.73) years] rated the creepiness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness of 44 target images \u0026ndash; 11 male and 11 female images, in each of two conditions: upright and downward tilted head or \u0026ldquo;Kubrick stare\u0026rdquo;. After controlling for participant age, results did not vary significantly by participant sex or DAS level (high vs. low). As predicted, creepiness ratings were significantly higher in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition and for male (vs. female) faces with the magnitude of difference significantly higher for male (vs. female) faces in the Kubrick stare (vs. upright) condition; η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46 [lower limit\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35 and upper limit\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.54] vs. η\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.32 [lower limit\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.21 and upper limit\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.41], respectively. There was no association between creepiness and trustworthiness in either condition. Results extend our understanding of how we perceive creepiness and the importance of face orientation in social processing.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceptions of Creepiness and the “Kubrick Stare”","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-12-16 16:56:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5427838/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-02-13T22:43:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-01-15T23:42:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"215601052191559589358146121658254101405","date":"2024-12-08T20:24:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-12-02T21:22:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"311536908286278907044242706793771212982","date":"2024-11-26T16:00:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-11-26T01:12:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-11-11T09:02:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-11-11T09:00:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Nonverbal Behavior","date":"2024-11-10T23:36:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-nonverbal-behavior","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jonb","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Nonverbal Behavior](http://link.springer.com/journal/10919)","snPcode":"10919","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10919/3","title":"Journal of Nonverbal Behavior","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"caf63298-a4a0-4dd6-91dd-f9cff0d585ba","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 16th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-14T15:58:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5427838","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-025-00487-y","journal":{"identity":"journal-of-nonverbal-behavior","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Journal of Nonverbal Behavior"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-10 15:56:52","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 10th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-12-16 16:56:52","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10919-025-00487-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-025-00487-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5427838","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5427838","identity":"rs-5427838","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}