We like to think we judge people on their actions.
Yet our brain quietly runs its own shortcut the second a face appears.
In hiring meetings, on dating apps or even in politics, snap judgments shape who gets a chance and who never gets called back. New research from US and UK universities now suggests that, whether we admit it or not, many of us share the same mental picture of what “incompetence” looks like.
How scientists turned first impressions into data
Psychologists at Princeton University started with a simple question: can an algorithm learn the same instant impressions that humans form from a face? To test it, they generated over a thousand artificial faces and asked thousands of volunteers to rate them on traits such as:
- Perceived intelligence
- Trustworthiness
- Suitability for office or leadership
- Open‑mindedness
- Religiosity and moral seriousness
Every rating became a data point. A neural network then learned to predict these first impressions from the pixels alone. Feed it a new face, and it outputs how a crowd is likely to judge that person at first glance.
Lesions of bias run deeper than we like to admit: a single snapshot of a face lets a machine anticipate our gut reaction with striking accuracy.
The model reproduced several familiar intuitions. Smiling faces scored as more trustworthy. Glasses pushed perceived intelligence a little higher. Sharper, more traditionally “masculine” features tended to signal competence and leadership potential in the eyes of respondents.
None of this proves that those faces belong to better workers or wiser leaders. It shows instead that our brains apply an unwritten visual rulebook, one that algorithms can now mimic.
The three facial clues that scream “incompetent”
Building on that work, a team from the University of Glasgow zoomed in on one trait in particular: perceived incompetence, especially in a professional setting. Their study, published in early 2024, asked: when people think someone looks unreliable or out of their depth, what exactly are they seeing?
1. A wider face with a slack or “drooping” mouth
Participants repeatedly associated broader faces, especially when combined with a slightly drooping mouth, with low reliability. The expression suggested passivity rather than drive, and that small shift changed how capable the person appeared.
Faces rated as “incompetent” often combined a wider outline with a mouth that turned subtly downward, signalling low energy and low agency to observers.
That effect did not depend on obvious sadness or anger. The faces could remain neutral. Tiny changes in mouth angle still nudged judgments of competence up or down, hinting at how much social information we read into barely visible cues.
2. Low, heavy eyebrows and a colder complexion
A second recurring pattern involved the eye region. Faces with low‑set brows and heavier, shadowed lids tended to look less approachable and less capable to the average rater. The study also found that a “colder” skin tone – slightly greyer or less warm – correlated with harsher judgments.
These details created an impression of distance, even mild hostility, which many volunteers then translated into doubts about professionalism or reliability. A neutral face, seen through that lens, suddenly looked like someone who might not care about the job.
3. A weakly defined jaw and evasive gaze
The third cluster of clues involved jawline and gaze. Faces with a softer, less defined jaw were consistently judged as less decisive, especially when paired with a gaze that did not meet the viewer straight on.
| Feature combination | Common impression |
|---|---|
| Soft jaw + averted gaze | Lacks confidence, easily overwhelmed |
| Strong jaw + direct gaze | More decisive, more in control |
| Neutral jaw + direct gaze | Average competence, “safe hire” profile |
Again, these are perceptions, not medical facts about performance. Yet for recruiters flipping through a stack of LinkedIn profiles or voters watching a televised debate, such gut feelings quietly guide attention and trust.
Why your brain builds a “face of incompetence”
Neuroscience offers a blunt explanation: the brain loves shortcuts. Over years of social interaction, it builds associations between certain looks and certain behaviours. If several disorganised or unreliable people shared subtle physical similarities, your memory might quietly tag those traits as warning signs.
Our visual system doesn’t just record faces; it compresses them into patterns linked with past rewards and frustrations, then replays those patterns on strangers.
This pattern‑matching keeps us safe in many contexts. Spotting a tired driver or an intoxicated colleague from their face can genuinely prevent accidents. But the same habit also feeds prejudice. Once the brain locks a cluster of features to the idea of “incompetence”, it can start treating that mental template as a rule, not as a noisy guess.
The Glasgow team tested this by comparing facial impressions with actual performance data. In many cases, perceived incompetence did not match how well people did their jobs. Some faces that looked “weak” on paper belonged to high performers. Others with strong, firm features under‑delivered when tested.
The ethical minefield: from bias to algorithmic discrimination
As soon as algorithms start predicting our snap judgments, a new risk appears: automating bias. A tool trained on human ratings can easily turn into a filter that screens candidates by their face before a human even reads the CV.
Companies already experiment with AI‑based video interviews that analyse micro‑expressions, eye contact and facial symmetry. On paper, these systems promise efficiency. In practice, they might punish people whose features fall outside the unspoken “competent face” template, even if their track record looks outstanding.
A hiring tool that optimises for “who looks competent” can quietly drift into “who looks like those we previously promoted” – locking past inequality into the future.
This raises hard questions for regulators and employers. Should facial analysis be banned from recruitment entirely? If not, which safeguards could prevent discrimination on the basis of bone structure, skin tone or eye shape?
How to outsmart your own snap judgments
For individuals, the research offers a practical takeaway: your first impression feels like intuition, but much of it comes from pattern bias. That means you can counter it with deliberate habits. Several simple strategies help:
- Delay high‑stakes judgments by 24 hours when possible.
- Separate appearance from track record in interviews, focusing on concrete achievements.
- Use structured scorecards with predefined criteria, so “looks trustworthy” never sneaks in as a category.
- Conduct blind reviews of written work or portfolios before meeting candidates.
Teams that rely on such methods often end up hiring more diverse profiles, including people who might have been side‑lined by face‑driven bias. Over time, that broader contact with different “types” of faces can soften the brain’s old associations and build new ones.
Beyond faces: the hidden cues that shape competence judgments
Facial features only form one layer of the competence story. Clothing, voice pitch, accent, posture and even background décor during a video call all nudge expectations. A well‑cut jacket can override a “soft” jawline for some observers. A shaky webcam and poor lighting can sabotage a strong face for others.
A useful mental exercise involves running a self‑audit. Next time you label someone as “probably not up to the job” within seconds, ask what triggered that thought. Was it their expression? Their voice? Something vague about their style? That pause often reveals how little you actually know at that point.
The research on the “face of incompetence” also touches on a broader risk: self‑fulfilling prophecy. People judged as weak or unreliable from their looks alone may receive fewer chances, less mentoring and more suspicion. Over time, this lack of opportunity can dent their confidence and performance, seemingly confirming the original bias. Recognising that loop gives managers and educators a chance to break it by actively backing those whom instinct might dismiss too quickly.