Social Cognition
Group Faces Task
Also called: cheerleader effect, group attractiveness effect, ensemble face perception
Measure how seeing a face among others changes its attractiveness rating. Compare the same targets alone and in a group.
4-6 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 12
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how a group changes impressions of a face. Participants rate the attractiveness of the same faces alone and beside two others. Scores show the group-minus-alone difference.
Constructs
- Context in face perception
- Attractiveness impressions
- Ensemble perception
Research uses
- Social perception research
- Face perception research
How the paradigm works
The same targets appear alone and beside two other faces. A face array appears for one second, then a border marks the target for one second. After the images disappear, the participant rates the marked face’s attractiveness from 0 to 100 without a deadline. Two practice ratings use separate targets.
More about the paradigm
The standard setting uses 24 targets and 48 ratings; a short setting uses a fixed 12-target subset and 24 ratings. Each target appears once per pass. Half appear in a group first, and half alone first. The session seed shuffles order, assigns balanced positions and selects two same-gender flankers from a separate 16-person pool. Target position and image size stay the same in both conditions. Flankers are never rated.
Group advantage is the mean within-target group-minus-alone difference. Both means and the standardized difference use complete pairs. First choices under 100 ms are excluded, and no default answer is submitted. The display durations, target and flanker identities, position, condition and response times are saved.
This is a three-face array adaptation of Walker and Vul’s group-rating design. London Set photographs replace the source pictures. The standardized difference is descriptive, not the source’s regression coefficient or a norm. Judgments describe impressions, not the people pictured. Norms are off.
Scores
- Group advantagepoints
- Mean of each target’s group rating minus its alone rating, using complete pairs. Positive values mean higher ratings in the group condition.
- Informational
- Mean group ratingpoints
- Mean rating from 0 to 100 for targets in complete pairs when seen with two flankers.
- Informational
- Mean alone ratingpoints
- Mean rating from 0 to 100 for the same paired targets when seen alone.
- Informational
- Standardized group differencescore
- Group advantage divided by the sample standard deviation across all ratings in complete pairs. Undefined for zero variance.
- Informational
- Complete face pairscount
- Targets with a usable rating in each condition.
- Informational
- Usable ratingscount
- Valid integer ratings from 0 to 100, excluding first choices under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Planned ratingscount
- 48 ratings by default, or 24 with the short setting; practice is excluded.
- Informational
- Median rating timems
- Median time from the rating screen appearing to confirmation, using usable ratings.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- First choices under 100 ms, excluded from scores.
- Informational
Use and evidence
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 33% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 522 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 |
| 2024 | 2 |
| 2023 | 0 |
| 2022 | 3 |
| 2021 | 6 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 6 |
| 2018 | 4 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 6 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 0
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Three-face arrays and paired subjective ratings; impressions, not traits. Norms off..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Faces
- 24 London Set neutral front targets, 12 from each recorded gender, plus 16 distinct flankers and two practice targets. The short setting uses 12 fixed targets. Target and flanker pools stay separate; groups contain three people of the same recorded gender.
- Conditions
- Each target appears once alone and once beside two other faces, at the same size and position. The session seed assigns balanced left, middle and right target positions and selects the flankers. No attractiveness rating is used to select or arrange faces.
- Order
- 48 ratings in two passes by default, or 24 with the short setting. Half the targets appear in a group first, half alone first. The seed shuffles each pass; the same person never appears on consecutive trials.
- Timing
- Faces appear for one second, then a border marks the target for one second. Rate the target after the pictures disappear, with no answer deadline. Actual display durations are saved. Two practice ratings explain the controls.
- Scoring
- Group advantage is the mean target-by-target group-minus-alone difference on the 0 to 100 rating scale. Scores use complete pairs. First choices under 100 ms are excluded. The secondary standardized difference divides by the sample standard deviation across paired ratings.
These judgments describe impressions, not the people pictured. This version uses separate London Set photographs in a three-face array, with fixed target position in both conditions. Norms are off. The full pool of targets, flankers and practice people shares people with Face Memory Test (21), Face-Name Memory Task (17), Face Matching Task (42), Chimeric Faces Task (12), Part-Whole Face Task (25), Thatcher Illusion Task (10), Two-Tone Pictures Task (19), Verbal Overshadowing Task (29), Face Impressions Task (26), Real or AI Face Task (26), Uncanny Valley Task (7), Face Aftereffect Task (6). Counts include the other tasks' practice pictures and foils. Separate sessions or counterbalance task order when combining face tasks.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: group_faces_rating from the run with the most ratings, with duplicate stimulus occurrences counted once. Ratings have no correct answer. Repeated answers are accepted. Choosing a point under 200 ms on at least half the trials invalidates; incomplete runs are flagged. Ratings chosen under 100 ms are counted as anticipations and excluded from the scores.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Ratings describe the participant's impressions, so neither low nor repeated ratings prove an error. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Number of target faces | 24 faces, 48 ratings (standard) | 24 faces, 48 ratings (standard), 12 faces, 24 ratings |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Group Faces Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Walker and Vul, 2014), with the standard settings (number of target faces: 24 faces, 48 ratings). The main score was group advantage (mean of each target’s group rating minus its alone rating, using complete pairs).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Walker, D., & Vul, E. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive. Psychological Science, 25(1), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497969Within-target attractiveness comparisons for faces shown alone and in groups; sequential display and target cue.
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Group Faces Task take?
About 4 to 6 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Group advantage, Mean group rating, Mean alone rating, Standardized group difference, Complete face pairs, Usable ratings, Planned ratings, Median rating time and Anticipations. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Group Faces Task used in research?
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 33% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 522 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Group Faces Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Number of target faces (24 faces, 48 ratings (standard), 12 faces, 24 ratings). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.