Do I trust you, abstract creature?: a study on personality perception of abstract virtual faces

ABSTRACT

Studies in the field of social psychology have shown evidence that the dimensions of human facial features can directly impact the perception of personality of that human. Traits such as aggressiveness, trustworthiness and dominance have been directly correlated with facial features. If the same correlations were true for virtual faces, this could be a valuable design guideline to direct the creation of characters with intended personalities. In particular, this is relevant for extremely abstract characters that have minimal facial features (often seen in video games and movies), and rely heavily on these features for portraying personality. We conducted an exploratory study in order to retrieve insights about the way certain facial features affect the perceived personality, as well as affinity of very abstract virtual faces. We specifically tested the effect of different head shapes, eye shapes and eye sizes. Interestingly, our findings show that the same rules for real human faces do not apply to the perception of abstract faces, and in some cases are the complete reverse. These results provide us with a better understanding of the perception of abstract virtual faces, and a starting point for the creation of guidelines for how to portray personality using minimal facial cues.

References

1. Berry, D. S., and McArthur, L. Z. 1985. Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of personality and social psychology 48, 2, 312.
2. Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., and Perrett, D. I. 2008. Facial correlates of socio-sexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior 29, 3, 211--218.
3. Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M., and Mondloch, C. J. 2009. Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science 20, 10, 1194--1198.
4. Christensen, R. H. B., 2015. ordinal---regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2015.6--28. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.
5. Geniole, S. N., Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Carré, J. M., and McCormick, C. M. 2015. Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PloS one 10, 7, e0132726.
6. Hyde, J., Carter, E. J., Kiesler, S., and Hodgins, J. K. 2013. Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters. In Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on, IEEE, 1--6.
7. Hyde, J., Carter, E. J., Kiesler, S., and Hodgins, J. K. 2015. Using an interactive avatar's facial expressiveness to increase persuasiveness and socialness. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1719--1728.
8. Hyde, J., Carter, E. J., Kiesler, S., and Hodgins, J. K. 2016. Evaluating animated characters: Facial motion magnitude influences personality perceptions. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 13, 2, 8.
9. Keating, C. F. 1985. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social psychology quarterly, 61--70.
10. Kramer, R. S., and Ward, R. 2010. Internal facial features are signals of personality and health. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63, 11, 2273--2287.
11. Kramer, R. S., and Ward, R. 2012. Cues to personality and health in the facial appearance of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). Evolutionary Psychology 10, 2, 147470491201000210.
12. Kramer, R. S., King, J. E., and Ward, R. 2011. Identifying personality from the static, nonexpressive face in humans and chimpanzees: evidence of a shared system for signaling personality. Evolution and Human Behavior 32, 3, 179--185.
13. Little, A. C., and Perrett, D. I. 2007. Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. British Journal of Psychology 98, 1, 111--126.
14. McArthur, L. Z., and Apatow, K. 1984. Impressions of baby-faced adults. Social Cognition 2, 4, 315.
15. Peterson, M. F., and Eckstein, M. P. 2012. Looking just below the eyes is optimal across face recognition tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 48, E3314--E3323.
16. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rue-den, C., and Gurven, M. 2009. Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 276, 1656, 575--584.
17. Stirrat, M., and Perrett, D. I. 2010. Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological science 21, 3, 349--354.
18. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., and Oosterhof, N. N. 2008. Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in cognitive sciences 12, 12, 455--460.
19. Wang, Y., Geigel, J., and Herbert, A. 2013. Reading personality: Avatar vs. human faces. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), 2013 Humaine Association Conference on, IEEE, 479--484.
20. Wilson, J. P., and Rule, N. O. 2015. Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological science 26, 8, 1325--1331.
21. Zebrowitz, L. A., Voinescu, L., and Collins, M. A. 1996. "wide-eyed" and "crooked-faced": Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the life span. Personality and social psychology bulletin 22, 12, 1258--1269.
22. Zebrowitz, L. A. 1997. Reading faces: Window to the soul? Westview Press.
23. Zell, E., Aliaga, C., Jarabo, A., Zibrek, K., Gutierrez, D., McDonnell, R., and Botsch, M. 2015. To stylize or not to stylize?: the effect of shape and material stylization on the perception of computer-generated faces. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 6, 184.
24. Zibrek, K., and McDonnell, R. 2014. Does render style affect perception of personality in virtual humans? In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception, ACM, 111--115.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics

    • Graphics systems and interfaces

      • Perception