skip to main content
research-article

Facial Features of Non-player Creatures Can Influence Moral Decisions in Video Games

Published:18 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

With the development of increasingly sophisticated computer graphics, there is a continuous growth of the variety and originality of virtual characters used in movies and games. So far, however, their design has mostly been led by the artist’s preferences, not by perceptual studies. In this article, we explored how effective non-player character design can be used to influence gameplay. In particular, we focused on abstract virtual characters with few facial features. In experiment 1, we sought to find rules for how to use a character’s facial features to elicit the perception of certain personality traits, using prior findings for human face perception as a basis. In experiment 2, we then tested how perceived personality traits of a non-player character could influence a player’s moral decisions in a video game. We found that the appearance of the character interacting with the subject modulated aggressive behavior towards a non-present individual. Our results provide us with a better understanding of the perception of abstract virtual characters, their employment in video games, as well as giving us some insights about the factors underlying aggressive behavior in video games.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Domna Banakou and Konstantinos Chorianopoulos. 2010. The effects of avatars gender and appearance on social behavior in online 3D virtual worlds. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 2, 5 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Moshe Bar, Maital Neta, and Heather Linz. 2006. Very first impressions. Emotion 6, 2 (2006), 269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Douglas Bates, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1 (2015), 1--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bethesda Game Studios. 2008. Fallout 3. Game {Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360}. (28 October 2008). Bethesda Softworks, Rockville, MD, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bethesda Game Studios. 2015. Fallout 4. Game {Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One}. (10 November 2015). Bethesda Softworks, Rockville, MD, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Black Isle Studios. 1998. Fallout 2. Game {Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X}. (30 September 1998). Interplay Productions, Los Angeles, CA, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Lynda G. Boothroyd, Benedict C. Jones, D. Michael Burt, Lisa M. DeBruine, and David I. Perrett. 2008. Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 3 (2008), 211--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Justin M. Carré, Cheryl M. McCormick, and Catherine J. Mondloch. 2009. Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychol. Sci. 20, 10 (2009), 1194--1198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. CD Project and CD Project RED. 2011. The Witcher 2. Game {Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, Linux}. (17 May 2011). CD Project, Warsaw, Poland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. CD Project and CD Project RED. 2007. The Witcher. Game {Microsoft Windows}. (26 October 2007). Atari, New York, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. CD Project RED. 2015. The Witcher 3. Game {Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4}. (19 May 2015). CD Project, Warsaw, Poland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Yuen-Lai Chan, Xuan Gu, Jacky Chi-Kit Ng, and Chi-Shing Tse. 2016. Effects of dilemma type, language, and emotion arousal on utilitarian vs deontological choice to moral dilemmas in Chinese--English bilinguals. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 19, 1 (2016), 55--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. So Young Choe and Kyung-Hwan Min. 2011. Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judg. Decis. Making 6, 7 (2011), 580.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Matthew S. Eastin. 2006. Video game violence and the female game player: Self-and opponent gender effects on presence and aggressive thoughts. Hum. Commun. Res. 32, 3 (2006), 351--372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ylva Ferstl, Elena Kokkinara, and Rachel McDonnell. 2016. Do I trust you, abstract creature?: A study on personality perception of abstract virtual faces. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. ACM, 39--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jesse Fox, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Liz Tricase. 2013. The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 3 (2013), 930--938. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yu Gao and Simone Tang. 2013. Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral judgment in college students. J. Crim. Just. 41, 5 (2013), 342--349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Shawn N. Geniole, Thomas F. Denson, Barnaby J. Dixson, Justin M. Carré, and Cheryl M. McCormick. 2015. Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PloS One 10, 7 (2015), e0132726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Haidt. 2002. How (and where) does moral judgment work?Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 12 (2002), 517--523.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshua D. Greene, Leigh E. Nystrom, Andrew D. Engell, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2004. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44, 2 (2004), 389--400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Joshua D. Greene, R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 5537 (2001), 2105--2108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Christopher J. Headleand, James Jackson, Ben Williams, Lee Priday, William J. Teahan, and LLyr Ap Cenydd. 2016. How the perceived identity of a NPC companion influences player behavior. In Transactions on Computational Science XXVIII. Springer, 88--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jack Hollingdale and Tobias Greitemeyer. 2013. The changing face of aggression: The effect of personalized avatars in a violent video game on levels of aggressive behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, 9 (2013), 1862--1868.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jennifer Hyde, Elizabeth J. Carter, Sara Kiesler, and Jessica K. Hodgins. 2013. Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters. In Proceedings of the 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG’13). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Interplay Productions. 1997. Fallout. Game {Microsoft Windows, Mac OS, MS-DOS}. (30 September 1997). Interplay Productions, Los Angeles, CA, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Caroline F. Keating. 1985. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 48, 1 (1985), 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Christoph Klimmt, Dorothée Hefner, Peter Vorderer, Christian Roth, and Christopher Blake. 2010. Identification with video game characters as automatic shift of self-perceptions. Media Psychol. 13, 4 (2010), 323--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Robin S. S. Kramer, James E. King, and Robert Ward. 2011. Identifying personality from the static, nonexpressive face in humans and chimpanzees: Evidence of a shared system for signaling personality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 32, 3 (2011), 179--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Robin S. S. Kramer and Robert Ward. 2010. Internal facial features are signals of personality and health. Quart. J. Exper. Psychol. 63, 11 (2010), 2273--2287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Robin S. S. Kramer and Robert Ward. 2012. Cues to personality and health in the facial appearance of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Evol. Psychol. 10, 2 (2012), 147470491201000210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Anthony C. Little and David I. Perrett. 2007. Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. Br. J. Psychol. 98, 1 (2007), 111--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Paul R. Messinger, Xin Ge, Eleni Stroulia, Kelly Lyons, Kristen Smirnov, and Michael Bone. 2008. On the relationship between my avatar and myself. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 1, 2 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jorge Moll and Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza. 2007. Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn. Scie. 11, 8 (2007), 319--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Adam B. Moore, N. Y. Louis Lee, Brian A. M. Clark, and Andrew R. A. Conway. 2011. In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of the dual process model of moral judgment. Judg. Decis. Making 6, 3 (2011), 186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Obsidian Entertainment. 2010. Fallout: New Vegas. Game {Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360}. (19 October 2010). Bethesda Softworks, Rockville, MD, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jorge Peña, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Nicholas A. Merola. 2009. The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Commun. Res. 36, 6 (2009), 838--856.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Edward B. Royzman and Jonathan Baron. 2002. The preference for indirect harm. Soc. Just. Res. 15, 2 (2002), 165--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Erik J. Schlicht, Shinsuke Shimojo, Colin F. Camerer, Peter Battaglia, and Ken Nakayama. 2010. Human wagering behavior depends on opponents’ faces. PloS One 5, 7 (2010), e11663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Aaron Sell, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Daniel Sznycer, Christopher von Rueden, and Michael Gurven. 2009. Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 1656 (2009), 575--584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Miguel Sicart. 2013. Moral dilemmas in computer games. Des. Issues 29, 3 (2013), 28--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Michael Stirrat and David I. Perrett. 2010. Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychol. Sci. 21, 3 (2010), 349--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Judith Jarvis Thomson and William Parent. 1986. Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays, in Moral Theory. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mascha Vant Wout and Alan G. Sanfey. 2008. Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition 108, 3 (2008), 796--803.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Yuqiong Wang, Joe Geigel, and Alan Herbert. 2013. Reading personality: Avatar vs. human faces. In Proceedings of the 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII’13). IEEE, 479--484. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Janine Willis and Alexander Todorov. 2006. First impressions making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol. Sci. 17, 7 (2006), 592--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. John Paul Wilson and Nicholas O. Rule. 2015. Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychol. Sci. 26, 8 (2015), 1325--1331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum. Commun. Res. 33, 3 (2007), 271--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Nick Yee, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2009. The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Commun. Res. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Leslie A. Zebrowitz, Luminita Voinescu, and Mary Ann Collins. 1996. “Wide-eyed” and “crooked-faced”: Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the life span. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22, 12 (1996), 1258--1269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Eduard Zell, Carlos Aliaga, Adrian Jarabo, Katja Zibrek, Diego Gutierrez, Rachel McDonnell, and Mario Botsch. 2015. To stylize or not to stylize?: The effect of shape and material stylization on the perception of computer-generated faces. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (2015), 184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Katja Zibrek and Rachel McDonnell. 2014. Does render style affect perception of personality in virtual humans? In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. ACM, 111--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Facial Features of Non-player Creatures Can Influence Moral Decisions in Video Games

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
        ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 15, Issue 1
        January 2018
        122 pages
        ISSN:1544-3558
        EISSN:1544-3965
        DOI:10.1145/3128284
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 September 2017
        • Revised: 1 June 2017
        • Accepted: 1 June 2017
        • Received: 1 September 2016
        Published in tap Volume 15, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader