Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

The present work explores how the horizontal viewing angle of a virtual character’s face influences perceptions of credibility and approachability.

Background

When encountering virtual characters, people rely both on credibility and approachability judgments to form a first impression of the depicted virtual character. Research shows that certain perceptions are preferred either on frontal or tilted faces, but not how approachability or credibility judgments relate to horizontal viewing angles in finer granularity between 0° and 45°.

Method

52 participants performed a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task rating 240 pairwise comparisons of 20 virtual character faces shown in four horizontal viewing angles (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) on approachability and credibility. They also rated scales on individual differences based on the BIS-BAS framework (behavioral inhibition system, drive, and reward responsiveness), self-esteem, and personality traits (neuroticism, loneliness).

Results

Both approachability and credibility were negatively related to the horizontal viewing angle, but the negative relationship was less pronounced for approachability. Notably, 15° tilted faces were associated with higher approachability than frontal faces by people scoring high in reward responsiveness, drive, and self-esteem, and scoring low in neuroticism and loneliness.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the conditions under which showing a virtual character’s face is preferred in a horizontally 15° tilted over a frontal position.

Application

The differential impact of the horizontal viewing angle on approachability and credibility should be considered when displaying virtual character faces.

Keywords

virtual character face perception horizontal viewing angle approachability credibility BIS/BAS framework self-esteem neuroticism loneliness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arellano

Varona

Perales

F. J.

Bee

Janowski

André

(2011). Influence of head orientation in perception of personality traits in virtual agents. 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 2011, AAMAS 2011 (pp. 1027–1028).

Arsenyan

Mirowska

(2021). Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155(June), 102694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102694

Baranowski

A. M.

Hecht

(2018). Effect of Camera Angle on Perception of Trust and Attractiveness. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 36(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237417710762

Bee

Franke

Andŕe

(2009). Relations between facial display, eye gaze and head tilt: Dominance perception variations of virtual agents. In Proceedings - 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops, ACII 2009 (pp. 4–10). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2009.5349573

Bellman

Schweda

Varan

(2009). Viewing angle matters - Screen type does not. Journal of Communication, 59(3), 609–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01441.x

Brown

T. D.

Dane

F. C.

Durham

M. D.

(1998). Perception of race and ethnicity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(2), 295–306.

Buecker

Maes

Denissen

J. J. A.

Luhmann

(2020). Loneliness and the Big Five Personality Traits: A Meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2229

Campbell

D. W.

Neuert

Friesen

K. B.

McKeen

N. A.

(2010). Assessing social approachability: Individual differences, in-group biases, and experimental control. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(4), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020229

Carré

J. M.

McCormick

C. M.

(2008). In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1651), 2651–2656. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0873

10.

Carré

J. M.

McCormick

C. M.

Mondloch

C. J.

(2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior: Research report. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02423.x

11.

Carver

C. S.

White

T. L.

(1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319

12.

Celiktutan

Gunes

(2017). Automatic Prediction of Impressions in Time and across Varying Context: Personality, Attractiveness and Likeability. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 8(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2015.2513401

13.

Coetzee

Greeff

J. M.

Stephen

I. D.

Perrett

D. I.

(2014). Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e99629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099629

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

15.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

16.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 5–13.

17.

Courgeon

Clavel

Tan

Martin

J. C.

(2011). Front view vs. side view of facial and postural expressions of emotions in a virtual character. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6758(January), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22639-7_14

18.

Cumming

Finch

(2005). Inference by eye confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170

19.

Degens

Endrass

Hofstede

G. J.

Beulens

André

(2017). ‘What I see is not what you get’: why culture-specific behaviours for virtual characters should be user-tested across cultures. AI and Society, 32(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-014-0567-2

20.

Dion

Berscheid

Walster

(1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731

21.

Dunstan

C. J.

Lindell

A. K.

(2012). Hemifacial preferences for the perception of emotion and attractiveness differ with the gender of the one beheld. Cognition and Emotion, 26(5), 907–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.621931

22.

Elliot

A. J.

(2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7

23.

Elliot

A. J.

Thrash

T. M.

(2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804

24.

Favelle

Hill

Claes

(2017). About Face: Matching Unfamiliar Faces Across Rotations of View and Lighting. I-Perception, 8(6), 204166951774422. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517744221

25.

Fechner

G. T.

Howes

D. H.

Boring

E. G.

(1966). Elements of psychophysics (Vol. 1). Rinehart and Winston.

26.

Felnhofer

Kaufmann

Atteneder

Kafka

J. X.

Hlavacs

Beutl

Hennig-Fast

Kothgassner

O. D.

(2019). The mere presence of an attentive and emotionally responsive virtual character influences focus of attention and perceived stress. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 132(February), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.010

27.

Ferstl

Kokkinara

McDonnell

(2016). Do I trust you, abstract creature? (pp. 39–43). https://doi.org/10.1145/2931002.2931014

28.

Ferstl

McDonnell

(2018). A perceptual study on the manipulation of facial features for trait portrayal in virtual agents (pp. 281–288). https://doi.org/10.1145/3267851.3267891

29.

Fleming

Mohler

B. J.

Romero

Black

M. J.

Breidt

(2017). Appealing avatars from 3D body scans: Perceptual effects of stylization. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 693(693), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64870-5_9

30.

Folgerø

P. O.

Hodne

Johansson

Andresen

A. E.

Sætren

L. C.

Specht

Skaar

Ø. O.

Reber

(2016). Effects of facial symmetry and gaze direction on perception of social attributes: A study in experimental art history. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(SEP2016), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00452

31.

Frymier

A. B.

Thompson

C. A.

(1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41(4), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529209378900

32.

Garama

(2019). The role of eye gaze in virtual characters on their perceived social presence and the application of Theory of Mind.

33.

Garcia

Chun

Kicklighter

Mai

Palma

Seo

J. H.

(2021). Studying design attributes of virtual characters to support students' perceived experiences in virtual reality lectures. International Association for Development of the Information Society.

34.

Giffin

(1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024833

35.

Girard

Johnson

(2010). What do children favor as embodied pedagogical agents? (pp. 307–316). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13388-6_35

36.

Gomez-Uribe

C. A.

Hunt

(2015). The netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 6(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2843948

37.

Gray-Little

Williams

V. S. L.

Hancock

T. D.

(1997). An item response theory analysis of the rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235001

38.

Gray

J. A.

(1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0

39.

Greenberg

Wursten

(1988). The Psychologist and the Psychiatrist as Expert Witnesses: Perceived Credibility and Influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(4), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.19.4.373

40.

Gross

T. F.

(2009). Own-ethnicity bias in the recognition of black, East Asian, Hispanic, and White Faces. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530902880381

41.

Gulz

Haake

(2006). Virtual pedagogical agents – design guidelines regarding visual appearance and pedagogical roles. In The IV International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in Education (MICTE 2006) (pp. 1848–1852). ftp://ftp.uwc.ac.za/users/DMS/CITI/NewPHdfolder/m-icte2006/virtualpedagogicalagents.pdf

42.

Haake

Gulz

(2009). A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents - A user preference perspectivenet. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(1), 39–71.

43.

Harrison

Yang

Franconeri

Chang

(2014). Ranking visualizations of correlation using Weber’s Law. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 1943–1952. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346979

44.

Hays

DiMatteo

M. R.

(1987). A Short-Form Measure of Loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6

45.

Hess

Adams

R. B.

Kleck

R. E.

(2007). Looking at you or looking elsewhere: The influence of head orientation on the signal value of emotional facial expressions. Motivation and Emotion, 31(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9057-x

46.

Hancock

Miner

A. S.

(2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026

47.

Holm

(1979). A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(6), 65–70.

48.

Hou

Nam

Peng

Lee

K. M.

(2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007

49.

Hyde

Carter

E. J.

Kiesler

Hodgins

J. K.

(2013). Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters. In 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, FG 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2013.6553775

50.

Jin

S. V.

Muqaddam

Ryu

(2019). Instafamous and social media influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 37(5), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2018-0375

51.

Jones

A. L.

Kramer

R. S. S.

Ward

(2012). Signals of personality and health: The contributions of facial shape, skin texture, and viewing angle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1353–1361. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027078

52.

Jordan

T. R.

Thomas

S. M.

(2001). Effects of horizontal viewing angle on visual and audiovisual speech recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(6), 1386–1403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.6.1386

53.

Kang

(2009). In and Out , & Up and Down : Camera Perspectives and Perceived Truthfulness.

54.

Kang

S.-H.

Gratch

(2010). Virtual humans elicit socially anxious interactants’ verbal self-disclosure. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds. August, n/a-n/a https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.345

55.

Kappas

Hess

Barr

C. L.

Kleck

R. E.

(1994). Angle of regard: The effect of vertical viewing angle on the perception of facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(4), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02172289

56.

Keng

C. J.

Liu

C. C.

(2013). Can avatar and self-referencing really increase the effects of online 2-D and 3-D advertising? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.025

57.

Kohring

Matthes

(2007). Trust in news Media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071

58.

Komarraju

(2013). Ideal teacher behaviors: Student motivation and self-efficacy predict preferences. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312475029

59.

Kong

You

(2013). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators between social support and life satisfaction in late adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9930-6

60.

Krämer

N. C.

Lucas

Schmitt

Gratch

(2018). Social snacking with a virtual agent – On the interrelation of need to belong and effects of social responsiveness when interacting with artificial entities. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 109(July 2017), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.09.001

61.

Kramer

R. S.

Ward

(2011). Different signals of personality and health from the two sides of the face. Perception, 40(5), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6856

62.

Lance

Marsella

(2010). Glances, glares, and glowering: How should a virtual human express emotion through gaze? Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 20(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-009-9097-6

63.

Lance

Marsella

S. C.

(2008). The relation between gaze behavior and the attribution of emotion: An empirical study. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5208 LNAI (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_1

64.

Lee

Y. C.

Yamashita

Huang

(2020). “I Hear You, i Feel You”: Encouraging Deep Self-disclosure through a Chatbot. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376175

65.

Lewis

M. B.

(2017). Fertility affects asymmetry detection not symmetry preference in assessments of 3D facial attractiveness. Cognition, 166, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.034

66.

Leyssen

M. H. R.

Linsen

Sammartino

Palmer

S. E.

(2012). Aesthetic Preference for Spatial Composition in Multiobject Pictures. I-Perception, 3(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0458aap

67.

Kizilcec

Bailenson

(2016). Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.005

68.

Liew

T. W.

Tan

S. M.

Ismail

(2017). Exploring the effects of a non-interactive talking avatar on social presence, credibility, trust, and patronage intention in an e-commerce website. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 7(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-017-0123-4

69.

Liew

T. W.

Tan

S. M.

Jayothisa

(2013). The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners’ agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement. Educational Technology and Society, 16(4), 275–286.

70.

Linsen

Leyssen

M. H. R.

Sammartino

Palmer

S. E.

(2011). Aesthetic Preferences in the Size of Images of Real-World Objects. Perception, 40(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6835

71.

D. S.

Correll

Wittenbrink

(2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5

72.

MacDorman

K. F.

Green

R. D.

C. C.

Koch

C. T.

(2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371

73.

Mantiuk

R. R. K.

Tomaszewska

Mantiuk

R. R. K.

(2012). Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. Computer Graphics Forum, 31(8), 2478–2491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2012.03188.x

74.

Matsui

Yamada

(2019). The design method of the virtual teacher. In HAI 2019 - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (pp. 97–101). December https://doi.org/10.1145/3349537.3351906

75.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Martin

T. A.

(2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05

76.

McCroskey

J. C.

Teven

J. J.

(1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

77.

McCroskey

J. C.

Young

T. J.

(1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978109368075

78.

McDonnell

Breidty

Bülthoff

H. H.

(2012). Render me real? Investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 31(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2185520.2185587

79.

McNicol

(2005). A primer of signal detection theory. Psychology Press.

80.

Mignault

Chaudhuri

(2003). The many faces of a neutral face: Head tilt and perception of dominance and emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023914509763

81.

Muris

Meesters

de Kanter

Timmerman

P. E.

(2005). Behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation system scales for children: Relationships with Eysenck’s personality traits and psychopathological symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.007

82.

Nass

Steuer

Tauber

E. R.

(1994). Computers are social actors. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI, ’94, 204. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288

83.

Newell

S. J.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6

84.

Normoyle

Badler

J. B.

Fan

Badler

N. I.

Cassol

V. J.

Musse

S. R.

(2013). Evaluating perceived trust from procedurally animated gaze. In Proceedings - Motion in Games 2013, MIG 2013 (pp. 119–126). https://doi.org/10.1145/2522628.2522630

85.

Nye

B. D.

Graesser

A. C.

(2014). AutoTutor and Family: A Review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 427–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0029-5

86.

Oosterhof

N. N.

Todorov

(2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105

87.

Otta

Lira

B. B. P.

Delevati

N. M.

Cesar

O. P.

Pires

C. S. G.

(1994). The effect of smiling and of head tilting on person perception. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128(3), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712736

88.

Pagliaccio

Luking

K. R.

Anokhin

A. P.

Gotlib

I. H.

Hayden

E. P.

Olino

T. M.

Peng

C.-Z.

Hajcak

Barch

D. M.

(2016). Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood. Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000186

89.

Palmer

S. E.

Schloss

K. B.

Sammartino

(2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504

90.

Parmar

Olafsson

Utami

Bickmore

(2018, November). Looking the part: The effect of attire and setting on perceptions of a virtual health counselor. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 301–306).

91.

Pelowski

Gerger

Chetouani

Markey

P. S.

Leder

(2017). But Is It Really Art? The Classification of Images as ‘Art’/"Not Art" and Correlation with Appraisal and Viewer Interpersonal Differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(OCT), 1729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01729

92.

Potdevin

Sabouret

Clavel

(2020). Intimacy perception: Does the artificial or human nature of the interlocutor matter. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 142(May), 102464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102464

93.

Rajap

Nakadai

Nishi

Yuasa

Mukawa

(2007). Impression design of a life-like agent by its appearance, facial expressions, and gaze behaviors-analysis of agent’s sidelong glance. In Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2630–2635). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2007.4413735

94.

Ramlatchan

Watson

(2020). Enhancing Instructor Credibility and Immediacy in the Design of Distance Learning Systems and Virtual Classroom Environments. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.51869/92mrgsw

95.

Ray

J. J.

(1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. The Journal of Social Psychology, 121(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1983.9924470

96.

Reis

V. A.

Zaidel

D. W.

(2001). Functional asymmetry in the human face: Perception of health in the left and right sides of the face. Laterality, 6(3), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500143000005

97.

Reuderink

(2006). The influence of gaze and head tilt on the impression of listening agents.

98.

Rodway

Tatham

Guo

(2019). Effect of model race and viewing perspective on body attractiveness and body size assessment in young Caucasian women: an eye-tracking study. Psychological Research, 83(2), 347–356.

99.

Rosenberg

(1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Religion and Health.

100.

Satteli

H.-P.

(2010). The effect of different vertical camera-angles on faceperception (pp. 1–13). August http://essay.utwente.nl/60111/

101.

Schneider

T. M.

Carbon

C. C.

(2017). Taking the perfect selfie: Investigating the impact of perspective on the perception of higher cognitive variables. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(JUN), 971. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00971

102.

Schrammel

Pannasch

Graupner

S. T.

Mojzisch

Velichkovsky

B. M.

(2009). Virtual friend or threat? the effects of facial expression and gaze interaction on psychophysiological responses and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00831.x

103.

Sutherland

C. A. M.

Young

A. W.

Rhodes

(2017). Facial first impressions from another angle: How social judgements are influenced by changeable and invariant facial properties. British Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12206

104.

ter Stal

Kramer

L. L.

Tabak

op den Akker

Hermens

. (2020). Design features of embodied conversational agents in eHealth: A literature review.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 138(2), 102409.

105.

Toscano

Schubert

T. W.

Giessner

S. R.

(2018). Eye Gaze and Head Posture Jointly Influence Judgments of Dominance, Physical Strength, and Anger. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0276-5

106.

Ustinova

K. I.

Perkins

(2011). Gaze and viewing angle influence visual stabilization of upright posture. Brain and Behavior, 1(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.10

107.

Verhagen

van Nes

Feldberg

van Dolen

(2014). Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12066

108.

Vroegh

Wiesmann

S. L.

Henschke

Lange

E. B.

(2021). Manual motor reaction while being absorbed into popular music. Consciousness and Cognition, 89, 103088.

109.

Vuong

Kaur

Heinrich

B. K.

Hammang

C. J.

Baldi

B. F.

O’Donoghue

S. I.

(2018). Versus—A tool for evaluating visualizations and image quality using a 2AFC methodology. Visual Informatics, 2(4), 225–234.

110.

Wang

C. C.

Yeh

W. J.

(2013). Avatars with sex appeal as pedagogical agents: Attractiveness, trustworthiness, expertise, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 403–429. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.4.a

111.

Wang

Geigel

Herbert

(2013). Reading personality: Avatar vs. human faces. In Proceedings - 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII 2013 (pp. 479–484). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2013.85

112.

Weibel

Stricker

Wissmath

Mast

F. W.

(2010). How socially relevant visual characteristics of avatars influence impression formation. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000005

113.

Willis

M. L.

Palermo

Burke

(2011). Judging approachability on the face of it: The influence of face and body expressions on the perception of approachability. Emotion, 11(3), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022571

114.

Witkower

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

115.

Wojciszke

(2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 16). https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280500229619.Issue 1.

116.

Wölfl

Feste

(2018). Do You Trust Me?: Facial Width-to-Height Ratio of Website Avatars and Intention to Purchase from Online Store.

117.

Zaidel

D. W.

Cohen

J. A.

(2005). The face, beauty, and symmetry: Perceiving asymmetry in beautiful faces. International Journal of Neuroscience, 115(8), 1165–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450590914464

118.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Montepare

J. M.

Lee

H. K.

(1993). They Don’t All Look Alike: Individuated Impressions of Other Racial Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.85

119.

Zell

Aliaga

Jarabo

Zibrek

Gutierrez

McDonnell

Botsch

(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, 34(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2816795.2818126

120.

Zhang

Lin

Perrett

D. I.

(2020). Apparent Emotional Expression Explains the Effects of Head Posture on Perceived Trustworthiness and Dominance, but a Measure of Facial Width Does Not. Perception, 49(4), 422–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006620909286

121.

Zibrek

Kokkinara

McDonnell

(2018). The effect of realistic appearance of virtual characters in immersive environments - Does the character’s personality play a role? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(4), 1681–1690. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794638

122.

Zibrek

McDonnell

(2014). Does render style affect perception of personality in virtual humans? In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception, SAP 2014 (pp. 111–115). https://doi.org/10.1145/2628257.2628270

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.00 MB

Approachability and Credibility of Virtual Character Faces: The Role of the Horizontal Viewing Angle

Abstract

Objective

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Application

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material