Participants rated machine “faces” which varied in terms of color scheme (white on black or black on white), feature shape (round or square), verticality of eyes, verticality of nose, and verticality of mouth. Ratings were made for aggression, friendliness, intelligence, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Equally proportioned features yielded the most positive ratings, but all features were important in predicting the magnitude of the difference. Trustworthiness ratings appeared to require the most complex facial processing. Design of intelligent agents needs to take into account the minimal features that elicit an anthropomorphic response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GeorgeP.A.EavesK.RasekA. (2002). Effects of Geometric Distortions on Face-Recognition Performance. Perception.31(10).
2.
HassinR.TropeY. (2000). Facing Faces: Studies on the Cognitive Aspects of Physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.78(5).
3.
LaserP. S.MathieV. A. (1982). Face Facts: An Unbidden Role for Features in Communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour.7(1).
4.
PerrettD. I.HietanenJ. K.OramM.W.BensonP. J. (1992). Organization and Functions of Cells Responsive to Faces in the Temporal Cortex. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences.335.
5.
SimsV. K.ChinM. G.YordonR. E.SushilD. J.BarberD.J.OwensC. W.SmithH. S.DolezalM. J.ShumakerR.FinkelsteinN. (2005). When Function Follows Form: Anthropomorphism of Artifact “Faces”Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 47.
