Do I trust you, abstract creature?: A study on personality perception of abstract
Ylva Ferstl Elena Kokkinaray Rachel McDonnell
Graphics, Vision and Visualisation Group
Trinity College Dublin
This paper explored the attributes of faces and how they impact viewers perception of the faces. It findings were things that i had learned through osmosis from watching films and examining other characters and creatures in the past, but having evidence of the hunches and feelings i had before has helped me to add emotions to my creature designs.
Square eyes and circular eyes were seen as the most trust worthy and kindest, and narrow and oval eyes were seen as the most agressive and untrustworthy. The same results applied to the head shape, and the narrower the gap between the eyes the more aggressive and sinister the character seemed.
We examined the effect of all three factors (head shape, eye shape
and eye size) on the ratings given for each of the 5 questions
(dominance, trustworthiness, aggressiveness, appeal, eeriness). We
treated the questionnaire scores as ordinal data and analyzed the
data by fitting a cumulative link model for the three factors, using
clm from the R ordinal package [Christensen 2015]. Diverging
stacked bar charts of questionnaire results for each factor can be
seen in Figure 2.
Perception of aggressiveness was significantly influenced by head
shape (2(2) = 62:81; p < :0001) as well as eye shape (2(2) =
62:38; p < :0001), but not eye size. The narrow head shape was
perceived as more aggressive than both the round and the wide head
(both p < :0001), with no significant difference between the round
and wide head. For the eye shape, the almond shape got the highest
aggressiveness rating (p < :0001 compared to both other eye
shapes), and rectangular eyes were perceived more aggressive than
round eyes (p < :05).
For the personality trait of dominance, there was a significant effect
of head shape (2(2) = 84:77; p < :0001) and eye shape (2(2) =
60:48; p < :0001), but no effect of eye size. Our results show that
the narrow head shape was perceived as more dominant than both
Figure 2: Stacked bar charts for the questionnaire scores. Plotted
is the frequency of responses for each of the 7 rating scores, for all
head shapes, eye shapes and eye sizes. (The y-axis represents the
frequency of responses.)
the round and the wide head (both p < :0001). For the eye shape,
almond eyes were rated most dominant (p < :0001 compared to
both other eye shapes), and rectangle eyes were perceived more
dominant than round eyes (p < :01).
Perceived trustworthiness was significantly influenced by all three
factors, head shape (2(2) = 19:09; p < :0001), eye shape
(2(2) = 46:7; p < :0001) and eye size (2(2) = 20:6; p <
:0001). The narrow head shape was perceived as significantly
less trustworthy than both the round (p < :0001) and the wide
head (p < :05). Almond shaped eyes were perceived as significantly
less trustworthy than both rectangle and round eyes (both
p < :0001). Round eyes were rated more trustworthy than rectangle
eyes (p < :05). The medium eye size was rated as most trustworthy
(p < :01 compared to small eyes and p < :0001 compared
to large eyes).
Appeal was dependent on all three factors (head shape: 2(2) =
14:33; p < :001; eye shape: 2(2) = 9:22; p < :01; eye size:
2(2) = 25:15; p < :0001). The round head shape was rated as
most appealing (p < :05 compared to narrow shape and p < :001
compared to wide shape). For the eyes, the round shape was rated as
most appealing (p < :0:01 compared to both rectangle and almond
eyes), as well as the medium eye size (p < :05 compared to small
and p < :0001 compared to large), with small eyes rated as more
appealing than large eyes (p < :05).
Eeriness was also significantly influenced by all three factors (head
shape: 2(2) = 37:95; p < :0001; eye shape: 2(2) = 10:12; p <
:01; eye size: 2(2) = 22:93; p < :0001). The narrow head
shape was perceived as most eerie (p < :0001 compared to both
other shapes). Almond shaped eyes were perceived as significantly
more eerie than both round and rectangle eyes (both p < 0:05).
Large eyes were rated as significantly more eerie than medium
(p < :0001) and small eyes (p < :05).
We used the likelihood ratio test to assess whether the interaction
between the three factors are supported by the data for each question.
The likelihood ratio statistic was small in all cases, meaning
that interactions are not supported by the data.
Furthermore, we tested whether the type of character was a significant
factor influencing the personality and affinity ratings by
adding it as a factor on the cumulative link model. We found
that the character had a significant main effect on three of the ratings
(aggressiveness (2(1) = 30:31; p < :0001), dominance
(2(1) = 93:33; p < :0001) and trustworthiness (2(1) =
16:16; p < :0001)). Main effects of the other factors remained
the same when character was an additional factor. As previously,
the likelihood ratio for the interaction term was small in all cases