Measuring social variables in real and artificial faces

Abstract Human observers rapidly make social judgments about faces, including estimates of trustworthiness, aggression, and many other personality states and traits. Are social variables like these estimated effectively from artificial faces? If not, this could easily compromise interactions between humans and social agents. We examined how a set of personality variables were estimated from real face images and artificial face images synthesized from the original photographs using a morphable model of facial appearance. This stimulus set provided us with an identity-matched set of real and artificial agents, allowing for a close comparison of how social variables are estimated as a function of animacy. We found that observers’ ratings of social variables in both cases were well-described using a two-factor model of social “face space” based on valence and dominance, but real vs. artificial scores were only correlated along the valence axis. Further, we found that correlations between real and synthetic face social variables depended critically on sex categories, suggesting that social evaluation in artificial agents depends on male/female appearance.

[1]  J. Carré,et al.  In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  B. Balas,et al.  Visual adaptation of the perception of “life”: Animacy is a basic perceptual dimension of faces , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Christopher Y. Olivola,et al.  Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting , 2010 .

[4]  A. Hariri,et al.  The social neuroendocrinology of human aggression , 2011, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[5]  B. Balas Biological sex determines whether faces look real , 2013, Visual cognition.

[6]  Stefanos Zafeiriou,et al.  Large Scale 3D Morphable Models , 2017, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[7]  N. Ambady,et al.  Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Holistic Processing Is Finely Tuned for Faces of One's Own Race , 2006, Psychological science.

[9]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Andrew W. Young,et al.  Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model , 2013, Cognition.

[11]  A. Todorov,et al.  Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  A. Todorov,et al.  Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes , 2005, Science.

[14]  Richard Russell,et al.  Sex, Beauty, and the Relative Luminance of Facial Features , 2003, Perception.

[15]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  A. Todorov,et al.  The functional basis of face evaluation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Sheri Lynn Johnson,et al.  Looking Deathworthy , 2006, Psychological science.

[18]  Nicholas O. Rule,et al.  Accurate Identification of a Preference for Insertive Versus Receptive Intercourse from Static Facial Cues of Gay Men , 2013, Archives of Sexual Behavior.

[19]  T. Wheatley,et al.  The Tipping Point of Animacy , 2010, Psychological science.

[20]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[21]  Mary J. Bravo,et al.  Perceptual discrimination of computer generated and photographic faces , 2012, Digit. Investig..

[22]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. , 2009 .

[23]  B. Balas,et al.  Treating Objects like Women: The Impact of Terror Management and Objectification on the Perception of Women’s Faces , 2017 .

[24]  Benjamin Balas,et al.  Artificial faces are harder to remember , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  Emanuela Bricolo,et al.  Do all kids look alike? Evidence for an other-age effect in adults. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  R. Malpass,et al.  Recognition for faces of own and other race. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  Janine Willis,et al.  First Impressions , 2006, Psychological science.

[28]  Arvid Kappas,et al.  Facial Skin Smoothness as an Indicator of Perceived Trustworthiness and Related Traits , 2016, Perception.

[29]  Thomas Vetter,et al.  Face Recognition Based on Fitting a 3D Morphable Model , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[30]  B. Balas,et al.  You Can Take the Eyes Out of the Doll, But… , 2012, Perception.

[31]  Christopher J Patrick,et al.  Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. , 2009, Psychological assessment.

[32]  Debi A. LaPlante,et al.  Surgeons' tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. , 2002, Surgery.

[33]  A. Todorov,et al.  EvaluaTiNg faCES ON TruSTwOrThiNESS afTEr miNimal TimE ExpOSurE , 2009 .

[34]  Nalini Ambady,et al.  Accuracy and consensus in judgments of trustworthiness from faces: behavioral and neural correlates. , 2013, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  S. Tipper,et al.  Young children perceive less humanness in outgroup faces. , 2018, Developmental science.

[36]  Benjamin Balas,et al.  Trustworthiness perception is disrupted in artificial faces , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[37]  B. Balas,et al.  Detecting personal familiarity depends on static frames in “thin slices” of behavior , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  A. Pentland,et al.  Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[39]  Benjamin Balas,et al.  Face Animacy is Not All in the Eyes: Evidence from Contrast Chimeras , 2014, Perception.

[40]  H. Ellis,et al.  Identification of Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces from Internal and External Features: Some Implications for Theories of Face Recognition , 1979, Perception.

[41]  J. Bailenson,et al.  The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior , 2007 .

[42]  Susan C. Roberts,et al.  Facial appearance affects voting decisions. , 2007 .

[43]  C. Mondloch,et al.  Facial Structure Is a Reliable Cue of Aggressive Behavior , 2009, Psychological science.

[44]  William G. Hayward,et al.  How Well Do Computer-Generated Faces Tap Face Expertise? , 2015, PloS one.

[45]  Nicholas O. Rule,et al.  Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50 ms , 2008 .

[46]  Benjamin Balas,et al.  Early visual ERP sensitivity to the species and animacy of faces , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  Paul Miller,et al.  Verification of face identities from images captured on video. , 1999 .

[48]  Nicholas O. Rule,et al.  Detecting Suicidality From Facial Appearance , 2013 .