Judging approachability on the face of it: The influence of face and body expressions on the perception of approachability.

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to examine how emotional expressions displayed by the face and body influence the decision to approach or avoid another individual. In Experiment 1, we examined approachability judgments provided to faces and bodies presented in isolation that were displaying angry, happy, and neutral expressions. Results revealed that angry expressions were associated with the most negative approachability ratings, for both faces and bodies. The effect of happy expressions was shown to differ for faces and bodies, with happy faces judged more approachable than neutral faces, whereas neutral bodies were considered more approachable than happy bodies. In Experiment 2, we sought to examine how we integrate emotional expressions depicted in the face and body when judging the approachability of face-body composite images. Our results revealed that approachability judgments given to face-body composites were driven largely by the facial expression. In Experiment 3, we then aimed to determine how the categorization of body expression is affected by facial expressions. This experiment revealed that body expressions were less accurately recognized when the accompanying facial expression was incongruent than when neutral. These findings suggest that the meaning extracted from a body expression is critically dependent on the valence of the associated facial expression.

Dog owners show experience-based viewing behaviour in judging dog face approachability

“…2). It is plausible that dog-owners might use an experienced-based gaze strategy for extracting and/or analyzing facial information regarding approachability, such as valence or expressive facial cues (Willis et al, 2011;Vernon et al, 2014). This ability may develop through necessity as it would be beneficial for dog-owners to be able to quickly perceive the mood of their dogs.…”

“…Approachability is one of the facial trait judgements people often made (sometimes automatically) to form first impressions (Vernon, Sutherland, Young, & Hartley, 2014), and is probably more relevant when encountering non-human animals in comparison with other facial traits, such as attractiveness, trustworthiness and dominance. For human faces, the judgement of approachability corresponds closely to trustworthiness/valence rating (Vernon et al, 2014), and the perceived facial expression is crucial for forming an impression of approachability (Willis, Palermo, & Burke, 2011;Vernon et al, 2014). Considering that humans would name familiar faces faster than unfamiliar ones (Bar & Bierderman, 1998) and demonstrate proficient gaze pattern in the viewing of more-experienced familiar faces (Barton et al, 2006;Heisz & Shore, 2008), we hypothesized that dog-owners may use less viewing time and adopt a more 'efficient' gaze strategy (e.g., fewer number of fixations and fixation allocation at task-relevant informative facial regions) to judge the approachability of dog faces.…”

Perceived emotion genuineness: normative ratings for popular facial expression stimuli and the development of perceived-as-genuine and perceived-as-fake sets

“…1a) of the type that has been successfully used to rate other face attributes that are naturally bidirectional (e.g., approach/avoid; Willis, Palermo & Burke, 2011). Our scale runs from -7 = completely fake to +7 = completely genuine, and, crucially, includes a neutral midpoint at 0, which is labeled don't know.…”

Exploring the nature of visual fixations on other pedestrians

“…[3][4][5][6] After dark, in locations where pedestrians are expected, road lighting should aid this task.…”