1 / 35

Transformed Facial Similarity and Social Influence

Transformed Facial Similarity and Social Influence. Jeremy Bailenson, Shanto Iyengar, & Nick Yee Stanford University. Overview. Facial similarity as an influence heuristic Nonverbal evaluation of leaders Transformations in digital mass media Experimental evidence from Election Studies

benedict
Download Presentation

Transformed Facial Similarity and Social Influence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transformed Facial Similarity and Social Influence Jeremy Bailenson, Shanto Iyengar, & Nick Yee Stanford University

  2. Overview • Facial similarity as an influence heuristic • Nonverbal evaluation of leaders • Transformations in digital mass media • Experimental evidence from Election Studies • Implications/Ethics

  3. Faces are privileged… • Innate ability to recognize and discriminate (Nelson, 2001) • Brain modules dedicated to face processing (Farah, 1996) • Nonverbal Behavior accounts for a majority of human communication (Mehrabian, 1971)

  4. Face Recognition

  5. Face Recognition Inverted Face Effect (Drain, H., Farah, M., Wilson, K., & Tanaka, J., 1995)

  6. Non-Verbal Cues in Politics • Substantive Information deemed paramount • Policy positions • Performance records • Partisan affiliation • Physical cues considered secondary • Some notable Exceptions…

  7. Televised versus Radio broadcasts… 1960 1st Presidential Debate “Kennedy was bronzed beautifully . . . Nixon looked like death.” (Stanton, 2000, President of CBS) Nixon fares much better for radio listeners than TV listeners, (for a recent replication see Druckman, 1993)

  8. Nonverbally Attractive Candidates Win Elections(Rosenberg, Bohan; McCafferty; & Harris, 1986) • Subjects rated “congressional demeanor of fictitious candidates” • Candidates chosen for high/low nonverbal demeanor: -attractiveness -nonverbal gestures -dress • High candidates win 60 percent of the vote

  9. “Facial Competence” wins actual elections(Todorov and colleagues, 2004, 2005) Subjects rated “competence” of candidates

  10. Competence via similarity… Similarity among people results in: • Attraction (Shanteau & Nagy, 1979) • More Persuasion (Chaiken, 1979) • More purchases (Brock, 1965) • More altruistic helping behavior (Dovidio, 1984) • Trust (DeBruine, 2002)

  11. A World of Digital Mass Media….

  12. Transformed Social Interaction (TSI) Actual Behavior Strategic Filter Transformed Behavior

  13. Facial Identity Capture

  14. Morph Examples

  15. Overview of Experiments • Study 1: Facial similarity of unfamiliar candidates • Study 2: Facial Similarity of familiar candidates • Study 3: Familiarity vs. Similarity, Types of similarity (facial, partisan, issue)

  16. Methods common across the three studies…

  17. Photo Criteria • Rejected if: • Wearing glasses • Have facial hair • Taken in bad lighting conditions • Not facing camera • Strange facial expressions • Low resolution (less than 350 x 350) • Blurred or other optical artifacts

  18. Measures • Affective Response • Has this candidate ever made you feel … (Angry, Proud, Disgusted, Hopeful, Afraid)? • Trait Ratings • How well does this label describe the candidate … (Dishonest, Moral, Intelligent, etc.)? • Feeling Thermometer • Intention to Vote

  19. Held Constant • Voter Gender • Voter Party

  20. Study OneDoes Facial Similarity Matter? Split Panel Presentation in a web-based survey. N = 105 Average Age = 51.0 SD Age = 11.6 Half morphed with Crist; Half morphed with Davis.

  21. Results Difference Score = Davis Score – Crist Score (i.e., higher score = Davis preference)

  22. Study TwoFacial Similarity in Familiar Candidates Split Panel Presentation in a web-based survey. N = 160 Average Age = 41.1 SD Age = 14.8

  23. Morph Example

  24. Preference Score Candidate Score = Affect + Traits + Thermometer + Voting Overall Preference = Bush Score – Kerry Score High Score = Bush Preference Low Score = Kerry Preference

  25. Study ThreeComparing Cues • Facial Similarity • Candidate Familiarity • Ideological Similarity • Party Similarity • Gender Similarity • Which of these cues take precedence? Single Candidate Presentation Online

  26. Selected Candidates

  27. Selected Candidates

  28. Ideological Similarity • Troop Withdrawal • Should we set a time-table for troop withdrawal from Iraq?(3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3-5 years, and no time limit) • Overseas Outsourcing • Does overseas outsourcing help or hurt the US economy? (Helps, Not Sure, Hurts)

  29. Analysis • Factors • Facial Similarity • Candidate Familiarity • Party Similarity • Ideological Similarity • Gender Similarity • Measure • Overall Preference Score

  30. Results • Main effect of Party Similarity (p < .001, 2 = .05) • Favored own party. • Main effect of Policy Similarity (p = .007, 2 = .02) • Favored candidates with similar policies. • Main effect of Candidate Familiarity (p = .001, 2 = .03) • Favored familiar candidates.

More Related