Effects of Facial Symmetry and Gaze Direction on Perception of Social Attributes: A Study in Experimental Art History.
This article explores the possibility of testing hypotheses about art production in the past by collecting data in the present. We call this enterprise "experimental art history". Why did medieval artists prefer to paint Christ with his face directed towards the beholder, while profane faces were noticeably more often painted in different degrees of profile? Is a preference for frontal faces motivated by deeper evolutionary and biological considerations? Head and gaze direction is a significant factor for detecting the intentions of others, and accurate detection of gaze direction depends on strong contrast between a dark iris and a bright sclera, a combination that is only found in humans among the primates. One uniquely human capacity is language acquisition, where the detection of shared or joint attention, for example through detection of gaze direction, contributes significantly to the ease of acquisition. The perceived face and gaze direction is also related to fundamental emotional reactions such as fear, aggression, empathy and sympathy. The fast-track modulator model presents a related fast and unconscious subcortical route that involves many central brain areas. Activity in this pathway mediates the affective valence of the stimulus. In particular, different sub-regions of the amygdala show specific activation as response to gaze direction, head orientation and the valence of facial expression. We present three experiments on the effects of face orientation and gaze direction on the judgments of social attributes. We observed that frontal faces with direct gaze were more highly associated with positive adjectives. Does this help to associate positive values to the Holy Face in a Western context? The formal result indicates that the Holy Face is perceived more positively than profiles with both direct and averted gaze. Two control studies, using a Brazilian and a Dutch database of photographs, showed a similar but weaker effect with a larger contrast between the gaze directions for profiles. Our findings indicate that many factors affect the impression of a face, and that eye contact in combination with face direction reinforce the general impression of portraits, rather than determine it.
Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen Bergen, Norway.
Per O
PO
Folgerø
Department of Art and Media Studies, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway.
Lasse
L
Hodne
Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen Bergen, Norway.
Christer
C
Johansson
Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen Bergen, Norway.
Alf E
AE
Andresen
Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen Bergen, Norway.
Lill C
LC
Sætren
Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen Bergen, Norway.
Karsten
K
Specht
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo Oslo, Norway.
Øystein O
ØO
Skaar
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo Oslo, Norway.
Rolf
R
Reber
emotion; experimental aesthetics; face perception; gaze perception; holy face
Perception. 2009;38(1):109-32
19323141
Neuroimage. 2011 May 1;56(1):299-306
21320610
Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(8):1129-38
11931917
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992 Jan 29;335(1273):23-30
1348133
Neuropsychologia. 2007 Oct 1;45(13):3024-37
17644145
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:519-45
25196277
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Apr;36(2):145-6
23507100
Curr Biol. 2007 May 1;17(9):766-72
17412586
Brain. 1999 Apr;122 ( Pt 4):779-83
10219788
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:208-24
18400932
J Neurosci. 2013 Jun 19;33(25):10483-9
23785160
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):135-43
19223221
Neuron. 2012 Dec 20;76(6):1057-70
23259943
Perception. 1980;9(4):483-4
6999452
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Aug;53(3):825-45
10994231
Behav Brain Res. 1985 Aug;16(2-3):153-70
4041214
Perspect Biol Med. 2011 Summer;54(3):367-80
21857127
J Vis. 2009 Nov 20;9(12):16.1-7
20053107
Neuroimage. 2001 Jun;13(6 Pt 1):1102-12
11352615
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jul;4(7):267-278
10859571
J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Aug;24(8):1742-52
22452556
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Feb;19(2):65-72
25496670
Neuroimage. 2010 Feb 1;49(3):2680-6
19883773
Vision Res. 2006 Oct;46(21):3549-62
16904157
Curr Biol. 2007 Jan 9;17(1):20-5
17208181
Neurophysiol Clin. 2008 Jun;38(3):197-207
18539254
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Jan;111(1):82-90
24108794
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Apr;36(2):157-8
23507113
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Apr;36(2):123-37
23507091
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11087-92
18685089
Curr Biol. 2011 Nov 8;21(21):1817-21
22036180
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21852
21755004
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Aug;9(8):1246-52
23946006
Psychol Sci. 2015 Jan;26(1):39-47
25512052
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Nov;25(11):4596-609
26048954
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Aug;24(6):581-604
10940436
J Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;91(4):1699-705
15010496
Neuroimage. 2003 Sep;20(1):318-29
14527592
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 Mar;50:169-79
25454353
Neuroimage. 1998 Aug;8(2):221-7
9740764
Emotion. 2010 Aug;10(4):573-86
20677874
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008 Jun;3(2):119-27
19015102
Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 1;29(1):276-85
16087351
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 Jun;33(6):843-63
19428496
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 Apr;51:263-75
25660957
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):127-34
19217822
Child Dev. 1986 Dec;57(6):1454-63
3802971
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Aug;40(4):1526-41
24820443
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jun;4(6):223-233
10827445
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2010;33:299-324
20350167
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 20;9(3):e81237
24651120
Nature. 1997 Jun 19;387(6635):767-8
9194557
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Dec;12(12):455-60
18951830
Neurosci Lett. 2013 Feb 8;534:128-32
23262080
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Apr;36(2):163-80
23617023