Skip to main content

Larger vehicles are perceived as more aggressive, angry, dominant, and masculine

Abstract

Humans have evolved the cognitive ability to perceive and associate dominance, masculinity, and emotions to animals and humans of larger sizes. Previous research has shown that humans are able to anthropomorphize nonbiological objects such as cars and attribute different characteristics to them. We hypothesized that larger vehicles are perceived and processed in a similar fashion as other biological agents, and are therefore considered more aggressive, dominant, and masculine compared to smaller vehicles. This study investigated the effect of vehicles’ size on the perception of dominance, masculinity, anger, and hostility. A total of 221 individuals (139 men and 82 women) participated in the study and rated vehicles of large and small sizes on four dimensions of Submissive-Dominant, Angry-Happy, Masculine-Feminine, and Hostile-Friendly. Results showed that participants rated larger vehicles as more dominant, angry, hostile, and masculine than smaller vehicles, supporting the proposal that, similar to biological agents, large vehicles are more threatening and are associated with higher dominance. Moreover, while men and women responded to size in a similar manner, the ratings of anger, masculinity, and hostility for large vehicles increased with the age of participants. The implications of this work are considered, including ways to enhance the social acceptance of autonomous vehicles.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2017). Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation, 44(6), 1293–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coss, R. G. (2003). The role of evolved perceptual biases in art and design. In E. Voland & K. Grammer (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darst, C. R., Cummings, M. E., & Cannatella, D. C. (2006). A mechanism for diversity in warning signals: Conspicuousness versus toxicity in poison frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(15), 5852–5857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P. M., Hekkert, P., & Jacobs, J. J. (2000). When a car makes you smile: Development and application of an instrument to measure product emotions. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 111–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, L. (1994). The high and the mighty among man and beast: How universal is the relationship between height (or body size) and social status. In L. Ellis (Ed.), Social Stratification & Socioeconomic Inequality (Vol. 2, pp. 93–112). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A. P., Galley, L., & Walter, H. (2002). Cultural objects modulate reward circuitry. Neuroreport, 13(18), 2499–2503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fank, J., Richardson, N. T., & Diermeyer, F. (2019). Anthropomorphising driver-truck interaction: A study on the current state of research and the introduction of two innovative concepts. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 13(2), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessler, D. M., Holbrook, C., & Snyder, J. K. (2012). Weapons make the man (larger): Formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PLoS One, 7(4), e32751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, A. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3(2), 191–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, E., van Anders, S. M., & Mullin, L. I. (2006). A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(6), 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(6), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holländer, K., Colley, A., Mai, C., Häkkilä, J., Alt, F., & Pfleging, B. (2019). Investigating the influence of external car displays on pedestrians' crossing behavior in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 1-11).

  • Kloth, N., Itier, R. J., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2013). Combined effects of inversion and feature removal on N170 responses elicited by faces and car fronts. Brain and Cognition, 81(3), 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kret, M. E., & De Gelder, B. (2012). A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1211–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn, S., Brick, T. R., Müller, B. C., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Is this car looking at you? How anthropomorphism predicts fusiform face area activation when seeing cars. PLoS One, 9(12), e113885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, A., Allik, J., Realo, A., & Valk, R. (2009). Age-related differences in emotion recognition ability: A cross-sectional study. Emotion, 9(5), 619–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenović, M. N., Abbas, M., & McPherson, T. (2014). Development of socially sustainable traffic-control principles for self-driving vehicles: The ethics of anthropocentric design. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

  • Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47(1), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purucker, C., Sprott, D. E., & Herrmann, A. (2014). Consumer response to car fronts: Eliciting biological preparedness with product design. Review of Managerial Science, 8(4), 523–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasouli, A., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2019). Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: A survey of theory and practice. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems.

  • Ruffman, T., Henry, J. D., Livingstone, V., & Phillips, L. H. (2008). A meta-analytic review of emotion recognition and aging: Implications for neuropsychological models of aging. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(4), 863–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, A., Hone, L. S., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23(1), 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S., Ruffman, T., & Hutton, S. B. (2007). Age differences in emotion recognition skills and the visual scanning of emotion faces. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(1), P53–P60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, R., Zhuang, X., Wu, C., Zhao, G., & Zhang, K. (2015). The estimation of vehicle speed and stopping distance by pedestrians crossing streets in a naturalistic traffic environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 30, 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters, B., Brengman, M., & Mahama, F. (2014). The impact of pleasure-evoking colors on the effectiveness of threat (fear) appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 31(12), 1051–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windhager, S., Slice, D. E., Schaefer, K., Oberzaucher, E., Thorstensen, T., & Grammer, K. (2008). Face to face: The perception of automotive designs. Human Nature, 19(4), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windhager, S., Hutzler, F., Carbon, C. C., Oberzaucher, E., Schaefer, K., Thorstensen, T., Leder, H., & Grammer, K. (2010). Laying eyes on headlights: Eye movements suggest facial features in cars. Collegium Antropologicum, 34(3), 1075–1080.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Windhager, S., Bookstein, F. L., Grammer, K., Oberzaucher, E., Said, H., Slice, D. E., Thorstensen, T., & Schaefer, K. (2012). “Cars have their own faces”: Cross-cultural ratings of car shapes in biological (stereotypical) terms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(2), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farid Pazhoohi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pazhoohi, F., Kingstone, A. Larger vehicles are perceived as more aggressive, angry, dominant, and masculine. Curr Psychol 41, 4195–4199 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00936-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00936-5

Keywords

  • Vehicle perception
  • Size perception
  • Dominance
  • Aggression perception
  • Autonomous vehicles