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, log in via an institution to check access.
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.
Becker, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2017). Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation, 44(6), 1293–1306.
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.
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.
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.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100–131.
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.
Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A. P., Galley, L., & Walter, H. (2002). Cultural objects modulate reward circuitry. Neuroreport, 13(18), 2499–2503.
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.
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.
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.
Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Kret, M. E., & De Gelder, B. (2012). A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1211–1221.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sell, A., Hone, L. S., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23(1), 30–44.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00936-5