*3.2.1 Match-ness*

The ANOVAs revealed significant interactions (Expression x Animal: F(44, 880) = 2.95, p < .0001; Expression x Form: F(11, 220) = 3.58, p < .0001; Animal x Form: F(4, 80) = 6.58, p < .0001; Expression x Animal x Form: F(44, 880) = 2.15, p < .0001).

The stickers of real animals showed a higher matchness in dogs to express refusal1 relative to cartoon animals. The stickers of cartoon animals showed higher matchness than real ones in dogs for fear, commitment, gratitude, and shyness2 ; in cats for happiness, fear, commitment and greeting3 ; in ducks for happiness, agreement, commitment, grievance, gratitude, greeting, shyness, fun and anger4 ; in

**89**

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social…*

rabbits for happiness, fear, agreement, commitment, grievance, gratitude, greeting,

For stickers with real animals, the matchness of the intended expression was

The matchness was higher for cats than other animals to express grievance10, fun11, and anger12. The matchness was higher for ducks than rabbits when expressing fear13. Moreover, the matchness was highest for anger and grievance and was lowest for happiness in cats14. The matchness was highest for refusal and lowest for gratitude in dogs15. The matchness was higher for sadness than greeting and griev-

For stickers with cartoon animals, the matchness was lower for rabbits than other animals to express refusal17, higher for rabbits than pigs to express grievance18, and lower for dogs than other animals to express sadness19. The matchness was higher for commitment than sadness in dogs20, and was lowest to express

The interactions of Expression x Form (F(11, 220) = 1.97, p = .03) and Animal x Form (F(4, 80) = 4.15, p = .002) were significant. Stickers with cartoon animals were judged as more human-like than those of cartoon animals for happiness, fear,

<sup>5</sup> happiness: t = 5.40, p < .0001; fear: t = 2.56, p = .01; agreement: t = 4.49, p < .0001); commitment: t = 3.6, p = .001); grievance: t = 3.89, p = .0004; gratitude: t = 2.45; p = .02; greeting: t = 2.47, p = .02; shyness: t = 3.60, p = .0009; sadness: t = 2.57, p = .01; fun: t = 3.78, p = .0005; anger: t = 2.33, p = .02

<sup>7</sup> dog>cat: t = 3.91, p = .002; dog>duck: t = 3.24, p = .01; dog>pig: t = 3.24, p = .01; dog>rabbit: t = 3.66,

<sup>8</sup> dog>cat: t = 4.18, p = .001; pig>cat: t = 4.09, p = .001; dog>duck: t = 2.93, p = .03; dog>rabbit: t = 3.64,

<sup>14</sup> anger>agreement: t = 3.86, p = .01; grievance>agreement: t = 3.57, p = .02; anger>commitment: t = 4.42, p = .01; anger>fear: t = 3.67, p = .02; anger>happiness: t = 5.74, p = .01; anger>refusal: t = 3.95, p = .01; grievance>commitment: t = 4.14, p = .01; shyness>commitment: t = 3.57, p = .02; grievance>fear: t = 3.39, p = .04; fun>happiness: t = 4.51, p = .01; gratitude>happiness: t = 3.48, p = .03; greeting>happiness: t = 3.39, p = .04; grievance>happiness: t = 5.45, p = .01; grievance>refusal: t = 3.67,

<sup>15</sup> refusal>commitment: t = 3.56, p = .02; refusal>fear: t = 4.05, p = .01; fun>gratitude: t = 3.50, p = .03; grievance>gratitude: t = 3.68, p = .01; happiness>gratitude: t = 3.68, p = .01; refusal>gratitude: t = 5.43,

<sup>21</sup> agreement>refusal: t = 3.90, p = .01; anger>refusal: t = 3.59, p = .02; commitment>refusal: t = 5.38, p = .01; grievance>fear: t = 3.69, p = .01; fun>refusal: t = 4.64, p = .01; gratitude>refusal: t = 4.43, p = .01; grievance>greeting: t = 3.38, p = .04; grievance>refusal: t = 6.43, p = .01; happiness>refusal: t = 5.59,

, and in pigs for commitment and anger6

, happiness8

.

and agreement9

.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

highest for dogs than other animals to express refusal7

<sup>6</sup> commitment: t = 2.69, p = .01; anger: t = 4.47, p < .0001

p = .004; pig>duck: t = 2.84, p = .04; pig>rabbit: t = 3.55, p = .01.

<sup>10</sup> cat>duck: t = 4.30, p = .001; cat>pig: t = 2.89, p = .04; dog>duck: t = 3.27, p = .013

<sup>12</sup> cat>pig: t = 4.67, p < .0001; cat>rabbit: t = 4.12, p = .001; dog>pig: t = 2.93, p = .03

p = .02; sadness>happiness: t = 4.42, p = .01; shyness>happiness: t = 4.90, p = .01.

p = .01; sadness>gratitude: t = 3.31, p = .05; refusal>shyness: t = 3.59, p = .02. <sup>16</sup> sadness>greeting: t = 3.43, p = .03; sadness>grievance: t = 3.34, p = .05 <sup>17</sup> dog > rabbit: t = 3.44, p = .007; duck > rabbit: t = 3.90, p = .002

p = .01; sadness>refusal: t = 5.38, p = .01; shyness>refusal: t = 5.70, p = .01.

<sup>19</sup> duck>dog: t = 2.92, p = .034; rabbit > dog: t = 2.92, p = 03

shyness, sadness, fun, and anger<sup>5</sup>

ance in ducks16.

refusal for rabbits21.

*3.2.2 Human likeness*

<sup>9</sup> dog>rabbit: t = 4.02, p = .001.

<sup>11</sup> cat>rabbit: t = 2.94, p = .03.

<sup>13</sup> duck>rabbit: t = 3.21, p = .02

<sup>18</sup> rabbit > pig: t = 2.90, p = .04

<sup>20</sup> commitment>sadness: t = 3.58, p = .02

p = .004.

<sup>1</sup> refusal: t = 2.21, p = .03

<sup>2</sup> fear: t = 3.47, p = .001; commitment: t = 3.77, p = .0005; gratitude: t = 3.22, p = .003; shyness:

t = 2.12, p = .04

<sup>3</sup> happiness: t = 5.89, p < .0001; fear: t = 2.27, p = .03; commitment: t = 4.85, p < .0001; greeting: t = 2.83, p = .007

<sup>4</sup> happiness: t = 3.28, p = .002; agreement: t = 2.52, p = .02; commitment: t = 2.36, p = .02; grievance:

t = 2.97, p = .005; gratitude: t = 2.18, p = .04; greeting: t = 2.90, p = .006; shyness: t = 2.80, p = .008; fun: t = 2.84, p = .007; anger: t = 2.77, p = .008

#### *Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

rabbits for happiness, fear, agreement, commitment, grievance, gratitude, greeting, shyness, sadness, fun, and anger<sup>5</sup> , and in pigs for commitment and anger6 .

For stickers with real animals, the matchness of the intended expression was highest for dogs than other animals to express refusal7 , happiness8 and agreement9 . The matchness was higher for cats than other animals to express grievance10, fun11, and anger12. The matchness was higher for ducks than rabbits when expressing fear13. Moreover, the matchness was highest for anger and grievance and was lowest for happiness in cats14. The matchness was highest for refusal and lowest for gratitude in dogs15. The matchness was higher for sadness than greeting and grievance in ducks16.

For stickers with cartoon animals, the matchness was lower for rabbits than other animals to express refusal17, higher for rabbits than pigs to express grievance18, and lower for dogs than other animals to express sadness19. The matchness was higher for commitment than sadness in dogs20, and was lowest to express refusal for rabbits21.

#### *3.2.2 Human likeness*

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*

ranking scores.

**3. Result**

**3.1 Self-reports on social media usage**

**3.2 Social attribute ratings**

*3.2.1 Match-ness*

p < .0001).

<sup>1</sup> refusal: t = 2.21, p = .03

t = 2.84, p = .007; anger: t = 2.77, p = .008

t = 2.12, p = .04

p = .007

refusal1

To assess the relations between measures on one's social media usage, different categorical measures were first transformed into the ranking scale *from short to long duration* (4 levels) for the Length of Using Social Media Per Day (Length), *from less to more frequent* (4 levels) for the Frequency of Using WeChat Per Day (Frequency of Wechat Usage) and for the Frequency of Using Emotive Stickers Per Day (Frequency of Sticker Usage). Spearman correlations were applied to these

To assess the impacts of individual differences on social attribute judgments, new ANOVAs based on what was described in 2.4.1 were performed with one individual difference measure included as an additional fixed factor and all other individual difference measures included as controlling factors. Besides measures of AAS and IRI, participant sex was also considered as the fixed factor. Follow-up analysis was planned whenever a significant interaction between these measures and Expression/ Form/Kind was shown. Linear regression models were built to assess the effects of scale measures on each expression. The effects of categorical measures were analyzed with ANOVA. The analyses were performed in R 3.6.0 within the R studio 1.2.1335.

All reported to be the user of WeChat. On the length of social media use, 13 reported to use WeChat for 1-3 hours per day, 4 reported 3-6 hours per day, 3 reported 6 hours or more per day and 1 reported less than 1 hour per day. On the frequency of social media use, 6 reported to use WeChat every ten minutes, 10 reported every half an hour, 3 reported every hour and 2 reported every two to three hours. All reported to have used emotive stickers, among whom 18 reported to have used animal stickers. On the frequency of using stickers, 4 reported to use stickers

The ANOVAs revealed significant interactions (Expression x Animal: F(44, 880) = 2.95, p < .0001; Expression x Form: F(11, 220) = 3.58, p < .0001; Animal x Form: F(4, 80) = 6.58, p < .0001; Expression x Animal x Form: F(44, 880) = 2.15,

The stickers of real animals showed a higher matchness in dogs to express

matchness than real ones in dogs for fear, commitment, gratitude, and shyness2

ment, commitment, grievance, gratitude, greeting, shyness, fun and anger4

<sup>2</sup> fear: t = 3.47, p = .001; commitment: t = 3.77, p = .0005; gratitude: t = 3.22, p = .003; shyness:

<sup>3</sup> happiness: t = 5.89, p < .0001; fear: t = 2.27, p = .03; commitment: t = 4.85, p < .0001; greeting: t = 2.83,

<sup>4</sup> happiness: t = 3.28, p = .002; agreement: t = 2.52, p = .02; commitment: t = 2.36, p = .02; grievance: t = 2.97, p = .005; gratitude: t = 2.18, p = .04; greeting: t = 2.90, p = .006; shyness: t = 2.80, p = .008; fun:

relative to cartoon animals. The stickers of cartoon animals showed higher

; in

; in

; in ducks for happiness, agree-

highly frequently, 9 reported often, and 8 reported occasionally.

cats for happiness, fear, commitment and greeting3

**88**

The interactions of Expression x Form (F(11, 220) = 1.97, p = .03) and Animal x Form (F(4, 80) = 4.15, p = .002) were significant. Stickers with cartoon animals were judged as more human-like than those of cartoon animals for happiness, fear,

```
t = 3.6, p = .001); grievance: t = 3.89, p = .0004; gratitude: t = 2.45; p = .02; greeting: t = 2.47, p = .02;
```

```
shyness: t = 3.60, p = .0009; sadness: t = 2.57, p = .01; fun: t = 3.78, p = .0005; anger: t = 2.33, p = .02
```

```
6 commitment: t = 2.69, p = .01; anger: t = 4.47, p < .0001
```

```
7 dog>cat: t = 3.91, p = .002; dog>duck: t = 3.24, p = .01; dog>pig: t = 3.24, p = .01; dog>rabbit: t = 3.66, 
p = .004.
```
<sup>8</sup> dog>cat: t = 4.18, p = .001; pig>cat: t = 4.09, p = .001; dog>duck: t = 2.93, p = .03; dog>rabbit: t = 3.64,

p = .004; pig>duck: t = 2.84, p = .04; pig>rabbit: t = 3.55, p = .01.


```
12 cat>pig: t = 4.67, p < .0001; cat>rabbit: t = 4.12, p = .001; dog>pig: t = 2.93, p = .03
```
<sup>13</sup> duck>rabbit: t = 3.21, p = .02

```
14 anger>agreement: t = 3.86, p = .01; grievance>agreement: t = 3.57, p = .02; anger>commitment:
```

```
t = 4.42, p = .01; anger>fear: t = 3.67, p = .02; anger>happiness: t = 5.74, p = .01; anger>refusal:
```

```
t = 3.95, p = .01; grievance>commitment: t = 4.14, p = .01; shyness>commitment: t = 3.57, p = .02;
```

```
grievance>fear: t = 3.39, p = .04; fun>happiness: t = 4.51, p = .01; gratitude>happiness: t = 3.48, p = .03;
```
greeting>happiness: t = 3.39, p = .04; grievance>happiness: t = 5.45, p = .01; grievance>refusal: t = 3.67,

```
p = .02; sadness>happiness: t = 4.42, p = .01; shyness>happiness: t = 4.90, p = .01.
```

```
15 refusal>commitment: t = 3.56, p = .02; refusal>fear: t = 4.05, p = .01; fun>gratitude: t = 3.50, p = .03; 
grievance>gratitude: t = 3.68, p = .01; happiness>gratitude: t = 3.68, p = .01; refusal>gratitude: t = 5.43, 
p = .01; sadness>gratitude: t = 3.31, p = .05; refusal>shyness: t = 3.59, p = .02.
```

```
16 sadness>greeting: t = 3.43, p = .03; sadness>grievance: t = 3.34, p = .05
```

```
19 duck>dog: t = 2.92, p = .034; rabbit > dog: t = 2.92, p = 03
```
<sup>20</sup> commitment>sadness: t = 3.58, p = .02

```
21 agreement>refusal: t = 3.90, p = .01; anger>refusal: t = 3.59, p = .02; commitment>refusal: t = 5.38,
```

```
p = .01; grievance>fear: t = 3.69, p = .01; fun>refusal: t = 4.64, p = .01; gratitude>refusal: t = 4.43, p = .01;
```

```
grievance>greeting: t = 3.38, p = .04; grievance>refusal: t = 6.43, p = .01; happiness>refusal: t = 5.59,
```

```
p = .01; sadness>refusal: t = 5.38, p = .01; shyness>refusal: t = 5.70, p = .01.
```
<sup>5</sup> happiness: t = 5.40, p < .0001; fear: t = 2.56, p = .01; agreement: t = 4.49, p < .0001); commitment:

and commitment22. The increased human-like judgment of cartoon animals was also revealed for dogs, ducks and rabbits23.

### *3.2.3 Cuteness*

The ANOVAs revealed a significant effect of Animal (F(4, 80) = 30.25, p < .001), with stickers of dog being judged of higher cuteness than those of pig (t = 2.90, p = .03). The interactions were significant (Expression x Animal: F(44, 880) = 2.56, p < .0001; Expression x Animal x Form: F(44, 880) =1.41,p = .04).

Stickers of cartoon animals were judged as cuter than those of real animals in cats24, ducks25 and rabbits26.

For stickers of real animals, ducks were judged as cuter than other animals to express happiness27, and commitment28. Cats were judged as cuter than other animals to express gratitude29, greeting30, and shyness31. Fear and refusal were judged as less cute than expressions of gratitude and shyness in cat32.

For stickers of cartoon animals, cats were judged as cuter than other animals to express happiness33, and sadness34. Pigs and ducks were judged as less cuter than other animals to express agreement35, commitment36, grievance37, fun38. Refusal was judged as less cute than gratitude and happiness in cats39. Sadness was rated less cuter than other expressions in dog40. Commitment was judged as cuter than anger and refusal for rabbit41.

<sup>25</sup> happiness: t = 2.09, p = .04; shyness: t = 2.06, p = .05

<sup>26</sup> agreement: t = 3.30, p = .002; commitment: t = 5.84, p < .0001; grievance: t = 3.07, p = .004; gratitude:


```
29 cat>dog: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>duck: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>pig: t = 2.86, p = .04; cat>rabbit: t = 3.12, p = .02
```
<sup>30</sup> cat>duck: t = 3.43, p = .008; cat>pig: t = 3.26, p = .01

<sup>31</sup> cat>dog: t = 3.69, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 3.85, p = .002; cat>pig: t = 4.36, p = .0003

<sup>32</sup> gratitude>fear: t = 3.58, p = .02; shyness>fear: t = 3.76, p = .01; gratitude>refusal: t = 4.68, p = .01; greeting>refusal: t = 3.39, p = .04; shyness>refusal: t = 4.86, p = .01.

<sup>33</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.90, p = .04; cat>pig: t = 2.90, p = .04, gratitude: cat>dog: t = 2.96, p = .02; cat>duck:

t = 4.54, p = .001; cat>pig: t = 2.96, p = .03; rabbit>duck: t = 3.16, p = .02

<sup>34</sup> cat>dog: t = 3.70, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 2.96, p = .03

```
35 dog>pig: t = 3.31, p = .01; rabbit>pig: t = 3.01, p = .03
```
<sup>36</sup> cat>duck: t = 3.91, p = .002; dog>duck: t = 3.62, p = .004; pig>duck: t = 2.84, p = .04; rabbit>duck: t = 5.47, p = .001

<sup>37</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.91, p = .04; dog>duck: t = 3.64, p = .004; dog>pig: t = 3.00, p = .03; rabbit>duck:

t = 4.46, p = .0002; rabbit>pig: t = 3.82, p = .002

<sup>38</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03; dog>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03

<sup>39</sup> gratitude>refusal: t = 3.42, p = .03; happiness>refusal: t = 3.32, p = .05

<sup>40</sup> agreement>sadness: t = 4.69, p = .01; commitment>sadness: t = 3.37, p = .04; fun>sadness: t = 3.78,

**91**

p = 0.05

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social…*

The ANOVAs revealed significant interactions (Expression and Animal: F(44, 880) = 1.89, p = .0004; Animal x Form: F(4, 80) = 7.83, p < .0001; Expression x

Stickers of real animals were judged as more expressive than those of cartoon animals in cats42 and dogs43. Stickers of cartoon animals were judged as more

For stickers of real animals, dogs were judged as more expressive than other animals to express refusal47 and happiness48. Cats were judged as more expressive than ducks to express grievance49 and anger50. Moreover, anger and fun were judged as more expressive than other expressions in cats51. Refusal was judged more expressive than gratitude in dogs52. Shyness was judged more expressive than agreement in

For stickers of cartoon animals, cats were judged as less expressive than other animals for happiness54, dogs were judged as less expressive for sadness55, and ducks were judged as less for greeting56. Grievance was judged as less expressive than

The Pearson correlation revealed significant positive associations between AAS

and IRI total scores (r = 0.47, p = 0.03), between the scores of IRI and the subscales58 and between the scores for FS and PD (r = 0.63, p = 0.002). Neither significant effects between Length, Frequency of WeChat Usage and Frequency of Sticker Usage, nor significant effects between these usage-related measures and ASS or IRI

<sup>45</sup> agreement: t = 2.79, p = .008; commitment: t = 2.03, p = .05; grievance: t = 2.25, p = .03; greeting:

<sup>51</sup> anger>gratitude: t = 3.74, p = .01; anger>happiness: t = 3.74, p = .01; anger>refusal: t = 3.56, p = .02;

<sup>58</sup> IRI-FS: r = 0.73, p = 0.0001; IRI-PD: r = 0.71, p = 0.0003; IRI-EC: r = 0.59, p = 0.005; IRI-PT: r = 0.43,

fun>gratitude: t = 3.65, p = .02; fun>happiness: t = 3.65, p = .02; fun>refusal: t = 3.48, p = .03

<sup>44</sup> happiness: t = 2.44, p = .02; shyness: t = 3.93, p = .0003; sadness: t = 2.34, p = .02

<sup>47</sup> dog>cat: t = 3.53, p = .006; dog>pig: t = 2.97, p = .03; dog>rabbit: t = 3.05, p = .02

expressive than those of real animals for rabbit44, duck45 and pig46.

**3.3 Individual differences in social attributes ratings**

*3.3.1 Associations between individual difference measures*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

Animal x Form: F(44, 880) = 1.53, p = .01).

*3.2.4 Expressiveness*

rabbits53.

other expressions in pigs57.

scores were shown (ps > .1).

t = 3.56, p = .001); fun: t = 2.55, p = .01

<sup>52</sup> refusal > gratitude: t = 3.94, p = .01 <sup>53</sup> shyness > agreement: t = 3.43, p = .03

<sup>48</sup> dog>cat: t = 2.84, p = .04; dog>rabbit: t = 3.19, p = .02

<sup>50</sup> cat>pig: t = 3.35, p = .01; cat>rabbit: t = 3.44, p = .007

<sup>54</sup> dog>cat: t = 3.26, p = .01; duck>cat: t = 3.17, p = .02 <sup>55</sup> duck>dog: t = 3.07, p = .02; pig>dog: t = 2.98, p = .03 <sup>56</sup> duck>dog: t = 3.36, p = .01; duck>rabbit: t = 3.18, p = .02

<sup>57</sup> fear>grievance: t = 3.38, p = .04; sadness>grievance: t = 3.56, p = .02

<sup>42</sup> grievance: t = 2.06, p = .05 <sup>43</sup> refusal: t = 3.36, p = .002

<sup>46</sup> anger: t = 2.37, p = .02

<sup>49</sup> cat>duck: t = 3.63, p = .004

p = .01; grievance>sadness: t = 3.88, p = .01

<sup>41</sup> commitment>anger: t = 3.43, p = .03; commitment>refusal: t = 3.63, p = .02

<sup>22</sup> happiness: t = 2.62, p = .009; fear: t = 2.32, p = .02; commitment: t = 2.39, p = .02

<sup>23</sup> dog: t = 2.62, p = .009; duck: t = 3.18, p = .002; rabbit: t = 3.47, p = .0006

<sup>24</sup> happiness: t = 2.59, p = .01; commitment: t = 2.29, p = .03

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

## *3.2.4 Expressiveness*

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*

cats24, ducks25 and rabbits26.

and refusal for rabbit41.

t = 2.39, p = .02; fun: t = 2.16, p = .04

<sup>28</sup> dog>duck: t = 3.12, p = .02

t = 3.27, p = .01

t = 5.47, p = .001

*3.2.3 Cuteness*

also revealed for dogs, ducks and rabbits23.

and commitment22. The increased human-like judgment of cartoon animals was

The ANOVAs revealed a significant effect of Animal (F(4, 80) = 30.25, p < .001), with stickers of dog being judged of higher cuteness than those of pig (t = 2.90, p = .03).

Stickers of cartoon animals were judged as cuter than those of real animals in

For stickers of cartoon animals, cats were judged as cuter than other animals to express happiness33, and sadness34. Pigs and ducks were judged as less cuter than other animals to express agreement35, commitment36, grievance37, fun38. Refusal was judged as less cute than gratitude and happiness in cats39. Sadness was rated less cuter than other expressions in dog40. Commitment was judged as cuter than anger

<sup>26</sup> agreement: t = 3.30, p = .002; commitment: t = 5.84, p < .0001; grievance: t = 3.07, p = .004; gratitude:

<sup>29</sup> cat>dog: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>duck: t = 4.37, p = .0003; cat>pig: t = 2.86, p = .04; cat>rabbit: t = 3.12, p = .02

<sup>32</sup> gratitude>fear: t = 3.58, p = .02; shyness>fear: t = 3.76, p = .01; gratitude>refusal: t = 4.68, p = .01;

<sup>33</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.90, p = .04; cat>pig: t = 2.90, p = .04, gratitude: cat>dog: t = 2.96, p = .02; cat>duck:

<sup>36</sup> cat>duck: t = 3.91, p = .002; dog>duck: t = 3.62, p = .004; pig>duck: t = 2.84, p = .04; rabbit>duck:

<sup>37</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.91, p = .04; dog>duck: t = 3.64, p = .004; dog>pig: t = 3.00, p = .03; rabbit>duck:

<sup>40</sup> agreement>sadness: t = 4.69, p = .01; commitment>sadness: t = 3.37, p = .04; fun>sadness: t = 3.78,

<sup>27</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.91, p = .03; dog>duck: t = 3.18, p = .02; pig>duck: t = 4.24, p = .001; rabbit>duck:

For stickers of real animals, ducks were judged as cuter than other animals to express happiness27, and commitment28. Cats were judged as cuter than other animals to express gratitude29, greeting30, and shyness31. Fear and refusal were judged

The interactions were significant (Expression x Animal: F(44, 880) = 2.56,

p < .0001; Expression x Animal x Form: F(44, 880) =1.41,p = .04).

as less cute than expressions of gratitude and shyness in cat32.

<sup>22</sup> happiness: t = 2.62, p = .009; fear: t = 2.32, p = .02; commitment: t = 2.39, p = .02 <sup>23</sup> dog: t = 2.62, p = .009; duck: t = 3.18, p = .002; rabbit: t = 3.47, p = .0006

<sup>31</sup> cat>dog: t = 3.69, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 3.85, p = .002; cat>pig: t = 4.36, p = .0003

<sup>24</sup> happiness: t = 2.59, p = .01; commitment: t = 2.29, p = .03 <sup>25</sup> happiness: t = 2.09, p = .04; shyness: t = 2.06, p = .05

<sup>30</sup> cat>duck: t = 3.43, p = .008; cat>pig: t = 3.26, p = .01

<sup>34</sup> cat>dog: t = 3.70, p = .003; cat>duck: t = 2.96, p = .03 <sup>35</sup> dog>pig: t = 3.31, p = .01; rabbit>pig: t = 3.01, p = .03

t = 4.46, p = .0002; rabbit>pig: t = 3.82, p = .002 <sup>38</sup> cat>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03; dog>duck: t = 2.94, p = .03

p = .01; grievance>sadness: t = 3.88, p = .01

greeting>refusal: t = 3.39, p = .04; shyness>refusal: t = 4.86, p = .01.

t = 4.54, p = .001; cat>pig: t = 2.96, p = .03; rabbit>duck: t = 3.16, p = .02

<sup>39</sup> gratitude>refusal: t = 3.42, p = .03; happiness>refusal: t = 3.32, p = .05

<sup>41</sup> commitment>anger: t = 3.43, p = .03; commitment>refusal: t = 3.63, p = .02

**90**

The ANOVAs revealed significant interactions (Expression and Animal: F(44, 880) = 1.89, p = .0004; Animal x Form: F(4, 80) = 7.83, p < .0001; Expression x Animal x Form: F(44, 880) = 1.53, p = .01).

Stickers of real animals were judged as more expressive than those of cartoon animals in cats42 and dogs43. Stickers of cartoon animals were judged as more expressive than those of real animals for rabbit44, duck45 and pig46.

For stickers of real animals, dogs were judged as more expressive than other animals to express refusal47 and happiness48. Cats were judged as more expressive than ducks to express grievance49 and anger50. Moreover, anger and fun were judged as more expressive than other expressions in cats51. Refusal was judged more expressive than gratitude in dogs52. Shyness was judged more expressive than agreement in rabbits53.

For stickers of cartoon animals, cats were judged as less expressive than other animals for happiness54, dogs were judged as less expressive for sadness55, and ducks were judged as less for greeting56. Grievance was judged as less expressive than other expressions in pigs57.

#### **3.3 Individual differences in social attributes ratings**

#### *3.3.1 Associations between individual difference measures*

The Pearson correlation revealed significant positive associations between AAS and IRI total scores (r = 0.47, p = 0.03), between the scores of IRI and the subscales58 and between the scores for FS and PD (r = 0.63, p = 0.002). Neither significant effects between Length, Frequency of WeChat Usage and Frequency of Sticker Usage, nor significant effects between these usage-related measures and ASS or IRI scores were shown (ps > .1).

```
44 happiness: t = 2.44, p = .02; shyness: t = 3.93, p = .0003; sadness: t = 2.34, p = .02
```

```
45 agreement: t = 2.79, p = .008; commitment: t = 2.03, p = .05; grievance: t = 2.25, p = .03; greeting:
```

```
t = 3.56, p = .001); fun: t = 2.55, p = .01
```

```
46 anger: t = 2.37, p = .02
```

```
47 dog>cat: t = 3.53, p = .006; dog>pig: t = 2.97, p = .03; dog>rabbit: t = 3.05, p = .02
```

```
48 dog>cat: t = 2.84, p = .04; dog>rabbit: t = 3.19, p = .02
```

```
49 cat>duck: t = 3.63, p = .004
```

```
50 cat>pig: t = 3.35, p = .01; cat>rabbit: t = 3.44, p = .007
```

```
51 anger>gratitude: t = 3.74, p = .01; anger>happiness: t = 3.74, p = .01; anger>refusal: t = 3.56, p = .02;
```
fun>gratitude: t = 3.65, p = .02; fun>happiness: t = 3.65, p = .02; fun>refusal: t = 3.48, p = .03

```
52 refusal > gratitude: t = 3.94, p = .01
```

```
53 shyness > agreement: t = 3.43, p = .03
```

```
54 dog>cat: t = 3.26, p = .01; duck>cat: t = 3.17, p = .02
```

```
55 duck>dog: t = 3.07, p = .02; pig>dog: t = 2.98, p = .03
```

```
56 duck>dog: t = 3.36, p = .01; duck>rabbit: t = 3.18, p = .02
```

```
57 fear>grievance: t = 3.38, p = .04; sadness>grievance: t = 3.56, p = .02
```

```
58 IRI-FS: r = 0.73, p = 0.0001; IRI-PD: r = 0.71, p = 0.0003; IRI-EC: r = 0.59, p = 0.005; IRI-PT: r = 0.43,
```
p = 0.05

<sup>42</sup> grievance: t = 2.06, p = .05

<sup>43</sup> refusal: t = 3.36, p = .002

#### *3.3.2 Matchness*

The interactions of Sex x Animal (F(4, 80) = 3.01, p = .02) and Sex x Form (F(1, 20) = 69.31, p < .01) were significant. The matchness score was higher for women than men and such gender difference was more pronounced in pigs than ducks59, and was more pronounced in in stickers of real relative to cartoon animals60.

The interaction of Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 12.29, p < .01) was significant. The matchness score was higher for individuals who used social media 3-6 hours than those who used 1-3 hours in stickers of cartoon animals (t = 2.70, p = .03).

The interactions Frequency of WeChat Use x Animal (F(20, 400) = 2.78, p = .0009) and Frequency of WeChat Use x Form (F(5, 100) = 23.98, p < .01) were significant. For dogs, the matchness was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used that every 10 minutes (t = 3.14, p = .009). For cats and rabbits, the matchness was higher for those who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used that every 10 minutes and those who used WeChat every 1 hour61. For pigs, the score was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used WeChat every 1 hour (t = 2.79, p = .03).

For stickers of real animals, the matchness was higher for those who used that every 1 hour than those who used WeChat every 30 minutes and those who used WeChat every 2-3 hours62. For stickers of cartoon animals, the matchness was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used WeChat every 1 hour (t = 2.61, p = .04).

The interactions of Frequency of Stickers x Animal (F(12, 240) = 1.97, p = .05) and Frequency of Stickers x Form (F(3, 60) = 26.04, p < .01) were significant. For cats, the matchness score was higher for individuals who used stickers very frequently than those using stickers often (t = 2.65, p = .02). For pigs, the matchness was higher for those who used stickers very frequently than those who used stickers often and those who used stickers occasionally63. For stickers of cartoon animals, the matchness was higher for those who used stickers frequently than those using stickers often (t = 3.08, p = .006).

The interaction AAS x Animal was significant (F(52, 1040) = 3.80, p = .004). Individuals with higher AAS produced lower matchness for dogs and rabbits64. The interaction IRI x Expression was significant (F(132, 2640) = 2.27, p = .009). Individuals with higher IRI produced lower matchness for the expression of agreement, greeting and refusal65. The two-way interaction EC x Expression was significant (F(99, 1980) = 2.36, p = .007). Individuals with higher EC produced higher matchness for the expression of anger, agreement, commitment, gratitude, greeting, fun, fear, shyness and refusal66.

**93**

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social…*

Men judged stickers more human like than women and such effect was more

The interactions Length x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.08, p = .002) and Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 5.80, p = .0006) were significant. For cats, ducks and pigs68, those who used social media for 3-6 hours produced a higher rating than those who used that for 1-3 hours. For stickers with real animals, those who used social media for 1 hour per day rated higher than those who used that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.00, p = .01). For stickers with cartoon animals, those who used social media for 3-6 hours rated higher than individuals who used it for 1-3 hours and those who

The interactions of Frequency of Stickers Use x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.23, p = .02) and Frequency of Stickers Use x Form (F(3, 60) = 20.58, p < .01) were significant. For pigs, those who used stickers highly frequently rated higher than those who used stickers often (t = 2.55, p = .03). For stickers of cartoon animals, those who used stickers often rated higher than those who used stickers highly frequently

The interaction IRI x Form was significant (F(12, 240) = 4.05, p = .04). For stickers of real animals, those who displayed higher IRI score produced lower human-likeness scores (b = −0.11, t = −2.68, p = .007). The interactions Form x FS (F(10, 200) = 12.69, p = .0004) and Animal x FS (F(40, 800) = 3.26, p = .01) were significant. For stickers of cartoon animals, those with higher FS score judged less human-like (b = −0.16, t = −2.31, p = .02). Those showing higher FS score judged less human-like on rabbits (b = −0.19, t = −2.34, p = .02). The interaction PT x Expression was significant (F(154, 3080) = 1.83, p = .04). Those with higher PT score judged the agreement expression to be less human like (b = −0.30, t = −2.74,

The interaction of Sex x Form was significant (F(1, 20) = 101.47, p < .01). Women judged stickers of real animals to be cuter than men (F(1, 20) = 78.95,

The interactions of Length x Animal (F(12, 240) = 3.99, p < .01) and Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 8.04, p < .01) were significant. For cats, individuals who used social media 3-6 hours rated cuter than those who used that 1-3 hours (t = 2.64, p = .04). For ducks, the cuteness was lower for those who used that for 1-3 hours than those who used it for 1 hour and those for 6 hours71. For pigs, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media for 6 hours than those using that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.47, p = .003). For stickers of real animals, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media for 1 hour than those for 1-3 hours (t = 2.76, p = .03). For stickers with cartoon animals, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media 6 hours than those who used that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.08, p = .01). The interactions Frequency of Stickers Use x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.61, p = .008) and Frequency of Stickers Use x Form (F(3, 60) = 39.44, p < .01) were

The interaction between Sex x Animal was significant (F(4, 80) = 7.66, p < .01).

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

and those who used stickers occasionally70.

*3.3.3 Human likeness*

used it for 6 hours69.

p = .007).

*3.3.4 Cuteness*

p < .01; t = 2.09, p = .04).

<sup>67</sup> cats: t = 2.62, p = .009; dogs: t = 1.97, p = .05

<sup>69</sup> 1-3 hours: t = 6.11, p < .001; 6 hours: t = 2.70, p = .03

<sup>71</sup> 1 hour per day: t = 3.01, p = .01; 6 hours: t = 2.72, p = .03

<sup>68</sup> cats: t = 4.04, p < .001; ducks: t = 2.96, p = .02; pigs: t = 3.05, p = .01

<sup>70</sup> highly frequently: t = 3.08, p = .006; occasionally: t = 2.95, p = .009

pronounced in cats than dogs67.

t = 3.85, p = .0002

<sup>59</sup> ducks: t = 2.35, p = .02; pigs t = 2.99, p = .003

<sup>60</sup> real: t = 3.36, p = .0008; cartoon animals: t = 2.52, p = .01

<sup>61</sup> every 30 minutes > every 10 minutes: cats: t = 2.76, p = .03; dogs: t = 2.83, p = .02; every 30 minutes > every 1 hour: cats: t = 2.97, p = .02; dogs: t = 3.06, p = .01

<sup>62</sup> every 1 hour > every 2-3 hours: t = 2.81, p = .02; every 1 hour > every 30 minutes: t = 3.11, p = .01

<sup>63</sup> very frequently > often: t = 3.06, p = .007; very frequently > occasionally: t = 3.00, p = .008

<sup>64</sup> dogs: b = −0.16, t = −2.32, p = .02; rabbits: b = −0.28, t = −3.74, p = .0002

<sup>65</sup> agreement: b = −0.16, t = −2.91, p = .004; greeting: b = −0.15, t = −2.73, p = .007; refusal: b = −0.17, t = −2.82, p = .005

<sup>66</sup> anger: b = 0.30, t = 2.46, p = .01, agreement: b = 0.35, t = 2.83, p = .005, commitment: b = 0.41,

t = 3.19, p = .002; gratitude: b = 0.38, t = 3.25, p = .001, greeting: b = 0.38, t = 3.11, p = .002, fun b = 0.30,

t = 2.54, p = .01; fear: b = 0.28, t = 2.16, p = .03; shyness: b = 0.26, t = 2.26, p = .03; refusal b = 0.52,

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

#### *3.3.3 Human likeness*

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*

WeChat every 1 hour (t = 2.61, p = .04).

stickers often (t = 3.08, p = .006).

greeting, fun, fear, shyness and refusal66.

<sup>59</sup> ducks: t = 2.35, p = .02; pigs t = 2.99, p = .003

<sup>60</sup> real: t = 3.36, p = .0008; cartoon animals: t = 2.52, p = .01

<sup>64</sup> dogs: b = −0.16, t = −2.32, p = .02; rabbits: b = −0.28, t = −3.74, p = .0002

every 1 hour: cats: t = 2.97, p = .02; dogs: t = 3.06, p = .01

The interactions of Sex x Animal (F(4, 80) = 3.01, p = .02) and Sex x Form (F(1, 20) = 69.31, p < .01) were significant. The matchness score was higher for women than men and such gender difference was more pronounced in pigs than ducks59, and was more pronounced in in stickers of real relative to cartoon animals60.

The interaction of Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 12.29, p < .01) was significant. The matchness score was higher for individuals who used social media 3-6 hours than

The interactions of Frequency of Stickers x Animal (F(12, 240) = 1.97, p = .05) and Frequency of Stickers x Form (F(3, 60) = 26.04, p < .01) were significant. For cats, the matchness score was higher for individuals who used stickers very frequently than those using stickers often (t = 2.65, p = .02). For pigs, the matchness was higher for those who used stickers very frequently than those who used stickers often and those who used stickers occasionally63. For stickers of cartoon animals, the matchness was higher for those who used stickers frequently than those using

The interaction AAS x Animal was significant (F(52, 1040) = 3.80, p = .004). Individuals with higher AAS produced lower matchness for dogs and rabbits64. The interaction IRI x Expression was significant (F(132, 2640) = 2.27, p = .009). Individuals with higher IRI produced lower matchness for the expression of agreement, greeting and refusal65. The two-way interaction EC x Expression was significant (F(99, 1980) = 2.36, p = .007). Individuals with higher EC produced higher matchness for the expression of anger, agreement, commitment, gratitude,

<sup>61</sup> every 30 minutes > every 10 minutes: cats: t = 2.76, p = .03; dogs: t = 2.83, p = .02; every 30 minutes >

<sup>62</sup> every 1 hour > every 2-3 hours: t = 2.81, p = .02; every 1 hour > every 30 minutes: t = 3.11, p = .01 <sup>63</sup> very frequently > often: t = 3.06, p = .007; very frequently > occasionally: t = 3.00, p = .008

<sup>65</sup> agreement: b = −0.16, t = −2.91, p = .004; greeting: b = −0.15, t = −2.73, p = .007; refusal: b = −0.17,

<sup>66</sup> anger: b = 0.30, t = 2.46, p = .01, agreement: b = 0.35, t = 2.83, p = .005, commitment: b = 0.41, t = 3.19, p = .002; gratitude: b = 0.38, t = 3.25, p = .001, greeting: b = 0.38, t = 3.11, p = .002, fun b = 0.30, t = 2.54, p = .01; fear: b = 0.28, t = 2.16, p = .03; shyness: b = 0.26, t = 2.26, p = .03; refusal b = 0.52,

those who used 1-3 hours in stickers of cartoon animals (t = 2.70, p = .03). The interactions Frequency of WeChat Use x Animal (F(20, 400) = 2.78, p = .0009) and Frequency of WeChat Use x Form (F(5, 100) = 23.98, p < .01) were significant. For dogs, the matchness was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used that every 10 minutes (t = 3.14, p = .009). For cats and rabbits, the matchness was higher for those who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used that every 10 minutes and those who used WeChat every 1 hour61. For pigs, the score was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used WeChat every 1 hour (t = 2.79, p = .03). For stickers of real animals, the matchness was higher for those who used that every 1 hour than those who used WeChat every 30 minutes and those who used WeChat every 2-3 hours62. For stickers of cartoon animals, the matchness was higher for individuals who used WeChat every 30 minutes than those who used

*3.3.2 Matchness*

**92**

t = −2.82, p = .005

t = 3.85, p = .0002

The interaction between Sex x Animal was significant (F(4, 80) = 7.66, p < .01). Men judged stickers more human like than women and such effect was more pronounced in cats than dogs67.

The interactions Length x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.08, p = .002) and Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 5.80, p = .0006) were significant. For cats, ducks and pigs68, those who used social media for 3-6 hours produced a higher rating than those who used that for 1-3 hours. For stickers with real animals, those who used social media for 1 hour per day rated higher than those who used that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.00, p = .01). For stickers with cartoon animals, those who used social media for 3-6 hours rated higher than individuals who used it for 1-3 hours and those who used it for 6 hours69.

The interactions of Frequency of Stickers Use x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.23, p = .02) and Frequency of Stickers Use x Form (F(3, 60) = 20.58, p < .01) were significant. For pigs, those who used stickers highly frequently rated higher than those who used stickers often (t = 2.55, p = .03). For stickers of cartoon animals, those who used stickers often rated higher than those who used stickers highly frequently and those who used stickers occasionally70.

The interaction IRI x Form was significant (F(12, 240) = 4.05, p = .04). For stickers of real animals, those who displayed higher IRI score produced lower human-likeness scores (b = −0.11, t = −2.68, p = .007). The interactions Form x FS (F(10, 200) = 12.69, p = .0004) and Animal x FS (F(40, 800) = 3.26, p = .01) were significant. For stickers of cartoon animals, those with higher FS score judged less human-like (b = −0.16, t = −2.31, p = .02). Those showing higher FS score judged less human-like on rabbits (b = −0.19, t = −2.34, p = .02). The interaction PT x Expression was significant (F(154, 3080) = 1.83, p = .04). Those with higher PT score judged the agreement expression to be less human like (b = −0.30, t = −2.74, p = .007).

#### *3.3.4 Cuteness*

The interaction of Sex x Form was significant (F(1, 20) = 101.47, p < .01). Women judged stickers of real animals to be cuter than men (F(1, 20) = 78.95, p < .01; t = 2.09, p = .04).

The interactions of Length x Animal (F(12, 240) = 3.99, p < .01) and Length x Form (F(3, 60) = 8.04, p < .01) were significant. For cats, individuals who used social media 3-6 hours rated cuter than those who used that 1-3 hours (t = 2.64, p = .04). For ducks, the cuteness was lower for those who used that for 1-3 hours than those who used it for 1 hour and those for 6 hours71. For pigs, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media for 6 hours than those using that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.47, p = .003). For stickers of real animals, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media for 1 hour than those for 1-3 hours (t = 2.76, p = .03). For stickers with cartoon animals, the cuteness was higher for those who used social media 6 hours than those who used that for 1-3 hours (t = 3.08, p = .01).

The interactions Frequency of Stickers Use x Animal (F(12, 240) = 2.61, p = .008) and Frequency of Stickers Use x Form (F(3, 60) = 39.44, p < .01) were

<sup>67</sup> cats: t = 2.62, p = .009; dogs: t = 1.97, p = .05

<sup>68</sup> cats: t = 4.04, p < .001; ducks: t = 2.96, p = .02; pigs: t = 3.05, p = .01

<sup>69</sup> 1-3 hours: t = 6.11, p < .001; 6 hours: t = 2.70, p = .03

<sup>70</sup> highly frequently: t = 3.08, p = .006; occasionally: t = 2.95, p = .009

<sup>71</sup> 1 hour per day: t = 3.01, p = .01; 6 hours: t = 2.72, p = .03

significant. For cats, the cuteness was higher for individuals who used stickers very frequently than those who used stickers often (t = 2.55, p = .03). For stickers of cartoon animals, the cuteness was higher for those who used stickers very frequently than those using them often (t = 2.43, p = .04).

The interaction of AAS x Animal was significant (F(52, 1040) = 3.17, p = .01). Those who showed a higher AAS judged dogs and rabbits72 less cuter.

The interaction of IRI x Animal was significant (F(48, 960) = 5.10, p = .0004). Those with higher IRI judged ducks (b = −0.16, t = −2.91, p = .004) and pigs (b = −0.13, t = −2.80, p = .005) less cute than those with lower IRI. The interaction Animal x PD (F(36,720) = 15.86, p < .01) was significant. Those who showed higher PD produced a higher rating of cats, dogs, rabbits and pigs73 than those with lower PD.

#### *3.3.5 Expressiveness*

The interaction Sex x Form was significant (F(1, 20) = 34.20, p < .01). Females produced higher expressiveness score as compared with males and such difference was more pronounced for stickers of cartoon animals than for those of real animals74.

The interaction of Length x Animal (F(12, 240) = 1.87, p = .03) was significant. The expressiveness of cats was higher for those who used social media 6 hours than those who used 1 hour, 1-3 hours and 3-6 hours75. The expressiveness of dogs, ducks and rabbits76 was higher for those who used social media 6 hours per day than those who used 1-3 hours. The expressiveness of pigs was higher for those who used social media 6 hours than those who used 1 hour and 1-3 hours, and was higher for those who used social media 3-6 hours than those who used 1-3 hours77.

The interaction AAS x Animal was significant (F(52, 1040) = 3.75, p = .005). Those who demonstrated higher AAS revealed lower expressiveness for dogs, ducks and rabbits78.

The interactions FS x Expression (F(110,2 200) = 1.90, p = .04), FS x Animal (F(40, 800) = 3.19, p = .01) and FS x Form (F(10, 200) = 6.24, p = .01) were significant. Individuals with higher FS produced higher expressiveness ratings for anger, agreement, commitment, greeting, grievance, fun, shyness and refusal79. Those with higher FS produced higher expressiveness for cats, ducks and pigs80. Those with higher FS produced higher expressiveness and such effects were stronger for stickers of cartoon than for those of real animals81. The interaction of PD x Form (F(9, 180) = 5.03, p = .03) was significant. Individuals with higher PD produced lower expressiveness rating when cartoon and real animals were presented in stickers82.

<sup>75</sup> 1 hour: t = 3.51, p = .003, 1-3 hours: t = 5.40, p < .001; 3-6 hours: t = 3.45, p = .003

```
76 dogs: t = 2.70, p = .03; ducks: t = 3.66, p = .001; rabbits: t = 3.71, p = .001
```
<sup>77</sup> 1 hour: t = 3.54, p = .002; 1-3 hours: t = 4.79, p < .001; 1-3 hours: t = 3.01, p = .01

```
78 dogs: b = −0.29, t = −4.06, p < .01; ducks: b = −0.19, t = −2.61, p = .009; rabbits: b = −0.39,
```

```
t = −5.39, p < .01
```

```
79 anger: b = 0.24, t = 2.44, p = .02; agreement: b = 0.33, t = 3.42, p = .0008; commitment: b = 0.23,
```

```
t = 2.15, p = .03; greeting: b = 0.26, t = 2.59, p = .01; grievance: b = 0.21, t = 2.22, p = .03; fun: b = 0.32,
```

```
t = 3.60, p = .0004; shyness: b = 0.35, t = 3.60, p = .0004; refusal: b = 0.36, t = 3.58, p = .0005
```

```
80 cats: b = 0.30, t = 3.85, p = .0001; ducks: b = 0.38, t = 4.29, p < .01; pigs: b = 0.28, t = 3.42, p = .0007
```
**95**

tions in stickers.

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social…*

ing social expression. Four perceptual attributes (the matchness between the intended and the perceived expression, the human likeness, the cuteness and the expressiveness) were demonstrated to be modulated by the discrete expression types, by which animal served as the virtual target of the sticker, and by whether

**4.2 Individual characteristics and evaluation of animal stickers**

The second aim of the study was to explore the individual differences in the judging the perceptual attributes of the animal sticker. Consistent with previous studies showing a female advantage in recognizing social signals and inferring meanings from these signals [24–26], our data showed females perceived the intended expression of the animal stickers to match to a greater extent with the labels and cuter relative to males for real animals, but perceived stickers to be more expressive relative to males for cartoon animals. One exception is in human likeliness which demonstrated a male advantage. Despite a higher frequency of using Stickers to communicate (Female: 18% - occasionally; 55% - often; 27% - highly frequently; Male: 60% - occasionally; 30% - often; 10% - highly frequently), the female did not consider certain animals (cats and dogs) to be more human like. It is assumed that a certain motivation may underlie the use of less human-like animal stickers as a communicative strategy; nevertheless, this assumption needs to be

The study mainly investigated the role of human-like animal stickers in encod-

Animal kinds interplayed with forms of presentation in affecting the perceptual attributes of animal stickers. Rabbits, ducks and pigs are generally judged more expressive, more human like and cuter than others in cartoon forms. Cats and dogs are perceived more expressive in real forms. These exploratory findings based on a group of social media users suggest the expected expression stereotypically associated with certain animal kinds maybe affected by whether the animal is perceived as a real or a virtual character. The matchness rating reflects the degree a given label fits the intended expression and maybe associated with the most expected communicative expression encoded by an animal. The expressiveness rating reflects the perceived amounts of cues that are associated with the expression, and may be associated with the expected easiness of encoding certain expression by an animal. As is shown in the matchness and expressiveness, the cats are more expected to convey anger and grievance; the dogs are expected to convey refusal; and ducks are expected to convey sadness when they are presented in real animal forms. However, when they are presented in cartoon forms, dogs are expected to convey commitment and rabbits are expected to convey refusal. Besides, the expected "cuteness stereotype" is sometime violated as a function of forms of presentation. Rabbits are considered cuter when expressing anger and refusal in the cartoon forms. Cats are considered cuter in real animal forms when expressing shyness and in cartoon forms when expressing gratitude. Although not directly tested in the present study, it is possible the amount of anthropomorphic features (e.g. the perceived similarity to human based on physical likeness, familiarity, cultural stereotype as human like) may explain different expectations towards different kinds of animals presented in different forms [23]. Pending further research, these data draws a first sketch on how animals encode social expressions that serve different communicative func-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*

the animal was a real or a cartoon character.

**4.1 Perceptual attributes of animal stickers**

**4. Discussion**

```
81 cartoon: b = 0.25, t = 3.33, p = .0009; real animals: b = 0.32, t = 4.09, p < .01
```
<sup>82</sup> cartoon: b = 0.27, t = 3.04, p = .002; real animals: b = 0.49, t = 5.36, p < .01

<sup>72</sup> dogs: b = −0.17, t = −2.28, p = .02; rabbits: b = −0.15, t = −2.15, p = .03

<sup>73</sup> cats: b = 0.22, t = 2.22, p = .03); dogs b = 0.41, t = 4.00, p < .01; rabbits: b = .21, t = 2.10, p = .04; pigs: b = 0.26, t = 2.39, p = .02

<sup>74</sup> cartoon animals: t = 2.65, p = .008; real animals: t = 2.35, p = .02

*Perceptual Attributes of Human-Like Animal Stickers as Nonverbal Cues Encoding Social… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99485*
