**4. Discussion**

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*

*3.3.5 Expressiveness*

and rabbits78.

stickers82.

b = 0.26, t = 2.39, p = .02

t = −5.39, p < .01

than those using them often (t = 2.43, p = .04).

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

The interaction of AAS x Animal was significant (F(52, 1040) = 3.17, p = .01).

The interaction of IRI x Animal was significant (F(48, 960) = 5.10, p = .0004).

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

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

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

<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:

Those who showed a higher AAS judged dogs and rabbits72 less cuter.

who used social media 3-6 hours than those who used 1-3 hours77.

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

<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 <sup>76</sup> 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

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

t = 3.60, p = .0004; shyness: b = 0.35, t = 3.60, p = .0004; refusal: b = 0.36, t = 3.58, p = .0005 <sup>80</sup> 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

<sup>81</sup> 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>79</sup> 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,

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

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.

**94**

The study mainly investigated the role of human-like animal stickers in encoding 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 the animal was a real or a cartoon character.

#### **4.1 Perceptual attributes of animal stickers**

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 functions in stickers.

#### **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

evaluated in future studies, given that this study did not include a set of person stickers to serve as a baseline.

Interestingly, showing a higher level of concern towards animals was associated with a reduced perception of matchness, cuteness, and expressiveness but not human likeness in animal stickers. The stickers showing such individual differences were mainly featured by dogs, rabbits and ducks. Increased cuteness perception was seen in animals bearing more baby features [12]. More inference of cognitive states is demanded on animals sharing more human characteristics [17]. However, neither these cognitive processes seem to well explain the current pattern given an opposite pattern would have be shown. However, this finding maybe associated with the emotional or empathic response triggered by those who showed higher sensitivity towards the ethic use of animals, given an increased intention of protection may lower the users' emotional responses (and their ability to recognize expressions from these stickers) but increase their empathic response [27].

Higher interpersonal sensitivity was associated with a reduced perception of matchness of certain types of intended expressions with the actual labels regardless of real or cartoon animals. The IRI was shown to modulate one's sensitivity towards nonverbal cues such as face [28], voice [29, 30] and body awareness [31], and the mechanisms underlying constructing pragmatic representations beyond literal expressions [32, 33]. These affected expressions marked certain pragmatic functions in human communication (e.g. agreement, refusal, greeting) and may reflect a mismatch between the expected and the actual nonverbal cues in the animal stickers, for example, an expression of greeting between two interlocutors is not commonly seen in animals. The unexpected use of pragmatic expressions can be generally observed in real animals which typically do not display human characteristics, and lead to a lower perceptual rating in human-likeness by those demonstrating higher sensitivity. On a similar note, the unexpected use of social expressions by certain animals less familiar to humans (e.g. pigs, ducks, rabbits) is often given a lower cuteness rating by those showing higher sensitivity.

Fantasy, the tendency to transpose oneself imaginatively to the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books and movies was shown to be associated with the expressiveness of the nonverbals cues in the sticker. Increased fantasizing ability was shown to modulate the behavioral acceptability of an underspecified sentence which can make sense after one engages a pragmatic inference (e.g. Sentence: *even such a person*[underspecified] *can afford an expensive house.* Inference: That person is poor). The extent to which an inference is engaged can be systematically involved in the medial prefrontal cortex [33], a region critical to decoding nonverbal meaning in social communication [34]. Consistent with previous literature, our data shows the social expressions that mark pragmatic functions were modulated by fantasy; moreover, the more imaginative to the cartoon animals, the more expressive the stickers were perceived [34].

Empathic concern has been defined to assess one's other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others. Evidence suggests the sensitivity of such tendency with the perceptual accuracy of emotional cues in nonverbal communication, and we demonstrated the modulation of EC on the expression of anger, fear and shyness. Furthermore, the matchness of the expected pragmatic function to the actual label was also modulated by such individual difference. Emotional concern has been considered an essential part when interactants encode speech acts (here agreement, commitment, greeting and refusal; and also see [35]) and complex social emotions (Apology: [36]; Gratitude; [37]; Guilt: [38]). The decoding of certain nonverbal cues of emotional consequences in animal stickers may also require higher EC.

**97**

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

The heavier use of social media per day and the more frequent use of emotive stickers generally enhanced the ratings of the perceptual attributes of animal stickers, such as human-likeness, cuteness and expressiveness, although different kinds of animals appeared to benefit from different amounts of social

Importantly, a clearer dissociative pattern can be seen between stickers of real and cartoon animals. For the cartoon animals, the longer time the social media is used (and the more frequently emotive stickers is used), to a larger extent was the intended expression judged to match the actual label, more human like and cuter was the sticker. However, an opposite pattern was shown in the expression of real animals, with the heavier use of social media producing lower ratings. The added experience of using social media does not exert a unified impact on the perceptual attributes of the social expression in animal stickers. On one hand, such experience may enhance the general acceptability of imaginary characters (cartoon animals) to encode human expressions which results in positive evaluations towards these animals. On the other hand, the perceived unexpected use of human expression by a real animal gets more salient and may cognitively result in a conflict which requires monitoring and resolution (for example, to reason why a real-animal expresses a human-like expression; to think of a conversational context when such use can be accommodated). Further studies could be developed to see whether the experience of using social media is associated with the motivation of using an

We reported the perceptual attributes of a set of *animal* stickers varying in social expressions (of pragmatic and emotional communicative functions), animal kinds (of different levels of familiarity to humans) and presented forms (real vs. virtual). We also correlated the individual characteristics (interpersonal sensitivity and attitudes towards animals) and the experience in social media use with the attributes. Our data shows the expression that is expected to be best encoded by certain animals is modulated by its presented forms. The cuteness stereotype towards an animal is sometimes violated as a function of presented forms. Moreover, gender, dispositional empathy towards humans and concerns towards animals modulated the perceptual attributes of nonverbal cues in the social expression of animal stickers. These findings highlight the role of anthropomorphism for animal stickers to encode social meanings in nonverbal cues; and put forward a novel avenue of research on the effectiveness and the mechanisms of human-like *animal* stickers

Special thanks are given to Li Xin for her great work on data collection, analysis and an earlier version of this manuscript. This study was supported by the grants from Natural Science Foundation of China (31971037), Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Sciences (2018BYY019), and the "Shuguang Program" supported by Shanghai Education Development Foundation and Shanghai Municipal

**4.3 Experience in using social media and evaluation of animal stickers**

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

media use.

animal sticker [39].

**Acknowledgements**

Education Committee (20SG31).

and the related forms in virtual communication.

**5. Conclusion**

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

### **4.3 Experience in using social media and evaluation of animal stickers**

The heavier use of social media per day and the more frequent use of emotive stickers generally enhanced the ratings of the perceptual attributes of animal stickers, such as human-likeness, cuteness and expressiveness, although different kinds of animals appeared to benefit from different amounts of social media use.

Importantly, a clearer dissociative pattern can be seen between stickers of real and cartoon animals. For the cartoon animals, the longer time the social media is used (and the more frequently emotive stickers is used), to a larger extent was the intended expression judged to match the actual label, more human like and cuter was the sticker. However, an opposite pattern was shown in the expression of real animals, with the heavier use of social media producing lower ratings. The added experience of using social media does not exert a unified impact on the perceptual attributes of the social expression in animal stickers. On one hand, such experience may enhance the general acceptability of imaginary characters (cartoon animals) to encode human expressions which results in positive evaluations towards these animals. On the other hand, the perceived unexpected use of human expression by a real animal gets more salient and may cognitively result in a conflict which requires monitoring and resolution (for example, to reason why a real-animal expresses a human-like expression; to think of a conversational context when such use can be accommodated). Further studies could be developed to see whether the experience of using social media is associated with the motivation of using an animal sticker [39].

## **5. Conclusion**

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*

stickers to serve as a baseline.

evaluated in future studies, given that this study did not include a set of person

from these stickers) but increase their empathic response [27].

lower cuteness rating by those showing higher sensitivity.

Interestingly, showing a higher level of concern towards animals was associated with a reduced perception of matchness, cuteness, and expressiveness but not human likeness in animal stickers. The stickers showing such individual differences were mainly featured by dogs, rabbits and ducks. Increased cuteness perception was seen in animals bearing more baby features [12]. More inference of cognitive states is demanded on animals sharing more human characteristics [17]. However, neither these cognitive processes seem to well explain the current pattern given an opposite pattern would have be shown. However, this finding maybe associated with the emotional or empathic response triggered by those who showed higher sensitivity towards the ethic use of animals, given an increased intention of protection may lower the users' emotional responses (and their ability to recognize expressions

Higher interpersonal sensitivity was associated with a reduced perception of matchness of certain types of intended expressions with the actual labels regardless of real or cartoon animals. The IRI was shown to modulate one's sensitivity towards nonverbal cues such as face [28], voice [29, 30] and body awareness [31], and the mechanisms underlying constructing pragmatic representations beyond literal expressions [32, 33]. These affected expressions marked certain pragmatic functions in human communication (e.g. agreement, refusal, greeting) and may reflect a mismatch between the expected and the actual nonverbal cues in the animal stickers, for example, an expression of greeting between two interlocutors is not commonly seen in animals. The unexpected use of pragmatic expressions can be generally observed in real animals which typically do not display human characteristics, and lead to a lower perceptual rating in human-likeness by those demonstrating higher sensitivity. On a similar note, the unexpected use of social expressions by certain animals less familiar to humans (e.g. pigs, ducks, rabbits) is often given a

Fantasy, the tendency to transpose oneself imaginatively to the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books and movies was shown to be associated with the expressiveness of the nonverbals cues in the sticker. Increased fantasizing ability was shown to modulate the behavioral acceptability of an underspecified sentence which can make sense after one engages a pragmatic inference (e.g. Sentence: *even such a person*[underspecified] *can afford an expensive house.* Inference: That person is poor). The extent to which an inference is engaged can be systematically involved in the medial prefrontal cortex [33], a region critical to decoding nonverbal meaning in social communication [34]. Consistent with previous literature, our data shows the social expressions that mark pragmatic functions were modulated by fantasy; moreover, the more imaginative to the cartoon animals, the more expressive the

Empathic concern has been defined to assess one's other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others. Evidence suggests the sensitivity of such tendency with the perceptual accuracy of emotional cues in nonverbal communication, and we demonstrated the modulation of EC on the expression of anger, fear and shyness. Furthermore, the matchness of the expected pragmatic function to the actual label was also modulated by such individual difference. Emotional concern has been considered an essential part when interactants encode speech acts (here agreement, commitment, greeting and refusal; and also see [35]) and complex social emotions (Apology: [36]; Gratitude; [37]; Guilt: [38]). The decoding of certain nonverbal cues of emotional consequences in animal stickers may also

**96**

require higher EC.

stickers were perceived [34].

We reported the perceptual attributes of a set of *animal* stickers varying in social expressions (of pragmatic and emotional communicative functions), animal kinds (of different levels of familiarity to humans) and presented forms (real vs. virtual). We also correlated the individual characteristics (interpersonal sensitivity and attitudes towards animals) and the experience in social media use with the attributes. Our data shows the expression that is expected to be best encoded by certain animals is modulated by its presented forms. The cuteness stereotype towards an animal is sometimes violated as a function of presented forms. Moreover, gender, dispositional empathy towards humans and concerns towards animals modulated the perceptual attributes of nonverbal cues in the social expression of animal stickers. These findings highlight the role of anthropomorphism for animal stickers to encode social meanings in nonverbal cues; and put forward a novel avenue of research on the effectiveness and the mechanisms of human-like *animal* stickers and the related forms in virtual communication.

### **Acknowledgements**

Special thanks are given to Li Xin for her great work on data collection, analysis and an earlier version of this manuscript. This study was supported by the grants from Natural Science Foundation of China (31971037), Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Sciences (2018BYY019), and the "Shuguang Program" supported by Shanghai Education Development Foundation and Shanghai Municipal Education Committee (20SG31).

*Types of Nonverbal Communication*
