Abstract
A series of experiments show that attribution of intentionality to figures depends on the interaction between the type of movement –Theory of Mind (ToM), Goal-Directed (GD), Random (R)– with the presence of human attributes, the way these figures are labeled, and their apparent velocity. In addition, the effect of these conditions or their interaction varies when the use of human nouns –present in the participant’s responses– is statistically controlled. In Experiment 1, one group of participants observed triangular figures (n = 46) and another observed humanized figures, called Stickman figures (n = 38). In ToM movements, participants attributed more intentionality to triangular figures than to Stickman figures. However, in R movements, the opposite trend was observed. In Experiment 2 (n = 42), triangular figures were presented as if they were people and compared to triangular figures presented in Experiment 1. Here, when the figures were labeled as people the attribution of intentionality only increased in R and GD movements, but not in ToM movements. Finally, in Experiment 3, Stickman figures (n = 45) move at a higher (unnatural) speed with higher frames per second (fps) than the Stickman figures of Experiment 1. This manipulation decreased the attribution of intentionality in R and GD movements but not in ToM movements. In general terms, it was found that the human attributes and labels promote the use of human nouns in participants’ responses, while a high apparent speed reduces their use. The use of human nouns was associated to intentionality scores significantly in R movements, but at a lesser extent in GD and ToM movements. We conclude that, although the type of movement is the most important cue in this sort of task, the tendency to attribute intentionality to figures is affected by the interaction between perceptual and semantic cues (figure shape, label, and apparent speed).
Highlights
The use of moving figures to evaluate the attribution of intentionality derives from the classic study implemented by Heider and Simmel (1944)
The intrasubject factor corresponded to the type of movement in the animation (ToM, GD, and R), and the inter-subject factor corresponded to the type of figure (Triangles and Stickman figures)
There was a gradient of intentionality in the movement type scores, F(2,162) = 468.71, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.85, where the attribution of intentionality was greater with Theory of Mind (ToM) movement (M = 3.71) than with GD movement (M = 2.32), p < 0.01 and the intentionality for this type of movement was higher compared to that of R movement (M = 95), p < 0.01
Summary
The use of moving figures to evaluate the attribution of intentionality derives from the classic study implemented by Heider and Simmel (1944). The people who watched these films described the animations with human character traits and mental states. Even though these animations were not designed to detect and encourage the attribution of mental states, based on that pioneering work; Abell et al (2000) created a group of animations to study the attribution of intentionality; a task that is currently an experimental paradigm. The descriptions provided by participants have higher levels of intentionality as well as mental states when the figures display ToM movement than when they develop GD movement, and are more frequent with this type of movement than when they display R movement (Abell et al, 2000)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
