This document summarizes a study that examined whether attitudinal factors like interpersonal warmth and physical attractiveness can explain the movement parameters that predict the outcome of a speed-dating experiment. The study found that increases in interpersonal distance between male participants correlated with higher reported interpersonal warmth. However, attitudinal factors did not directly mediate the relationship between movement and dating outcomes. Next steps could involve further exploring the relationship between warmth, distance and gender; or designing a "handsome robot" to test the importance of physical attractiveness.

1. Handsome or Nice?
Explaining the Automatic Prediction of
Speed-dates with Attitudinal Factors
15 mei 2012
Arnoud Andeweg
University of Amsterdam

2. Attitudinal factors, interpersonal
warmth and physical
attractiveness, found in
interpersonal attraction research
can be used to explain the physical
movement parameters that predict
the outcome of a speed-date

3. CONTENTS
• Example
• Background / related work
• Method
• Results
• Conclusions / implications
• Next steps
• Questions

4. EXAMPLE

5. BACKGROUND / RELATED WORK
• Human awareness & social signal processing:
• Meeting mediator (Kim et al. 2008)
• Personality aware video surveillance (Zen et al. 2010)
• Interpersonal attraction
Reciprocity Similarity
Security Physical attraction
Interpersonal warmth

6. BACKGROUND / RELATED WORK
• Speed-date experiments
• Useful real-life setting (Finkel et al. 2007)
• MatchMakeRS project
• Variance in distance
• Increase in distance
(Veenstra and Hung 2011)

7. METHOD
• 1 speed-date experiment
• 2 possible results of a date
• 8 males and 8 females
• 64 dates (dyads)
• 128 questionnaires

8. METHOD

9. METHOD
• Results video analysis movement parameter
• Questionnaires attitudinal factors
• Outcome of the speed-dates

10. METHOD
SRM: Social Relations Model (Kenny et al. 2007)

11. RESULTS
• 12 matches
• SRM:
• Correlation: increase in distance and
interpersonal warmth (males)

12. RESULTS
• Regression:
• No mediation

13. CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS
Hypothesis: Attitudinal factors, interpersonal warmth and
physical attractiveness, found in interpersonal attraction
research can be used to explain the physical movement
parameters that predict the outcome of a speed-date
• Hypothesis rejected
• Warmth and distance
• Gender differences
• Attitudinal factors predict
• The importance of looks

14. NEXT STEPS
• Warmth and distance
• Handsome robot
• Individual movement

15. Questions?
This presentation can be found at
www.slideshare.netverwegh

16. References
 Andersen, P., and Guerrero, L., 1998a. The bright side of relational
communication: interpersonal warmth as a social Emotion. In: P.
Andersen and L. Guerrero, eds. Handbook of Communication and
Emotion. New York: Academic Press, 303-329.
 Argyle, M., 1988. Bodily Communication. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd
 Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51 (6), 1173–1182.
 Berscheid, E. and Walster, E., 1974. Physical Attractiveness, In: L.
Berkowitz, ed, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York:
Academic Press, 157-215.
 Berscheid, E., and Walster, E., 1978. Interpersonal attraction. 2nd ed.
Boston: Addison-Wesley.

17. References
 Bickmore, T.W., 2003. Relational agents: effecting change through
human-computer relationships. Thesis (PhD). MIT.
 Bosse, T., Hoogendoorn, M., Klein, M.C.A., van Lambalgen, R., van
Maanen, P.P. and Treur, J., 2011. Incorporating human aspects in
ambient intelligence and smart environments. In: F. Mastrogiovanni and
N.Y. Chong, eds. Handbook of research on ambient intelligence and
smart environments: trends and perspectives. Hershey: IGI Global, 128-
164.
 Cook, D., Augusto, J. and Jakkula, V., 2009. Ambient intelligence:
Technologies, applications, and opportunities. Pervasive and Mobile
Computing, 5 (4), 277–298.
 Dautenhahn , K., 2007. Methodology and themes of human-robot
interaction: a growing research field. International Journal of Advanced
Robotic Systems, 4 (1), 103-108.

18. References
 Dourish, H., 2001. Seeking a foundation for context-aware computing.
Human-Computer Interaction, 16 (2-4), 229-241
 Finkel, E.J., Eastwick, P.W. and Matthews, J., 2007. Speed-dating as an
invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer.
Personal Relationships 14 (1), 149-166.
 Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A. and Schmitt, A., 1999. Fuzziness of
nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy
detection. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(3), 487–508.
 Gunes, H. and Piccardi, M., 2006. Assessing facial beauty through
proportion analysis by image processing and supervised
learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (12),
1184-1199.
 Heslin, R. and Patterson, M., 1982. Nonverbal behavior and social
psychology. New York: Plenum Press

19. References
 Hönekopp, J., 2006. Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial
attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 32 (2), 199-209.
 Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Cook, W.L., 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis.
New York: Guilford Press.
 Kim, T., Chang, A., Holland, L. and Pentland, A.S., 2008. Meeting
mediator: enhancing group collaborationusing sociometric feedback. In:
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, 8-12 November 2008 San Diego. New York: ACM,
457-466.
 Kleck R.E. and Rubenstein, C., 1975. Physical attractiveness, perceived
attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex
encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(1), 107-
114.

20. References
 Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M.,
and Smott, M., 2000. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and
theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin. 126 (3) 390-423.
 Luo, S. and Zhang, G., 2009. What leads to romantic attraction:
Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating
study. Journal of personality, 77 (4), 933-964.
 McCroskey, J.C. and McCain, T.A., 1974. The measurement of
interpersonal attraction. Communication Monographs, 41 (3), 261-266.
 Richmond, V. and McCroskey, J., 1995. Immediacy, nonverbal behavior
in interpersonal relations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 Saucier, G., 1994. Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar
big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63 (3), 506-516.
 Sprecher, S., 1998. Insiders' perspectives on reasons for attraction to a
close other. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61 (4), 287-300.

21. References
 Veenstra, A, and Hung,H., 2011. Do they like me? Using video cues to
predict desires during speed-dates. In: IEEE International Conference on
Computer Vision Workshops, 9-13 November 2011 Barcelona. New
York: IEEE, 838-845.
 Vinciarelli, A., Pantic, M. and Bourlard H., 2009. Social signal
processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and Vision
Computing, 27 (12) 1743-1759.
 Zen, G., Lepri, B., Ricci, E. and Lanz, O., 2010. Space speaks: towards
socially and personality aware visual surveillance. In: Proceedings of the
1st ACM international workshop on multimodal pervasive video analysis,
25-20 October 2010 Firenze. New York: ACM, 37–42.

22. ATTACHMENTS

23. ATTACHMENTS

24. ATTACHMENTS

25. ATTACHMENTS

26. ATTACHMENTS