<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From: <EM>New Scientist</EM>, November 27, 2010</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<P>Anthropomorphism</P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=2>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow,
ID 83843</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com"><FONT
size=2>waf@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>208
882-7975<BR>_________________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV id=pgtop class=hldpg>
<H1><FONT size=2>In our own image: Why we treat things like people </FONT></H1>
<UL class=markerlist>
<LI><FONT size=2>29 November 2010 by </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Douglas+Fox"><B><FONT
size=2>Douglas Fox</FONT></B></A><FONT size=2> </FONT>
<LI><FONT size=2>Magazine issue </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2788"><FONT
size=2>2788</FONT></A><FONT size=2>. </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/subscribe?promcode=nsarttop"><B><FONT
size=2>Subscribe and save</FONT></B></A><FONT size=2> </FONT>
<LI><FONT size=2>For similar stories, visit the </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/topic/human-evolution"><B><FONT size=2>Human
Evolution</FONT></B></A><FONT size=2> Topic Guide </FONT></LI></UL></DIV><!-- pgtop -->
<DIV id=hldmain class="hldpg floatclearfix">
<DIV id=hldcontent class=floatleft>
<DIV id=maincol class=floatleft><!-- Special message for automatic login ID change -->
<DIV id=artImg><FONT size=2><IMG
title="One step closer to being human-like (Image: Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty)"
alt="One step closer to being human-like (Image: Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty)"
src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20827881.400/mg20827881.400-2_300.jpg">
</FONT>
<P class=lowlight><FONT size=2>One step closer to being human-like (Image:
Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty)</FONT></P></DIV>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2><B>Editorial:</B> <I><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827882.300-how-community-spirit-can-backfire.html">How
community spirit can backfire</A></I></FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><I><FONT size=2>Cursing computers, talking to plants, even
putting pigs on trial: anthropomorphism may be irrational, but it's how we cope
with an indifferent world</FONT></I></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>IT WAS a classic open-and-shut case. As Jehan
Martin slept in his bed an intruder crept in, killed him and mutilated his body.
Witnesses had seen a female enter the house on the day of the attack. She was
subsequently taken into custody and tried in court. The trouble was the
perpetrator happened to be a pig.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Historical records document at least 200 trials in
which an animal was the principal defendant. So this case in 1457 is by no means
an isolated incident. The accused were often assigned lawyers and confined to
jail during trials. Occasionally they were acquitted - a donkey on trial for
lewd sexual acts, for example, was freed after loyal supporters testified that
she was "in all her habits of life a most honest creature". When these animals
were found guilty, however, they were usually hanged like a human
criminal.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>As rational, educated people, it's easy to smirk at
attempts to try animals in a court of law - but one should not be too hasty.
After all, the people involved were falling prey to an irrational trait that
afflicts us all from time to time: they were anthropomorphising.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Maybe you talk to your plants, name your car, or
shout at your computer from time to time. Or perhaps you believe in a
personified God. "We are hard-wired to see human-like beings everywhere," says
</FONT><A
href="http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/sociology__anthropol/faculty/guthrie_34950.asp"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Stewart Guthrie</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, an
anthropologist at Fordham University in New York City who has documented the
rampant anthropomorphism in the world's religions.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Despite its prevalence in human life, this bizarre
trait had largely been ignored by credible scientists until very recently. Now
the study of anthropomorphism is booming, with new work revealing how and why
our brains are compelled to do it. It turns out the phenomenon has far-reaching
effects on human behaviour, explaining why gamblers or traders on the stock
market are inclined to push their luck too far, for example. And the work might
just help engineers design a variation of Microsoft's office assistant "Clippy"
that you don't want to strangle.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>There's no doubt that anthropomorphism is ingrained
in human nature. Some of the oldest known pieces of cave art show figures who
are half-human, half-animal, suggesting the trait may have been present in our
ancestors at least 30,000 years ago. Since then, anthropomorphic figures have
been ubiquitous in folk-lore and religion, and many of them are still going
strong. Think Jack Frost, Mother Nature and, of course, God.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Ancient civilisations were well aware of this
strange quirk of human psychology. Xenophanes, a philosopher in ancient Greece,
coined the term anthropomorphism 2600 years ago. He observed that people
worshipped gods that resemble themselves: Greeks kowtowed to white-skinned gods,
while the Ethiopians preferred theirs a bit darker. From this observation, he
predicted that if horses and donkeys believed in gods, theirs would trot on four
legs. He may have had a point. Primatologists have documented a curious
behaviour in chimpanzees, called the "rain dance": when a thunderstorm blows in,
they sometimes climb trees, tear off branches, and brandish them while screaming
at the clouds - as if confronting a rival male. Those primates may well be
"chimpomorphising" the storm - shaking their sticks at the hairy-knuckled Zeus
who is hurling lightning bolts from the great treetop in the sky.</FONT></P>
<DIV class="quotebx bxbg">
<DIV class=quoteopen>
<DIV class=quoteclose>
<DIV class="quotebody lowlight"><QUOTE><QUOTETEXT><FONT size=2>Apes
'chimpomorphise' a storm when they shake their sticks at a hairy-knuckled Zeus
in the sky</QUOTETEXT></QUOTE> </FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Anthropomorphism had been somewhat overlooked by
modern psychologists, until about 10 or so years ago, when a couple of trends in
psychological research finally put the trait under the spotlight. For one thing,
the psychology of religion has become increasingly fashionable, leading some
researchers to question why most faiths feature human-like gods. And the growing
popularity of avatars in virtual environments like Second Life has prompted
greater interest in the ways in which we interact with non-human
entities.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>First of all, psychologists studying the phenomena
wanted to establish exactly what is going on in our brain when we
anthropomorphise. </FONT><A
href="http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2>Nicholas Epley</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, a social psychologist at the
University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, had some ideas. He had studied
our tendency to think egocentrically, meaning that we use our own preferences to
predict how someone else will react to a dirty joke or a present. "It's a
well-known contributor to buying bad gifts," says Epley. The next logical step
was to question whether we also use our mind as a starting point for divining
the "thoughts" of non-humans too. So in 2004, Epley and </FONT><A
href="http://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/cacioppo/index.shtml"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>John Cacioppo</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, also at the
University of Chicago, decided to test the idea.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>The duo asked a group of volunteers to think about
their own beliefs, other peoples' beliefs, and God's beliefs on issues like
capital punishment, while the researchers viewed their brain activity with a
functional MRI scanner. As you might expect, given Epley's earlier work, the
brain activity was pretty similar when the subjects considered their own or
another human's views. But the closest resemblance came when the subjects
thought about God's views - here, the brain activity was virtually identical to
the scans taken when the subjects thought about their own viewpoint. This was
reflected in their own reports, when they told the researchers that they
considered their own beliefs to be much closer to God's than to those of Bill
Gates or George W. Bush, for example.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>The results, published last December in
<I>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</I> (</FONT><A
href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2>vol 106, p 21533</FONT></A><FONT size=2>), might simply confirm that some
people use the idea of God to elevate their own beliefs, titillating themselves
with the knowledge that those who disagree with them will spend eternity burning
in hell. To Epley it signified something more profound: the less evidence we
have of another's beliefs - and for God we have very little indeed - the more
likely we are to project our own beliefs into the voids. The same probably
applies to anything else to which we attribute a personality or mind of its own,
such as our car, our plant or our pet.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Further evidence that we use the same neural
processes to understand the behaviour and minds of both humans and
anthropomorphic entities came with brain scans by </FONT><A
href="http://www.bcn-nic.nl/" target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Christian
Keysers</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, a social neuroscientist at the University
Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands. Under an fMRI scanner, his
volunteers viewed two movies - one in which two people pushed or chased each
other around, and another in which the people were replaced with a circle and
square. Both movies activated the "mirror neuron system" in the viewers'
premotor and somatosensory cortices - brain areas that respond to action by
other humans and help us interact socially. "The brain areas activated were
virtually indistinguishable," says Keysers. "People found that these geometric
shapes were pushing each other around very intentionally."</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Bolstered by this convincing evidence that our
brains really do consider inanimate objects in the same ways as they consider
other human beings, the researchers decided to investigate the reasons why we
might have evolved the trait in the first place.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>One of the most obvious explanations is that it's
an attempt to make sense of a largely meaningless world. Humans have a habit of
looking for useful cues in nature, even when they are not there, since the
pay-off is huge in the few cases when there is cause for concern. We may be on
guard whenever we hear rustling in the bushes, for example, even though the
sound may be insignificant 99 times out of 100, simply because it might save our
life in the one instance that it really does signal a predator intent on eating
us. Many superstitions appear to be an extension of this behaviour </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html"><FONT
size=2>(<I>New Scientist</I>, 4 February 2009, p 30)</FONT></A><FONT size=2> and
anthropomorphism may be no different. "I wouldn't say that the anthropomorphism
itself is adaptive," says Guthrie. "It's mistaken by definition. But the
strategy that leads to it is totally adaptive."</FONT></P>
<H3 class=crosshead><FONT size=2>Predicting the unpredictable</FONT></H3>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Consistent with this hypothesis, Cacioppo, Epley,
and their former PhD student </FONT><A href="http://waytz.socialpsychology.org/"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Adam Waytz</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, now at Harvard
University, recently found that we are more likely to anthropomorphise when
faced with unpredictable situations or entities. For example, their subjects
were more likely to assign intentions, consciousness and emotions to
unpredictable devices like Clocky, an alarm clock that wheels itself onto the
floor and runs away as the alarm goes off, making it difficult to catch and
press the snooze button. fMRI scans supported this finding, showing that
thinking about unpredictable gadgets like Clocky leads to greater activation of
the ventromedial prefrontal cortex - a brain area known to be involved in
thinking about other peoples' thoughts (</FONT><A
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649365" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2><I>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</I>, vol 99, p
410</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). This tendency even runs to desktop computers, with
the team finding that we are more likely to consider that our PC has a mind of
its own if it freezes up unexpectedly.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>It's also evident in the way we react to natural
disasters. "When there's human suffering or an earthquake," says Waytz, "it can
provide people with a sense of meaning to attribute them to the intentions of
God or Mother Nature." And in the case of those townspeople in 15th-century
France, putting a pig on trial for murdering a child may have provided them with
a sense of control by imposing human standards of behaviour on an amoral animal
kingdom.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Our attempts to explain the unexplainable are
unlikely to be the whole story, though. Anecdotal reports suggest that lonely
people anthropomorphise more than those with a buzzing social life, leading
Cacioppo and Epley to wonder whether it might also be a coping mechanism to deal
with social isolation. "If you can't connect to people, [maybe] you connect
inferentially to dogs or gadgets or gods," says Cacioppo. The idea is certainly
fixed in pop culture. Think of the movie <I>Cast Away</I>, in which Tom Hanks's
character, stranded on a desert island, draws a human face on a volleyball and
names it "Wilson". People have even been known, in rare cases, to fall in love
with and "marry" landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower or the Berlin Wall; one
could speculate that they're looking for intimate connections, albeit in a
maladapted fashion.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Cacioppo, Epley, and Waytz set out to test the
loneliness hypothesis. They presented subjects with descriptions of consumer
gadgets such as Pillow Mate (a pillow that hugs you back) and Clocky, and asked
people to rate them on human qualities such as "has a mind of its own". As
expected, those who saw the most human-like traits in Clocky and its ilk were
the ones who showed greater signs of loneliness in personality
surveys.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>In a further experiment, they showed volunteers
several movie clips, including a scene from <I>Cast Away</I> depicting
loneliness, and then asked them to describe God or their pet. People who had
just watched the lonely scene rated their pets and God as higher on supportive,
person-like traits such as "thoughtful", "considerate", or "sympathetic"
compared with people who watched other scenes.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>"These are not people whom I would clinically
diagnose as being upset," says Waytz, who published the results with Epley and
Cacioppo in <I>Psychological Science</I> in 2008 (</FONT><A
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18271858" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2>vol 19, p 114</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). "What it says is that
anthropomorphism is a very natural response to being just temporarily
isolated."</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>At first glance, this could seem to be somewhat
damaging, since finding kinship in your car might keep you from seeking out real
friends when you need them. "It's a little bit like eating celery when you're
hungry," says Cacioppo. "There's nothing nourishing in it." But when you
consider the negative biological effects of loneliness, there could also be a
very real upside to blunting these bad feelings. Social isolation shortens
lifespan in humans and fruit flies alike, and studies of prisoners in solitary
confinement demonstrate that our social brain can unravel over weeks and months,
leading to long-term difficulties in building relationships afterwards. Maybe
anthropomorphism is one of the brain's efforts to minimise these effects. "It
allows people to sort of tread water while searching for that real sense of
connection," says Waytz. "In that sense it's certainly adaptive to reduce
stress."</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>All of which shows that anthropomorphism is an
innate characteristic of human psychology, suggesting it could have far-reaching
and unexpected effects on our behaviour. Beyond the obvious superstitions and
quirks, however, few of these effects had been documented, so the researchers
set about examining the possible situations in which we might anthropomorphise,
and its consequences.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Our interactions with technology turned out to be
one of the most promising lines of investigation. Engineers have long assumed
that we prefer devices if they resemble humans, and there is some evidence to
support this view. Combining human-like looks with unpredictability, for
instance, turns out to be a potent mix for anthropomorphism that makes robots
particularly engaging. In one study, toddlers went wild over a walking and
dancing robot when it was difficult to tell what the device would do next.
Significantly, they treated it like a human playmate - watching it, touching it
frequently, and putting a blanket over it when it laid down as though it were
sleeping. When the robot was reprogrammed to repeat its acts at regular
intervals, however, it lost its anthropomorphic allure, and the children largely
ignored it (</FONT><A href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0707769104"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2><I>Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science</I>, vol 104, p 17954</FONT></A><FONT size=2>).</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Yet there is now a growing realisation that
anthropomorphised devices also have their pitfalls. People often feel
disproportionately angry, for example, when their computer freezes, hitting or
shouting at the device. This irrational anger arises because people feel that
they've established a partnership with the machine, says </FONT><A
href="http://www.stanford.edu/~nass/" target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Clifford
Nass</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, a psychologist of human-computer interaction at
Stanford University in California. "We feel like it should be on our side," he
says. "It's a betrayal of our trust." Similar factors might also explain the
demise of Clippy, the infamous animated assistant in early versions of Microsoft
Office </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827881.400-in-our-own-image-why-we-treat-things-like-people.html?full=true#bx278814B1"><FONT
size=2>(see "R.I.P. Clippy")</FONT></A><FONT size=2>.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>The best approach, says Nass, is to create an
anthropomorphic interface with a bit of tact and diplomacy. He recently studied
how customers interacted with </FONT><A href="http://amazon.com/"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Amazon.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>'s telephone
voice-recognition system. These systems can be intensely irritating when they
don't recognise what we say, but people responded best when the computer blamed
a crackly phone line rather than itself or the caller. The customers were more
willing to repeat their answer, stay on the phone and buy books. It worked, says
Nass, because the response implied the computer was trying hard, without making
it seem too stupid.</FONT></P>
<H3 class=crosshead><FONT size=2>Lucky streaks</FONT></H3>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Away from technology, anthropomorphic figures can
make us behave ourselves when no one else is looking </FONT><A
href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827881.400-in-our-own-image-why-we-treat-things-like-people.html?full=true#bx278814B2"><FONT
size=2>(see "Someone to watch over me")</FONT></A><FONT size=2>.
Anthropomorphism can also determine, to a certain extent, our views on
environmental matters, abortion or animal rights - all depending on the kinds of
characteristics we bestow on the beings in question.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>The phenomenon is especially rampant in high-risk,
unpredictable situations like gambling or trading on the stock market, precisely
the time when we would like to keep our wits about us. Michael Morris, a social
psychologist at Columbia University's business school in New York, recently
examined the way that television commentators use volitional terms to describe
the stock market - they might say the prices "climbed higher" or "flirted with
the 2000 mark". Reviews of TV transcripts showed that commentators were more
likely to use volitional terms if the market was on a streak-that is, if it had
just fallen or risen substantially (</FONT><A
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.03.001" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2><I>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</I>, vol 102, p
174</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). This kind of subtle anthropomorphism can be
dangerous for investors. Waytz, Epley, and their Booth colleague Eugene Caruso
found that people who see volition behind a streak (say, a steadily rising stock
or a string of red numbers in roulette) are more likely to believe that the
streak will continue (</FONT><A
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.006" target=nsarticle><FONT
size=2><I>Cognition</I>, vol 116, p 149</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). By causing
people to believe that a stock's price will keep rising, this dynamic can
perversely push investors to buy when the price is high rather than when it's
low.</FONT></P>
<DIV class="quotebx bxbg">
<DIV class=quoteopen>
<DIV class=quoteclose>
<DIV class="quotebody lowlight"><QUOTE><QUOTETEXT><FONT size=2>Anthropomophism
is especially rampant in high-risk situations like gambling</QUOTETEXT></QUOTE>
</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>To make matters worse, these effects could have
their biggest impact when we are already feeling particularly cocky, as
</FONT><A
href="http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12825362432"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2>Ann McGill</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, also at the
Booth School of Business recently discovered when she presented some volunteers
with two groups of slot machines - half of which looked somewhat
human-like.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Those who felt more socially powerful were more
likely to play with the anthropomorphised slot machines than those who felt
shyer. "Nobody would look at a slot machine and say 'I can talk it into letting
me win'," says McGill. "But if they're feeling kind of powerful... they may
start leaning toward the direction of thinking 'I can probably get my way'."
This dynamic could embolden a trader or gambler to feel that they have more
control than they really do - leading them to take excessive risks.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>The biggest irony, however, emerges when you
compare the trait with the way that humans often treat each other. Since lonely
people seem more likely to see human qualities in inanimate objects, for
instance, Waytz and his colleagues wondered if the opposite would be true: do
socially connected people fail to see the humanity in real people? His early
experiments have found exactly that.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>People who had just recalled a family holiday,
making them feel more socially secure, were more prone to endorse harsh
interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and electric shock than other
people. Since uncertainty also seems to trigger anthropomorphism, he predicts
that feelings of power and security might also make us see other people as
objects rather than human beings. "Both of those psychological factors put
people in a mindset where they're licensed to dehumanise [others]," says
Waytz.</FONT></P>
<P class=infuse><FONT size=2>Maybe we're no more rational than those
pig-arresting townspeople in 15th-century France after all.</FONT></P>
<DIV class="artbx bxbg">
<H3 id=bx278814B1><FONT size=2>R.I.P. Clippy</FONT></H3>
<P><FONT size=2>Attempts to anthropomorphise technology backfired spectacularly
in Clippy, the puppy-eyed paper clip that used to pop up sporadically in
Microsoft Office to say things like: "It looks like you're writing a letter -
can I help you?" Radio skits portrayed Clippy being led into the woods for a
gang-style execution as he cheerfully asked, "It looks like you're digging a
grave - is this a personal grave or a business grave?"</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>We disliked Clippy because it seemed to be a busybody, and made
us feel less in control. Worse still, it popped up uninvited. This
unpredictability may have made Clippy more human-like but it's a bad trait when
all you want to do is type up a report so you can leave the office and catch a
train home. "Results showed again and again that the distraction was huge," says
Ben Shneiderman, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland in College
Park. "The users' performance was worse in that it took them longer to complete
the task."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Even on the rare occasions that Clippy did provide useful
advice, it backfired in another way: users tended to credit the computer for
their success, rather than themselves, reducing their personal satisfaction
(<I>Interacting with Computers</I>, vol 19, p 293).</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV class="artbx bxbg">
<H3 id=bx278814B2><FONT size=2>Someone to watch over me</FONT></H3>
<P><FONT size=2>We know that humans are more likely to behave themselves under
supervision - but what if the supervisor has no mind of its own? Researchers at
the University of California in Los Angeles studied people's behaviour in an
anonymous economic game under two situations, one with a normal computer screen
and another with two cartoon eyes staring out of the screen. When the eyes were
present, people showed more generosity to other players - even though they were
still completely anonymous (</FONT><A
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002"
target=nsarticle><FONT size=2><I>Evolution and Human Behavior</I>, vol 26, p
245</FONT></A><FONT size=2>). Most people care so deeply about what others think
of their actions that the mere appearance of a face can evoke that feeling and
influence behaviour, says Waytz, as if they really were being
watched.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>This effect has been put to powerful effect throughout history,
with statues of Jesus, Buddha and the Virgin Mary appearing in countless public
places, and the faces of rulers like Chairman Mao, Kim Jong Il, or Saddam
Hussein plastered on the sides of buildings. "Good propaganda really takes
advantage of the fact that humans are sensitive to what others are thinking,"
says Waytz.</FONT></P></DIV>
<P><I><FONT size=2>Douglas Fox is a freelance writer based in San
Francisco</FONT></I></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>