skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557403acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Faces engage us: photos with faces attract more likes and comments on Instagram

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Photos are becoming prominent means of communication online. Despite photos' pervasive presence in social media and online world, we know little about how people interact and engage with their content. Understanding how photo content might signify engagement, can impact both science and design, influencing production and distribution. One common type of photo content that is shared on social media, is the photos of people. From studies of offline behavior, we know that human faces are powerful channels of non-verbal communication. In this paper, we study this behavioral phenomena online. We ask how presence of a face, it's age and gender might impact social engagement on the photo. We use a corpus of 1 million Instagram images and organize our study around two social engagement feedback factors, likes and comments. Our results show that photos with faces are 38% more likely to receive likes and 32% more likely to receive comments, even after controlling for social network reach and activity. We find, however, that the number of faces, their age and gender do not have an effect. This work presents the first results on how photos with human faces relate to engagement on large scale image sharing communities. In addition to contributing to the research around online user behavior, our findings offer a new line of future work using visual analysis.

References

  1. 150,000,000 photos. http://blog.instagram.com/ post/8758450298/150-000-000-photos, August 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Here's how to use instagram. http://www. businessinsider.com/instagram-2010--11--op=1, May 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Testing, testing... http://blog.instagram.com/post/ 8758396471/testing-testing, July 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A demographic portrait of users of various social media services. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/ Social-media-users/ Social-Networking-Site-Users/Demo-portrait. aspx, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Face++. http://en.faceplusplus.com/, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Arguello, J., Butler, B. S., Joyce, E., Kraut, R., Ling, K. S., Rosé, C., and Wang, X. Talk to me: foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM (2006), 959--968. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Baker, M. J., and Churchill J., G. A. The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of marketing research (1977), 538--555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Beckwith, L., Kissinger, C., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Lawrance, J., Blackwell, A., and Cook, C. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, ACM (2006), 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Berger, J., and Milkman, K. L. What makes online content viral' Journal of marketing research 49, 2 (2012), 192--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruce, V., and Young, A. In the eye of the beholder: the science of face perception. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, M., Joyce, E., Kim, T., Anand, V., and Kraut, R. Introductions and requests: Rhetorical strategies that elicit response in online communities. In Communities and Technologies 2007. Springer, 2007, 21--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke, M., and Kraut, R. Mind your ps and qs: the impact of politeness and rudeness in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM (2008), 281--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Burke, M., Marlow, C., and Lento, T. Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, acm (2009), 945--954. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cameron, C. A., and Trivedi, P. K. Regression analysis of count data (econometric society monographs). Cambridge university press, September 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassell, J., et al. Nudge nudge wink wink: elements of face-to-face conversation for embodied conversational agents. Embodied Conversational Agents (2000), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Cunha, E., Magno, G., Almeida, V., Gonçalves, M. A., and Benevenuto, F. A gender based study of tagging behavior in twitter. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on Hypertext and social media, ACM (2012), 323--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Darwin, C. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Dehn, D. M., and Van Mulken, S. The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International journal of human-computer studies 52, 1 (2000), 1--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Desmarais, C. Facebook's instagram says it has 90 million monthly active users, February 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., and Kelem, R. T. Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of personality and social psychology 33, 2 (1976), 178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. Pictures of facial affect. consulting psychologists press, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. Connection strategies: social capital implications of facebook-enabled communication practices. New media & society 13, 6 (2011), 873--892.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, E., Bakhshi, S., Chang, S., and Terveen, L. I need to try this': a statistical overview of pinterest. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM (2013), 2427--2436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Goldman, A. I., and Sripada, C. S. Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition. Cognition 94, 3 (2005), 193--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Goodman, L. A. Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32, 1 (1961), 148--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Haxby, J., Hoffman, E., and Gobbini, M. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in cognitive sciences 4, 6 (2000), 223--233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Herring, S. C. Gender and power in on-line communication. The handbook of language and gender (2008), 202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L. A., and Wright, E. L. Women and children last: The discursive construction of weblogs. In Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs, Citeseer (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hochman, N., and Schwartz, R. Visualizing instagram: Tracing cultural visual rhythms. In Proceedings of the workshop on social media visualization (socmedvis) in conjunction with the sixth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM-12) (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Iacoboni, M., Koski, L., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Woods, R., Dubeau, M., Mazziotta, J., and Rizzolatti, G. Reafferent copies of imitated actions in the right superior temporal cortex. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 98, 24 (2001), 13995--13999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jamali, S., and Rangwala, H. Digging digg: comment mining, popularity prediction, and social network analysis. In International Conference on Web Information Systems and Mining, 2009. WISM 2009, ieee (2009), 32--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jenkins, R., and Burton, A. M. 100% accuracy in automatic face recognition. Science 319, 5862 (2008), 435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., and Morton, J. Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. cognition 40, 1 (1991), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., and Chun, M. M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. The Journal of Neuroscience 17, 11 (1997), 4302--4311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Kelsey, R. E., and Stimson, B. The meaning of photography. Clark Art Institute, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Laurel, B. Interface agents: Metaphors with character. Human values and the design of computer technology (1997), 207--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Lei, Y.-H., Chen, Y.-Y., Iida, L., Chen, B.-C., Su, H.-H., and Hsu, W. H. Photo search by face positions and facial attributes on touch devices. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia, MM '11, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 651--654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Millen, D. R., and Patterson, J. F. Stimulating social engagement in a community network. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, ACM (2002), 306--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Morton, J., and Johnson, M. H. Conspec and conlern: a two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological review 98, 2 (1991), 164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips, T. Unmasking the face on mars. new high-resolution images and 3d altimetry from nasa's mars global surveyor spacecraft reveal the face on mars for what it really is: a mesa. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/ science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/, May 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sergent, J., Ohta, S., and Mdonald, B. Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing: a position emission tomography study. Brain 115, 1 (1992), 15--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Shamma, D. A., Shaw, R., Shafton, P. L., and Liu, Y. Watch what i watch: using community activity to understand content. In MIR '07: Proceedings of the international workshop on Workshop on multimedia information retrieval (2007), 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., and Waters, K. When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 2 (1996), 97--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., and Chi, E. H. Want to be retweeted' large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) (2010), 177--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Takeuchi, A., and Nagao, K. Communicative facial displays as a new conversational modality. In Proceedings of the INTERSECT'93 and CHI'93 conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM (1993), 187--193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Takeuchi, a., and naito, t. Situated facial displays: towards social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, acm press/addison-wesley publishing co. (1995), 450--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Vasalou, A., Joinson, A., and Courvoisier, D. Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of true commitment in facebook. International journal of human-computer studies 68, 10 (2010), 719--728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Viola, p., and jones, m. j. Robust real-time face detection. International Journal of Computer Vision 57, 2 (2004), 137--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., and Subramani, R. Using a human face in an interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM (1994), 85--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Wojnicki, A., and Godes, D. Word-of-mouth as self-enhancement. HBS marketing research paper, 06-01 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright, J., Yang, A., Ganesh, A., Sastry, S., and Ma, Y. Robust face recognition via sparse representation. Pattern analysis and machine intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 31, 2 (2009), 210--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Yew, J., and Shamma, D. A. Know your data: Understanding implicit usage versus explicit action in video content classification. IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging (January 2011) (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Young, A., Mcweeny, K., Hay, D., and Ellis, A. Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on identity and expression. Psychological research 48, 2 (1986), 63--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Faces engage us: photos with faces attract more likes and comments on Instagram

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2014
      4206 pages
      ISBN:9781450324731
      DOI:10.1145/2556288

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader