Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Social Robotics
Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics 3/2015

01-06-2015

Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction

Authors: Jakub Złotowski, Diane Proudfoot, Kumar Yogeeswaran, Christoph Bartneck

Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Issue 3/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Anthropomorphism is a phenomenon that describes the human tendency to see human-like shapes in the environment. It has considerable consequences for people’s choices and beliefs. With the increased presence of robots, it is important to investigate the optimal design for this technology. In this paper we discuss the potential benefits and challenges of building anthropomorphic robots, from both a philosophical perspective and from the viewpoint of empirical research in the fields of human–robot interaction and social psychology. We believe that this broad investigation of anthropomorphism will not only help us to understand the phenomenon better, but can also indicate solutions for facilitating the integration of human-like machines in the real world.
previous article Re-evaluating the Form and Communication of Social Robots
next article The Social Robot as Fetish? Conceptual Affordances and Risks of Neo-Animistic Theory

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
2
Daniel Dennett uses the notion of ‘innocent’ anthropomorphizing in [46].
 
3
Turing distinguished between communication by ‘pain’ and ‘pleasure’ inputs and ‘unemotional’ communication that by means of ‘sense stimuli’ [141]; for analysis see [114].
 
4
This is not to suggest that what makes a ‘smile’ into a smile is some feeling—an inner state—in the robot. See [111, 113].
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Adolphs R (2005) Could a robot have emotions? Theoretical perspectives from social cognitive neuroscience. In: Arbib M, Fellous JM (eds) Who needs emotions: the brain meets the robot. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–28
4.
Aggarwal P, McGill A (2007) Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. J Consum Res 34(4):468–479CrossRef
5.
Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading
6.
Arbib MA, Fellous JM (2004) Emotions: from brain to robot. Trends Cogn Sci 8(12):554–561CrossRef
7.
Austermann A, Yamada S, Funakoshi K, Nakano M (2010) How do users interact with a pet-robot and a humanoid. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems—Proceedings, Atlanta, pp 3727–3732
8.
Baddoura R, Venture G, Matsukata R (2012) The familiar as a key-concept in regulating the social and affective dimensions of HRI. In: IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Osaka, pp 234–241
9.
Bae J, Kim M (2011) Selective visual attention occurred in change detection derived by animacy of robot’s appearance. In: Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems, CTS 2011, pp 190–193
10.
Barrett J (2004) Why would anyone believe in god?. AltaMira Press, Lanham
11.
Barrett J (2007) Cognitive science of religion: what is it and why is it? Relig Compass 1(6):768–786CrossRef
12.
Barrett JL (2000) Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):29–34CrossRef
13.
Bartneck C (2008) Who like androids more: Japanese or US americans? Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, Munich, pp 553–557
14.
Bartneck C (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Design & semantics of form & movement (DeSForM2013), Philips, pp 64–70
15.
Bartneck C, Hue J (2008) Exploring the abuse of robots. Interact Stud 9(3):415–433CrossRef
16.
Bartneck C, Rosalia C, Menges R, Deckers I (2005) Robot abuse: limitation of the media equation. In: Proceedings of the interact 2005 workshop on agent abuse, Rome
17.
Bartneck C, Reichenbach J, Carpenter J (2006) Use of praise and punishment in human–robot collaborative teams. In: RO-MAN 2006: the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE Cat No. 06TH8907), Piscataway
18.
Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju, pp 368–373
19.
Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic doppelganger - a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2009. IEEE, pp 269–276
20.
Bartneck C, Bleeker T, Bun J, Fens P, Riet L (2010) The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn 1:1–7
21.
Becker-Asano C, Ogawa K, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2010) Exploring the uncanny valley with geminoid HI-1 in a real-world application. In: Proceedings of the IADIS international conference interfaces and human computer interaction 2010, IHCI. Proceedings of the IADIS international conference game and entertainment technologies 2010, Part of the MCCSIS 2010, Freiburg, pp 121–128
22.
Bering J (2005) Origins of the social mind: evolutionary psychology and child development. The Guildford Press, New York
23.
Bering J (2010) The god instinct. Nicholas Brealey, London
24.
Bering JM (2006) The folk psychology of souls. Behav Brain Sci 29(05):453–462
25.
Bethel CL, Salomon K, Murphy RR (2009) Preliminary results: humans find emotive non-anthropomorphic robots more calming. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09, pp 291–292
26.
Bloom P (2005) Descartes’ baby: how the science of child development explains what makes us human. Basic Books, New York
27.
Boyer P (2001) Religion explained. Basic Books, New York
28.
Boyer P (2003) Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends Cogn Sci 7(3):119–124CrossRef
29.
Breazeal C (1998) Early experiments using motivations to regulate human–robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium on emotional and intelligent: the tangled knot of cognition. Technical report FS-98-03, pp 31–36
30.
Breazeal C (2000) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
31.
Breazeal C (2001) Affective interaction between humans and robots. In: Kelemen J, Sosik P (eds) ECAL 2001. LNAI vol 2159. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 582–591
32.
Breazeal C (2006) Human–robot partnership. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):79–81
33.
Breazeal C, Fitzpatrick P (2000) That certain look: social amplification of animate vision. In: Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on society of intelligence agents the human in the loop
34.
Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2000) Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adapt Behav 8(1):49–74CrossRef
35.
Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2001) Challenges in building robots that imitate. In: Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL (eds) Imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT Press, Cambridge
36.
Breazeal C, Buchsbaum D, Gray J, Gatenby D, Blumberg B (2005) Learning from and about others: towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artif Life 11(1–2):31–62CrossRef
37.
Calverley DJ (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connect Sci 18(4):403–417CrossRef
38.
Cheetham M, Suter P, Jancke L (2011) The human likeness dimension of the “Uncanny valley hypothesis”: behavioral and functional MRI findings. Front Hum Neurosci 5:126CrossRef
39.
Chew S, Tay W, Smit D, Bartneck C (2010) Do social robots walk or roll? In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics), LNAI, vol 6414. Springer, Singapore, pp 355–361
40.
Chin M, Sims V, Clark B, Lopez G (2004) Measuring individual differences in anthropomorphism toward machines and animals. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 48. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 1252–1255
41.
Choi J, Kim M (2009) The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, 16–19 July 2008
42.
Cohen PR (2005) If not turing’s test, then what? AI Mag 26(4):61
43.
Cooney M, Zanlungo F, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2012) Designing a flying humanoid robot (FHR): effects of flight on interactive communication. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Paris, pp 364–371
44.
Darwin C (1872) 1998 The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford University Press, New York
45.
Dasgupta N (2004) Implicit in group favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Soc Justice Res 17(2):143–169CrossRef
46.
Dennett DC, Dretske F, Shurville S, Clark A, Aleksander I, Cornwell J (1994) The practical requirements for making a conscious robot. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 349(1689):133–146CrossRef
47.
Dill V, Flach LM, Hocevar R, Lykawka C, Musse SR, Pinho MS (2012) Evaluation of the uncanny valley in CG characters. In: 12th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, IVA 2012, September 12, 2012–September 14, 2012. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics) LNAI, vol 7502, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 511–513
48.
DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2003) From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, DPPI ’03, ACM, New York, pp 67–72
49.
DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. DIS, London, pp 321–326
50.
Dovidio J, Gaertner S (1999) Reducing prejudice: combating intergroup biases. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8(4):101–105CrossRef
51.
Dovidio J, Gaertner S, Saguy T (2009) Commonality and the complexity of “we” social attitudes and social change. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 13(1):3–20CrossRef
52.
Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3—-4):177–190MATHCrossRef
53.
Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4): 864–886
54.
Epley N, Akalis S, Waytz A, Cacioppo J (2008) Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and hreyhounds: Research article. Psychol Sci 19(2):114–120CrossRef
55.
Evers V, Maldonado HC, Brodecki TL, Hinds PJ (2008) Relational vs. group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In: HRI 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction: living with robots, Amsterdam, pp 255–262
56.
Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2011) Manipulating anthropomorphic inferences about NAO: the role of situational and dispositional aspects of effectance motivation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 467–472
57.
Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51(4):724–731CrossRef
58.
Eyssel F, Loughnan S (2013) “It don’t matter if you’re black or white”? Effects of robot appearance and user prejudice on evaluations of a newly developed robot companion. In: 5th international conference on social robotics, ICSR 2013, October 27, 2013–October 29, 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 8239. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 422–431
59.
Eyssel F, Hegel F, Horstmann G, Wagner C (2010) Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: A case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. Viareggio, pp 646–651
60.
Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S (2011) Effects of anticipated human–robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism. In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. Lausanne, pp 61–67
61.
Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S, De Ruiter L, Hegel F (2012) “If you sound like me, you must be more human”: on the interplay of robot and user features on human–robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 125–126
62.
Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526CrossRef
63.
Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features. In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 323–330
64.
Fischer K, Lohan KS, Foth K (2012) Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 463–470
65.
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. In: IROS 2002, September 30, 2002–September 30, 2002. Robotics and autonomous systems, vol 42. Elsevier, pp 143–166
66.
Ford K, Hayes P (1998) On computational wings: rethinking the goals of artificial intelligence-the gold standard of traditional artificial intelligence-passing the so-called turing test and thereby appearing to be. Sci Am Presents 9(4):79
67.
Forster F, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2011) Anthropomorphic design for an interactive urban robot—the right design approach? In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Lausanne, pp 137–138
68.
Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD, Yew V (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: HRI 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction: living with robots, Amsterdam, pp 145–152
69.
Giullian N, Ricks D, Atherton A, Colton M, Goodrich M, Brinton B (2010) Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In: Conference Proceedings: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 2595–2602
70.
Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2003), 2003, pp 55–60
71.
Gold K, Scassellati B (2007) A bayesian robot that distinguishes “self” from “other”. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the cognitive science society
72.
Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619CrossRef
73.
Gray K, Wegner D (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1):125–130CrossRef
74.
Greenwald A, Banaji M (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4–27CrossRef
75.
Guthrie S (1995) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, Oxford
76.
Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527CrossRef
77.
Hard R (2004) The routledge handbook of greek mythology: Based on HJ Rose’s “Handbook of Greek Mythology”. Psychology Press, New York
78.
Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264CrossRef
79.
Hayes P, Ford K (1995) Turing test considered harmful. In: IJCAI (1), pp 972–977.
80.
Hegel F, Krach S, Kircher T, Wrede B, Sagerer G (2008) Understanding social robots: a user study on anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 574–579
81.
Hegel F, Gieselmann S, Peters A, Holthaus P, Wrede B (2011) Towards a typology of meaningful signals and cues in social robotics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 72–78
82.
Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243–259CrossRef
83.
Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H (2002) Intergroup bias. Annu Rev Psychol 53:575–604CrossRef
84.
Hogg DW, Martin F, Resnick M (1991) Braitenberg creatures. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge
85.
Ishiguro H (2006) Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connect Sci 18(4):319–332CrossRef
86.
Kahn P, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T (2006) What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006, pp 364–371
87.
Kahn PH Jr, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S, Gary HE, Reichert AL, Freier NG, Severson RL (2012) Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Boston, pp 33–40
88.
Kamide H, Kawabe K, Shigemi S, Arai T (2013) Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Adv Robot 27(1):3–17CrossRef
89.
Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2005) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human–robot interaction. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS, Edmonton, pp 62–69
90.
Kiesler S, Goetz J (2002) Mental models and cooperation with robotic assistants. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 576–577
91.
Kiesler S, Hinds P (2004) Introduction to this special issue on human–robot interaction. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1):1–8CrossRef
92.
Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169–181CrossRef
93.
Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2013) When a robot’s group membership matters. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):409–417CrossRef
94.
Lee Sl, Lau I, Kiesler S, Chiu CY (2005) Human mental models of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2005. ICRA 2005, pp 2767–2772
95.
Levin D, Killingsworth S, Saylor M, Gordon S, Kawamura K (2013) Tests of concepts about different kinds of minds: predictions about the behavior of computers, robots, and people. Hum Comput Interact 28(2):161–191
96.
Lohse M (2011) Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 485–490
97.
MacDorman KF, Green RD, Ho CC, Koch CT (2009) Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput Hum Behav 25(3):695–710CrossRef
98.
McDermott D (1976) Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. ACM SIGART Bull 57:4–9CrossRef
99.
Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35
100.
Mutlu B, Yamaoka F, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, HRI ’09. ACM, New York, pp 69–76
101.
Oestreicher L, Eklundh KS (2006) User expectations on human-robot co-operation. In: Robot and human interactive communication, 2006. The 15th IEEE international symposium on ROMAN 2006. IEEE, pp 91–96
102.
Ogawa K, Bartneck C, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ono T, Ishiguro H (2009) Can an android persuade you? In: RO-MAN 2009: the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Piscataway, pp 516–521
103.
Oh JH, Hanson D, Kim WS, Han IY, Kim JY, Park IW (2006) Design of android type humanoid robot albert HUBO. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 1428–1433
104.
Oztop E, Chaminade T, Franklin D (2004) Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? In: 2004 4th IEEE/RAS international conference on humanoid robots, vol 2, pp 830–841
105.
Paluck E (2009) Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J Pers Soc Psychol 96(3):574–587CrossRef
106.
107.
Pettigrew T, Tropp L (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(5):751–783CrossRef
108.
109.
Powers A, Kramer ADI, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee SL, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, vol 2005. Nashville, pp 158–163
110.
Proudfoot D (2011) Anthropomorphism and AI: turing’s much misunderstood imitation game. Artif Intell 175(5):950–957MathSciNetCrossRef
111.
Proudfoot D (2013a) Can a robot smile? Wittgenstein on facial expression. In: Racine TP, Slaney KL (eds) A Wittgensteinian perspective on the use of conceptual analysis in psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 172–194
112.
Proudfoot D (2013b) Rethinking turing’s test. J Philos 110(7):391–411
113.
Proudfoot D (2015) Turing’s child-machines. In: Bowen J, Copeland J, Sprevak M, Wilson R (eds) The turing guide: life, work, legacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
114.
Proudfoot D (2014) Turing’s three senses of ”Emotional”. Int J Synth Emot 5(2):7–20CrossRef
115.
Pyysiäinen I (2004) Religion is neither costly nor beneficial. Behav Brain Sci 27(06):746–746CrossRef
116.
Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University Press, New York
117.
Rehm M, Krogsager A (2013) Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. In: 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, pp 45–50
118.
Reichenbach J, Bartneck C, Carpenter J (2006) Well done, robot! - The importance of praise and presence in human–robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, pp 86–90
119.
Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2008) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09, San Diego, pp 245–246
120.
Riether N, Hegel F, Wrede B, Horstmann G (2012) Social facilitation with social robots? In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, Boston, HRI ’12, pp 41–48
121.
Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, vol 3, pp 1613–1622
122.
Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2011) Effects of gesture on the perception of psychological anthropomorphism: a case study with a humanoid robot, Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 7072. Springer, Berlin
123.
Saver JL, Rabin J (1997) The neural substrates of religious experience. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 9(3):498–510CrossRef
124.
Saygin AP, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith C (2012) The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7(4):413–422CrossRef
125.
Scassellati B (2000) How robotics and developmental psychology complement each other. In: NSF/DARPA workshop on development and learning
126.
127.
Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol 28, pp 552–563
128.
Scassellati B, Crick C, Gold K, Kim E, Shic F, Sun G (2006) Social development [robots]. Comput Intell Mag IEEE 1(3):41–47CrossRef
129.
Schmitz M (2011) Concepts for life-like interactive objects. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’11. ACM, New York, pp 157–164
130.
Shic F, Scassellati B (2007) Pitfalls in the modeling of developmental systems. Int J Hum Robot 4(2):435–454CrossRef
131.
Short E, Hart J, Vu M, Scassellati B (2010) No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot. In: 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI 2010, Osaka, pp 219–226
132.
Sims VK, Chin MG, Lum HC, Upham-Ellis L, Ballion T, Lagattuta NC (2009) Robots’ auditory cues are subject to anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, vol 3, pp 1418–1421
133.
Spexard T, Haasch A, Fritsch J, Sagerer G (2006) Human-like person tracking with an anthropomorphic robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 2006. Orlando, pp 1286–1292
134.
Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL (2007) Looking good? appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: AAAI spring symposium—Technical report, vol SS-07-07. Stanford, pp 86–92
135.
Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Walters ML, Koay KL (2008) Sharing spaces with robots in a home scenario—anthropomorphic attributions and their effect on proxemic expectations and evaluations in a live HRI trial. In: AAAI fall symposium—Technical report, vol FS-08-02, Arlington, pp 116–123
136.
Tapus A, Matari MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robotics Autom Mag 14(1):35–42CrossRef
137.
Torta E, Van Dijk E, Ruijten PAM, Cuijpers RH (2013) The ultimatum game as measurement tool for anthropomorphism in human–robot interaction. In: 5th international conference on social robotics, ICSR 2013, October 27, 2013–October 29, 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 8239. Springer Verlag, pp 209–217
138.
Trimble M, Freeman A (2006) An investigation of religiosity and the Gastaut-Geschwind syndrome in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 9(3):407–414CrossRef
139.
140.
Turing A (2004a) Can digital computers think? In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
141.
Turing A (2004b) Intelligent machinery. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
142.
Turing A (2004c) Lecture on the automatic computing engine. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
143.
Turing A, Braithwaite R, Jefferson G, Newman M (2004) Can automatic calculating machines be said to think? In: Copeland J (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
144.
Turkle S (2010) In good company? On the threshold of robotic companions. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artifical companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp 3–10CrossRef
145.
Verkuyten M (2006) Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: a social identity perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 17(1):148–184CrossRef
146.
Vorauer J, Gagnon A, Sasaki S (2009) Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychol Sci 20(7):838–845CrossRef
147.
Wade E, Parnandi AR, Matari MJ (2011) Using socially assistive robotics to augment motor task performance in individuals post-stroke. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2403–2408
148.
Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2008) Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 707–712
149.
Walters ML, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2009) Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human–robot interaction trials. Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systems—proceedings of the 23rd Convention of the society for the study of artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour, AISB 2009, Edinburgh, pp 136–143
150.
Wang E, Lignos C, Vatsal A, Scassellati B (2006) Effects of head movement on perceptions of humanold robot behavior. In: HRI 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2006, pp 180–185
151.
Wilson EO (2006) The creation: an appeal to save life on earth. Wiley Online Library, Hoboken
152.
Wittenbrink B, Judd C, Park B (2001) Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(5):815–827CrossRef
153.
Yamamoto M (1993) Sozzy: a hormone-driven autonomous vacuum cleaner. In: International Society for Optical Engineering, vol 2058, pp 212–213
154.
Yogeeswaran K, Dasgupta N (2014) The devil is in the details: abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. J Pers Soc Psychol 106(5):772–789
155.
von Zitzewitz J, Boesch PM, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):263–276
156.
Złotowski J, Strasser E, Bartneck C (2014) Dimensions of anthropomorphism: from humanness to humanlikeness. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’14. ACM, New York, pp 66–73
Metadata
Title
Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction
Authors
Jakub Złotowski
Diane Proudfoot
Kumar Yogeeswaran
Christoph Bartneck
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Electronic ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

International Journal of Social Robotics 3/2015 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A Neural Architecture for Performing Actual and Mentally Simulated Movements During Self-Intended and Observed Bimanual Arm Reaching Movements

OriginalPaper

The Social Robot as Fetish? Conceptual Affordances and Risks of Neo-Animistic Theory

OriginalPaper

The Automation of Taste: A Theoretical Exploration of Mobile ICTs and Social Robots in the Context of Music Consumption

OriginalPaper

Robot Caregiver or Robot-Supported Caregiving?

Editorial

Special Issue of IJSR on Social Robots: Form, Content, Critique

OriginalPaper

Re-evaluating the Form and Communication of Social Robots

Premium Partners

    Image Credits