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 1/2020

16-04-2019

Generalisation of Anthropomorphic Stereotype

Authors: Debora Zanatto, Massimiliano Patacchiola, Angelo Cangelosi, Jeremy Goslin

Published in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Issue 1/2020

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Anthropomorphic projection can bring familiarity, confidence and simplicity to our interactions with unknown agents showing a human-like resemblance or behaviour. This study examined whether this projection is generalised beyond the individual agent to encompass others of similar type, even if they might be lacking the requisite human-like features. In an experiment participants had to accept or reject recommendations from two robots that had more or less human-like forms and behaviours. It was found that participants were more likely to trust the judgements of a less-human like robot if they had previously interacted with an anthropomorphic variant. Importantly, this effect was found to be symmetric, with trust in anthropomorphic robots reduced if participants had previously interacted with a less human-like variant. These results showed that we generalise our initial attributions across agent categories, a finding with potential application in helping trust and acceptance of complex technological agents.
previous article An Affordance and Distance Minimization Based Method for Computing Object Orientations for Robot Human Handovers
next article Can Human-Inspired Learning Behaviour Facilitate Human–Robot Interaction?

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
Literature
1.
Conard NJ (2003) Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426(6968):830CrossRef
2.
Lesher JH (1992) Xenophanes of Colophon. Wiley, Hoboken
3.
Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864CrossRef
4.
Dennett DC (1989) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge
5.
Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117(3):497CrossRef
6.
Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1992) How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
7.
Hauser M (2001) Wild minds: what animals really think. Macmillan, London
8.
Kennedy JS (1992) The new anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
9.
Tam KP, Lee SL, Chao MM (2013) Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J Exp Soc Psychol 49:514CrossRef
10.
Nass C, Isbister K, Lee E J (2000) Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents. In: Embodied conversational agents, pp 374–402
11.
Guthrie SE, Guthrie S (1993) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATH
12.
13.
Baron-Cohen S (1997) Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge
14.
Arnheim R (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley
15.
Graham SA, Poulin-Dubois D (1999) Infants’ reliance on shape to generalize novel labels to animate and inanimate objects. J Child Lang 26(2):295CrossRef
16.
Dennet DC (1996) Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. Basic Books, New York City
17.
Mitchell RW, Hamm M (1997) The interpretation of animal psychology: anthropomorphism or behavior reading? Behaviour 134(3):173
18.
Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29(8):943CrossRef
19.
Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243CrossRef
20.
Morewedge CK, Preston J, Wegner DM (2007) Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. J Personal Soc Psychol 93(1):1CrossRef
21.
Dittrich WH, Lea SE (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23(3):253CrossRef
22.
Kahn PH Jr, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T, Freier NG, Severson RL, Miller J (2007) What is a human?: Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interact Stud 8(3):363CrossRef
23.
Breazeal C, Kidd CD, Thomaz AL, Hoffman G, Berlin M (2005) Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2005). IEEE, pp 708–713
24.
25.
Huang CM, Thomaz AL (2010) Joint Attention in human-robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium: dialog with robots
26.
Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. IEEE, pp 55–60
27.
Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cognit 26(2):169CrossRef
28.
Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2009) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. ACM, pp 245–246
29.
Aggarwal P, McGill AL (2007) Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. J Consum Res 34(4):468CrossRef
30.
Kim S, McGill AL (2011) Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. J Consum Res 38(1):94CrossRef
31.
Riva P, Sacchi S, Brambilla M (2015) Humanizing machines: anthropomorphization of slot machines increases gambling. J Exp Psychol Appl 21(4):313CrossRef
32.
Leyens JP, Yzerbyt V, Schadron G (1994) Stereotypes and social cognition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks
33.
Biernat M, Manis M, Nelson TE (1991) Stereotypes and standards of judgment. J Personal Soc Psychol 60(4):485CrossRef
34.
Wichman AL (2012) Uncertainty threat can cause stereotyping: the moderating role of personal need for structure. Sage Open 2(2):2158244012444442CrossRef
35.
Arendt F, Steindl N, Vitouch P (2015) Effects of news stereotypes on the perception of facial threat. J Media Psychol 27:78–86CrossRef
36.
Kim-Prieto C, Goldstein LA, Okazaki S, Kirschner B (2010) Effect of exposure to an American Indian mascot on the tendency to stereotype a different minority group. J Appl Soc Psychol 40(3):534CrossRef
37.
Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347CrossRef
38.
Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD, Yew V (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 145–152
39.
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 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, pp 321–326
40.
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143CrossRefMATH
41.
Salem M, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2011) A friendly gesture: Investigating the effect of multimodal robot behavior in human-robot interaction. In: 2011 IEEE on RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 247–252
42.
Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Ho WC (2013) Sharing spaces, sharing lives–the impact of robot mobility on user perception of a home companion robot. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 321–330
43.
44.
Krach S, Hegel F, Wrede B, Sagerer G, Binkofski F, Kircher T (2008) Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via FMRI. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2597CrossRef
45.
Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors J Human Factors Ergon Soc 53(5):517CrossRef
46.
Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113CrossRef
47.
Bae J, Kim M (2011) Selective visual attention occurred in change detection derived by animacy of robot’s appearance. In: 2011 International conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS). IEEE, pp 190–193
48.
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. In: Procs of new frontiers in human–robot interaction
49.
Powers A, Kramer AD, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. ROMAN 2005. IEEE, pp 158–163
50.
Yee N, Bailenson JN, Rickertsen K (2007) A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1–10
51.
Nass C, Brave S (2005) Wired for speech: how voice activates and advances the human–computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge
52.
Zanatto D, Patacchiola M, Goslin J, Cangelosi A (2016) Priming Anthropomorphism: Can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots? In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 543–544
53.
Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2011) Minimal group-maximal effect? evaluation and anthropomorphization of the humanoid robot NAO. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 104–113
54.
Freire AL, Barreto GA, Veloso M, Varela AT (2009) Short-term memory mechanisms in neural network learning of robot navigation tasks: A case study. In: 2009 6th Latin American on robotics symposium (LARS). IEEE, pp 1–6
55.
Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587CrossRef
56.
Mason MF, Tatkow EP, Macrae CN (2005) The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception. Psychol Sci 16(3):236CrossRef
57.
Bayliss AP, Tipper SP (2006) Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: should eye trust you? Psychol Sci 17(6):514CrossRef
58.
Staudte M, Crocker MW (2011) Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human-robot interaction. Cognition 120(2):268CrossRef
59.
Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 61–68
60.
Garau M, Slater M, Bee S, Sasse MA (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 309–316
61.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41(4):1149CrossRef
62.
Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail LI, Mohamed S, Hanapiah FA, Zahari NI (2012) Initial response in HRI—a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot nao. Procedia Eng 41:1448CrossRef
63.
Reysen S (2005) Construction of a new scale: the Reysen likability scale. Soc Behav Personal Int J 33(2):201CrossRef
64.
Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG (2006) The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J Res Personal 40(1):84CrossRef
65.
McCroskey JC, Young TJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Commun Stud 32(1):24
66.
Hofmann W, Gawronski B, Gschwendner T, Le H, Schmitt M (2005) A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 31(10):1369CrossRef
67.
Dijksterhuis A, Van Knippenberg A (1998) The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. J Personal Soc Psychol 74(4):865CrossRef
68.
Baldwin MW, Carrell SE, Lopez DF (1990) Priming relationship schemas: my advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of my mind. J Exp Soc Psychol 26(5):435CrossRef
69.
Kiesler S, Goetz S (2002) Mental models of robotic assistants. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 576–577
70.
Bartneck C (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Design and semantics of form and movement (DeSForM2013). Philips, pp 64–70
71.
Choi J, Kim M (2009) The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008
72.
Tapus A, Mataric MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14(1):35CrossRef
73.
Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Generalisation of Anthropomorphic Stereotype
Authors
Debora Zanatto
Massimiliano Patacchiola
Angelo Cangelosi
Jeremy Goslin
Publication date
16-04-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Electronic ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00549-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

International Journal of Social Robotics 1/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

When Your Robot Avatar Misbehaves You Are Likely to Apologize: An Exploration of Guilt During Robot Embodiment

OriginalPaper

Peers’ Experience Learning for Developmental Robots

OriginalPaper

Social Activity Recognition on Continuous RGB-D Video Sequences

Original research

A Feasibility Study of a Social Robot Collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measurements from Older Adults

OriginalPaper

Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants

OriginalPaper

Cognitive Performance and Physiological Response Analysis

Premium Partners

    Image Credits