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
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 4/2022

07-02-2022 | Original Paper

Sex Robots: Are We Ready for Them? An Exploration of the Psychological Mechanisms Underlying People’s Receptiveness of Sex Robots

Authors: Junzhao Ma, Dewi Tojib, Yelena Tsarenko

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 4/2022

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered products have started to permeate various spheres of our lives. One of the most controversial of such products is the sex robot, an application of the AI-integrated robotic technology in the domain of human sexual gratification. The aim of this research is to understand the general public’s receptiveness towards this controversial new invention. Drawing upon the social intuitionist model, we find that the fear of AI, emblematic of the broader anxiety of technology’s encroachment on the human sphere, shapes the public’s receptiveness to sex robots. Perceived substitutability of sex robots for human-to-human sexual interactions mediates this relationship. Religiosity is found to moderate this mediated relationship. Our findings are first established with a cross-sectional study. A “big data” field study further validates them. The present research is one of the first empirical studies to examine the underlying psychology of the public’s receptiveness to sex robots. By doing so, we aim to provide relevant government and industry bodies with a better understanding of this important topic for more informed policy making, and to raise awareness of the significant social and ethical implications should sex robots become widely accepted and adopted.
previous article From Greenwashing to Machinewashing: A Model and Future Directions Derived from Reasoning by Analogy

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 "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Alaii, J., Nanda, G., & Njeru, A. (2012). Fears, misconceptions, and side effects of modern contraception in Kenya: Opportunities for social and behavior change communication. Research Brief. Washington, DC: FHI, 360.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432.CrossRef
Allum, N., Sibley, E., Sturgis, P., & Stoneman, P. (2014). Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 833–849.CrossRef
Amuda, Y. J., & Tijani, I. B. (2012). Ethical and legal implications of sex robot: An Islamic perspective. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(06), 19–28.
Atran, S. (2002). In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford University Press.
Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 27(4), 921–933.CrossRef
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 187, 29–45.CrossRef
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.
Buchanan-Oliver, M., & Cruz, A. (2011). Discourses of technology consumption: Ambivalence, fear, and liminality. ACR North American Advances.
Carvalheira, A., Træen, B., & Stulhofer, A. (2015). Masturbation and pornography use among coupled heterosexual men with decreased sexual desire: How many roles of masturbation? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(6), 626–635.CrossRef
Cheng, L., Zhou, X., Wang, F., & Xiao, L. (2020). A state-level analysis of mortality and Google searches for pornography: Insight from life history theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 1–7.CrossRef
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRef
Choi, H., & Varian, H. (2012). Predicting the present with Google Trends. Economic Record, 88, 2–9.CrossRef
Cohen, I. B. (1980). The fear and distrust of science in historical perspective: Some first thoughts. In: Fear of Science—Trust in Science: Conditions for Change in the Climate of Opinion, publication of the Science Centre, Berlin, 19.
Cribier, F. (1988). Les difficultés de la contraception: Conflits et paradoxes. Contraception Fertilité Sexualité (1973), 16(6), 459–463.
Danaher, J. (2017). Robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse: Should they be criminalised? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(1), 71–95.CrossRef
DiTecco, D.D.B.-A. (2020). New technology, same old stigma: An analysis of feminist discourses and sex work stigma in sex robot media. New York: Carleton University.
Dinello, D. (2005). Technophobia!: Science fiction visions of posthuman technology. University of Texas Press.
DiNucci, E. (2017). Sex robots and the rights of the disabled. In J. Danaher & N. McArthur (Eds.), Robot sex (pp. 73–88). MIT Press.
Doran, K., & Price, J. (2014). Pornography and marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 35(4), 489–498.CrossRef
Döring, M. R., & Walter, R. (2020). Design, use, and effects of sex dolls and sex robots: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e18551.CrossRef
Döring, & Pöschl, S. (2018). Sex toys, sex dolls, sex robots: Our under-researched bed-fellows. Sexologies, 27(3), e51–e55.CrossRef
Dubé, E., Vivion, M., & MacDonald, N. E. (2015). Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: Influence, impact and implications. Expert Review of Vaccines, 14(1), 99–117.CrossRef
Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., Bailey, J. M., Heath, A. C., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P. A., & Statham, D. J. (1997). Participation bias in a sexuality survey: Psychological and behavioural characteristics of responders and non-responders. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(4), 844–854. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ije/​26.​4.​844CrossRef
Favaro, A. (2019). Digital culture: Fears, hopes and uncertainty about artificial intelligence in Sci-Fi movies. In A. Ayhan (Ed.), New approaches in media and communication. Peter Lang.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473–486.CrossRef
Gherheş, V. (2018). Why are we afraid of artificial intelligence (AI)? European Review of Applied Sociology, 11(17), 6–15.CrossRef
Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457(7232), 1012–1014.CrossRef
Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.CrossRef
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140–150.CrossRef
Grammich, C., Hadaway, K., Houseal, R., Jones, D. E., Krindatch, A., Stanley, R., & Taylor, R. H. (2010). US Religion census: Religious congregations & membership study. In: Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.[aPES].
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.CrossRef
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
He, G., Mol, A. P., Zhang, L., & Lu, Y. (2013). Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 1–11.CrossRef
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. Trust and communication in a digitized world (pp. 143–159). Springer.CrossRef
Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883.CrossRef
Hou, J., Wu, Y., & Harrell, E. (2017). Reading on paper and screen among senior adults: Cognitive map and technophobia. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2225.CrossRef
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89177.CrossRef
Julian, K. (2019). Why are young people having so little sex? The Atlantic, 67, 35–39.
Juma, C. (2016). Innovation and its enemies: Why people resist new technologies. Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.CrossRef
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2020). Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 63(1), 37–50.CrossRef
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2015). Media influences on social outcomes: The impact of MTV’s 16 and pregnant on teen childbearing. American Economic Review, 105(12), 3597–3632.CrossRef
Khasawneh, O. Y. (2018). Technophobia without borders: The influence of technophobia and emotional intelligence on technology acceptance and the moderating influence of organizational climate. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 210–218.CrossRef
Kim, J. (2019). Fear of artificial intelligence on people’s attitudinal & behavioral attributes: An exploratory analysis of AI Phobia. GSJ, 7, 10.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
Kontula, O. (2015). Sex life challenges: The Finnish case. Elsevier.
Koumpis, A., & Gees, T. (2020). Sex with robots: A not-so-niche market for disabled and older persons. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 228–232.CrossRef
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047.CrossRef
Levy, D. (2006). Marriage and sex with robots. Paper presented at the EURON workshop on roboethics, Genoa.
Levy, D. (2009). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human–robot relationships. HarperCollins.
Liang, Y., & Lee, S. A. (2017). Fear of autonomous robots and artificial intelligence: Evidence from national representative data with probability sampling. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(3), 379–384.CrossRef
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.CrossRef
Linkov, I., Trump, B. D., Galaitsi, S., & Hendren, C. (2019). Sex robots–A harbinger for emerging AI risk. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2, 27.CrossRef
Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704–718.CrossRef
MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2015). Do American states with more religious or conservative populations search more for sexual content on Google? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 137–147.CrossRef
McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2019). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 26(5), 759–766.CrossRef
Mohamed, H. S. (2018). Embryonic politics: Attitudes about abortion, stem cell research, and IVF. Politics and Religion, 11(3), 459–497.CrossRef
Navar, A. M. (2019). Fear-based medical misinformation and disease prevention: From vaccines to statins. JAMA Cardiology, 4(8), 723–724.CrossRef
Nimrod, G. (2018). Technophobia among older Internet users. Educational Gerontology, 44(2–3), 148–162.CrossRef
Nisbet, M. C., & Myers, T. (2007). The polls-trends. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), 444–470.CrossRef
Oh, C., Lee, T., Kim, Y., Park, S., Kwon, S., & Suh, B. (2017). Us vs. them: Understanding artificial intelligence technophobia over the google deepmind challenge match. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Paschen, U., Pitt, C., & Kietzmann, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence: Building blocks and an innovation typology. Business Horizons, 63(2), 147–155.CrossRef
Pizzol, D., Bertoldo, A., & Foresta, C. (2016). Adolescents and web porn: A new era of sexuality. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 28(2), 169–173.CrossRef
Preis, T., Reith, D., & Stanley, H. E. (2010). Complex dynamics of our economic life on different scales: Insights from search engine query data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1933), 5707–5719.CrossRef
Redmiles, E. M., Kross, S., & Mazurek, M. L. (2019). How well do my results generalize? comparing security and privacy survey results from mturk, web, and telephone samples. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).
Rees, J. (2013). Refrigeration nation: A history of ice, appliances, and enterprise in America. JHU Press.
Regnerus, M. D., & Regnerus, M. (2007). Forbidden fruit: Sex & religion in the lives of American teenagers. OUP.CrossRef
Riepma, S. F. (1970). Story of Margarine. Public Affairs Press, Washington, D.C.
Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1995). Computer anxiety: A cross-cultural comparison of university students in ten countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 45–64.CrossRef
Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence: an open letter. AI Magazine, 36, 4.
Samani, H. A. (2011). Lovotics: Love+ robotics, sentimental robot with affective artificial intelligence (Doctoral Dissertation). National University of Singapore.
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91–94.CrossRef
Scheutz, M., & Arnold, T. (2016). Are we ready for sex robots? Paper presented at the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
Sharkey, N., van Wynsberghe, A., Robbins, S., & Hancock, E. (2017). Our sexual future with robots. Foundation for Responsible Robotics.
Sparrow, R. (2017). Robots, rape, and representation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(4), 465–477.CrossRef
Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2014). The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: Evidence using Google search data. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 26–40.CrossRef
Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2005). Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society, 24(1), 31–56.CrossRef
Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 398–409.CrossRef
Szollosy, M. (2017). Freud, Frankenstein and our fear of robots: Projection in our cultural perception of technology. AI & SOCIETY, 32(3), 433–439.CrossRef
Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2018). Unbuckling the Bible belt: A state-level analysis of religious factors and Google searches for porn. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(3), 273–283.CrossRef
Wolfe, R. M., & Sharp, L. K. (2002). Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ, 325(7361), 430–432.CrossRef
Złotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2017). Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48–54.CrossRef
Zollo, L. (2020). The consumers’ emotional dog learns to persuade its rational tail: Toward a social intuitionist framework of ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 168, 1–19.
Metadata
Title
Sex Robots: Are We Ready for Them? An Exploration of the Psychological Mechanisms Underlying People’s Receptiveness of Sex Robots
Authors
Junzhao Ma
Dewi Tojib
Yelena Tsarenko
Publication date
07-02-2022
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05059-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Journal of Business Ethics 4/2022 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Artificial Intelligence and Declined Guilt: Retailing Morality Comparison Between Human and AI

Review Paper

Ethics of AI-Enabled Recruiting and Selection: A Review and Research Agenda

Original Paper

Moral Judgments in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Original Paper

The Dawn of the AI Robots: Towards a New Framework of AI Robot Accountability

Original Paper

From Greenwashing to Machinewashing: A Model and Future Directions Derived from Reasoning by Analogy

Original Paper

The Implications of Diverse Human Moral Foundations for Assessing the Ethicality of Artificial Intelligence