Advertisement

Generalisation of Anthropomorphic Stereotype

  • Debora ZanattoEmail author
  • Massimiliano Patacchiola
  • Angelo Cangelosi
  • Jeremy Goslin
Article
  • 18 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Stereotype activation Anthropomorphism Trust Human–robot interaction 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF under Award No. FA9550-15-1-0025.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Conard NJ (2003) Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426(6968):830Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lesher JH (1992) Xenophanes of Colophon. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dennett DC (1989) The intentional stance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117(3):497Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1992) How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauser M (2001) Wild minds: what animals really think. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy JS (1992) The new anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tam KP, Lee SL, Chao MM (2013) Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J Exp Soc Psychol 49:514Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nass C, Isbister K, Lee E J (2000) Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents. In: Embodied conversational agents, pp 374–402Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guthrie SE, Guthrie S (1993) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carey S, Spelke E (1994) Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In: Hirschfeld L, Gelman S (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–200.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.008
  13. 13.
    Baron-Cohen S (1997) Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arnheim R (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):295Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dennet DC (1996) Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. Basic Books, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell RW, Hamm M (1997) The interpretation of animal psychology: anthropomorphism or behavior reading? Behaviour 134(3):173Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29(8):943Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morewedge CK, Preston J, Wegner DM (2007) Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. J Personal Soc Psychol 93(1):1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dittrich WH, Lea SE (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23(3):253Google Scholar
  22. 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):363Google Scholar
  23. 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 708–713Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social eye gaze in human–robot interaction: a review. J Hum-Robot Interact 6(1):25.  https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Admoni Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang CM, Thomaz AL (2010) Joint Attention in human-robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium: dialog with robotsGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 55–60Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cognit 26(2):169Google Scholar
  28. 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 245–246Google Scholar
  29. 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):468Google Scholar
  30. 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):94Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Riva P, Sacchi S, Brambilla M (2015) Humanizing machines: anthropomorphization of slot machines increases gambling. J Exp Psychol Appl 21(4):313Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leyens JP, Yzerbyt V, Schadron G (1994) Stereotypes and social cognition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Biernat M, Manis M, Nelson TE (1991) Stereotypes and standards of judgment. J Personal Soc Psychol 60(4):485Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wichman AL (2012) Uncertainty threat can cause stereotyping: the moderating role of personal need for structure. Sage Open 2(2):2158244012444442Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arendt F, Steindl N, Vitouch P (2015) Effects of news stereotypes on the perception of facial threat. J Media Psychol 27:78–86Google Scholar
  36. 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):534Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347Google Scholar
  38. 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 145–152Google Scholar
  39. 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 321–326Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 247–252Google Scholar
  42. 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 321–330Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2008) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 Google Scholar
  44. 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):e2597Google Scholar
  45. 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):517Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113Google Scholar
  47. 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 190–193Google Scholar
  48. 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 interactionGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 158–163Google Scholar
  50. 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 1–10Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nass C, Brave S (2005) Wired for speech: how voice activates and advances the human–computer relationship. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 543–544Google Scholar
  53. 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 104–113Google Scholar
  54. 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 1–6Google Scholar
  55. 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):587Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mason MF, Tatkow EP, Macrae CN (2005) The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception. Psychol Sci 16(3):236Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bayliss AP, Tipper SP (2006) Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: should eye trust you? Psychol Sci 17(6):514Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Staudte M, Crocker MW (2011) Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human-robot interaction. Cognition 120(2):268Google Scholar
  59. 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 61–68Google Scholar
  60. 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 309–316Google Scholar
  61. 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):1149Google Scholar
  62. 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 41:1448Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reysen S (2005) Construction of a new scale: the Reysen likability scale. Soc Behav Personal Int J 33(2):201Google Scholar
  64. 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):84Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    McCroskey JC, Young TJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Commun Stud 32(1):24Google Scholar
  66. 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):1369Google Scholar
  67. 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):865Google Scholar
  68. 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):435Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kiesler S, Goetz S (2002) Mental models of robotic assistants. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 576–577Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bartneck C (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Design and semantics of form and movement (DeSForM2013). Philips, pp 64–70Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Choi J, Kim M (2009) The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tapus A, Mataric MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14(1):35Google Scholar
  73. 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):319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing, Electronics, and MathematicsPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations