Theory of Mind in Social Robots: Replication of Five Established Human Tests

  • Jaime BanksEmail author
Original research


Theory of Mind is an inferential system central to human–human communication by which people ascribe mental states to self and other, and then use those deductions to make predictions about others’ behaviors. Despite the likelihood that ToM may also be central to interactions with other types of agents exhibiting similar cues, it is not yet fully known whether humans develop ToM for mechanical agents exhibiting properties of intelligence and sociality. A suite of five tests for implicit ToM were performed (white lie test, behavioral intention task, facial affect inference, vocal affect inference, and false-belief test) for three different robots and a human control. Findings suggest that implicit ToM signals are consistent across variably human-like robots and humans, so long as the social cues are similar and interpretable, but there is no association between implicit ToM signals and explicit mind ascription; findings suggest that heuristics and deliberation of mental status of robots may compete with implicit social-cognitive reactions.


Theory of mind Mind perception Anthropomorphism Social cognition Social scripts 



The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Tiffany A. Dykstra-DeVette and Katie Burgess in creating stimulus materials, of Mia Del Borrello and Tai Nguyen in data coding, and of Nick Bowman’s input on this manuscript. Thanks also to West Virginia University Department of Communication, where a portion of this work was conducted.


  1. 1.
    Schilbach L, Wohlschlaeger AM, Kraemer NC, Newen A, Shah AJ, Fink GR, Vogeley K (2006) Being with virtual others: neural correlates of social interactions. Neuropsychologia 44:718–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apperly IA (2012) What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes, and individual differences. Q J Exp Psychol 65:825–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Premack D, Woodruff G (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci 1:515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kasperbauer TJ (2017) Mentalizing animals: implications for moral psychology and animal ethics. Philos Stud 174:465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon RM (1986) Folk psychology as simulation. Mind Lang 8:101–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldman AI (2012) Theory of mind. In: Margolis E, Samuels R, Stich S (eds) Oxford handbook of philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 402–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slaughter V (2015) Theory of mind in infants and young children: a review. Aust Psychol 50:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knudsen B, Liszkowski U (2012) Eighteen- and 24-month-old infants correct others in anticipation of action mistakes. Dev Sci 15:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schulte-Ruther M, Markowitsch HJ, Fink GR, Piefke M (2007) Mirror neuron and theory of mind mechanisms involved in face-to-face interactions: a functional magnetic resonance imaging approach to empathy. J Cognit Neurosci 19:1354–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sodian B, Taylor C, Harris PL, Perner J (1991) Early deception and the child’s theory of mind: false trails and genuine markers. Child Dev 62:468–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenham J (1999) Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: a critique of the ‘social skills deficit’ view of anti-social behaviour. Soc Dev 8:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gopnik A (1998) Explanation as orgasm. Mind Mach 8:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heal J (1986) Replication and functionalism. In: Butterfield J (ed) Language, mind, and logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 135–150Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris PL, Johnson CN, Hutton D, Andrews G, Cooke T (1989) Young children’s theory of mind and emotion. Cogn Emot 3:379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Low J, Perner J (2012) Implicit and explicit theory of mind: state of the art. Br J Dev Psychol 30:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eyssel FA, Pfundmair M (2015) Predictors of psychological anthropomorphization, mind perception, and the fulfillment of social needs: a case study with a zoomorphic robot. In: RO-MAN: 24th IEEE international symposium on in robot and human interactive communication, Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martini MC, Buzzell GA, Wiese E (2015) Agent appearance modulates mind attribution and social attention in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social robotics, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tanibe T, Hashimoto T, Karasawa K (2017) We perceive a mind in a robot when we help it. PLoS ONE 12, article e0180952Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102:4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31:1369–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Graaf MMA, Malle BF (2019) People’s explanations of robot behavior subtly reveal mental state inferences. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’19, Daegu, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Byom LJ, Mutlu B (2013) Theory of mind: mechanisms, methods, and new directions. Front Hum Neurosci 7, article 413Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Happé FGE (1994) An advanced test of theory of mind: understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. J Autism Dev Disord 2:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Safarti Y, Hardy-Baylé MC, Besche C, Widlöcher D (1997) Attribution of intentions to others in people with schizophrenia: a non-verbal exploration with comic strips. Schizophr Res 25:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baron-Cohen S (2001) Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme 34:74–83Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McDonald S, Bornhofen C, Shum D, Long E, Saunders C, Neulinger K (2006) Reliability and validity of the awareness of social inference test (tasit): a clinical test of social perception. Disabil Rehabil 28:1529–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wimmer H, Perner J (1983) Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13:103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keysar B, Lin S, Barr DJ (2003) Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition 89:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jack RE, Garrod OG, Schyns PG (2014) Dynamic facial expressions of emotion transmit an evolving hierarchy of signals over time. Curr Biol 24:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krippendorf K (2004) Reliability in content analysis. Hum Commun Res 30:411–433Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ekman P (1993) Facial expression and emotion. Am Psychol 48:384–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meinhardt-Injac B, Daum MM, Meinhardt G, Persike M (2013) The two-systems account of theory of mind: testing the links to social-perceptual and cognitive abilities. Front Hum Neurosci 12:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edwards C, Edwards AP, Spence PR, Westerman DK (2016) Initial interaction expectations with robots: testing the human-to-human interaction script. Commun Stud 67:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bryson JJ (2010) Robots should be slaves. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artificial companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sundar SS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (eds) Digital media, youth, and credibility. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 73–100Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee S-L, Kiesler S, Lau IY-M, Chiu C-Y (2005) Human mental models of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Barcelona, Spain, pp 2767–2772Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sundar SS, Waddell TF, Jung EH (2016) The hollywood robot syndrome: media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In: The 11th ACM/IEE international conference on human robot interaction, HRI’16, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mara M, Appel M (2015) Science fiction reduces the eeriness of android robots: a field experiment. Comput Hum Behav 48:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schreiner C, Mara M, Appel M (2017) When R2-D2 hops off the screen: a service robot encountered in real life appears more real and human-like than on video or in VR. In: Proceedings of MediaPsych2017: the 10th conference of the media psychology division of the German Psychological Society, Landau, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Banks J (2019) A perceived moral agency scale: development and validation of a metric for humans and social machines. Comput Hum Behav 90:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gray K, Wegner DM (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Jayawardena C, Wegner DM, Broadbent E (2014) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Graaf M (2016) An ethical evaluation of human–robot relationships. Int J Soc Robot 8:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Quarfoot D, Levine RA (2016) How robust are multirater interrater reliability indices to changes in frequency distribution. Am Stat 70:373–384MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Media & CommunicationTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations