Advertisement

Degrees of Empathy: Humans’ Empathy Toward Humans, Animals, Robots and Objects

  • Alan D. A. MattiassiEmail author
  • Mauro Sarrica
  • Filippo Cavallo
  • Leopoldina Fortunati
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 540)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present an experiment in which we compare the degree of empathy that a convenience sample of students expressed with humans, animals, robots and objects. The present study broadens the spectrum of the elements eliciting empathy that previous research has so far explored separately. Our research questions are: does the continuum represented by this set of elements elicit empathy? Is it possible to observe a linear decrease of empathy according to different features of the selected elements? More broadly, does empathy, as a construct, resist in front of the diversification of the element eliciting it? Results show that participants expressed empathy differently when exposed to three clusters of social actors being mistreated: they felt more sad, sorry, aroused and out of control for animals than for humans, but showed little to no empathy for objects. Interestingly, robots that looked more human-like evoked emotions similar to those evoked by humans, while robots that looked more animal-like evoked emotions half-way between those evoked by humans and objects. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

Empathy Robots Social robotics Social distance Human-object continuum Living-nonliving continuum 

References

  1. 1.
    Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perceptions. Science, 315, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009). How An-thropomorphism Affects Empathy Toward Robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. (pp. 245–246).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinotti, A. (2011). Empatia: Storia di un’idea da Platone al postumano. Bari-Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freud, S. (1919). The uncanny [das unheimliche] (D. McLintock, Trans.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simmel, G. (1892). G. Simmel, I problemi fondamentali della filosofia, Laterza, Bari 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dilthey, W. (1961). Gesammelte Schriften, 15 Vols. Leipzig: Teubner Ver-lagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology. New York: v.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and emotion, 14(2), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallese, V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences, 4(1), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gallese, V., Migone, P., & Eagle, M. N. (2006). La simulazione incarnata: i neuroni specchio, le basi neurofisiologiche dell’intersoggettività e alcune impli-cazioni per la psicoanalisi. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioraland Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The World of Goods. Towards an Antropology of Consumption. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latour, B. (1994). Une sociologie sans objet? Note théorique sur l’interobjec- tivité, Sociologie du travail (Vol. XXXIV(4), pp. 587–607) (It. Transl. Una socio- logia senza oggetto? Note sull’interoggettività. In E. Landowski and G. Marrone (Eds.), La società degli oggetti. Problemi di interoggetività (pp. 203–232). Roma: Meltemi.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cetina, K. K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society, 14(4), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, N., & Signal, T. D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthro-zoös, 18(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten, A. M., Schulte, F. P., Eimler, S. C., Sobieraj, S., Hoffmann, L., Maderwald, S., … Krämer, N. C. (2014). Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cruz, J., & Gordon, R. M. (2003). Simulation theory. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fortunati, L. (2013). Afterword: Robot conceptualizations between continuity and innovation. Intervalla, 1, 116–129.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Is The Uncanny Valley An Uncanny Cliff? In 16th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (pp. 368–373). Jeju, Korea.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seyama, J. I., & Nagayama, R. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 16(4), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Connell, S. M. (1995). Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind? Primates, 36(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Angantyr, M., Eklund, J., & Hansen, E. M. (2011). A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals. Anthrozoos, 24(4), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paul, E. S. (2000). Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked? Anthrozoös, 13(4) 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Misselhorn, C. (2009). Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny Valley. Minds and Machines, 9, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crozier, W. R., & Greenhalgh, P. (1992). The empathy principle: Towards a model for the psychology of art. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Titchner, E. (1924). A textbook of Psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phillipps, C. (2009). The Welfare of Animals. The Silent Majority. Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 34(2), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lang, P. J. (1980). Self-assessment manikin. Gainesville, FL: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ferrari, F., Paladino, M. P., & Jetten, J. (2016). Blurring human-machine distinctions: anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan D. A. Mattiassi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mauro Sarrica
    • 2
  • Filippo Cavallo
    • 3
  • Leopoldina Fortunati
    • 4
  1. 1.“Marco Biagi” Department of EconomicsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Communication and Social ResearchSapienza, University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.The Biorobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics, Computer Science and PhysicsUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations