Negative and Positive Influences on the Sensations Evoked by Artificial Sex Partners: A Review of Relevant Theories, Recent Findings, and Introduction of the Sexual Interaction Illusion Model

  • Jessica M. SzczukaEmail author
  • Tilo Hartmann
  • Nicole C. Krämer


The aim of this chapter is to provide a framework which structures different aspects that might positively and negatively influence the sensations nonliving sexual partners might evoke in order to guide future empirical research in the investigation of sexual responses toward machines. For this purpose, influential concepts from media psychology, human–machine interaction, and sexual science are explained and transferred to interactions with sex robots. This theoretical foundation is then used to develop the sexual interaction illusion model, which aims to conceptualize factors that are shaping users’ psychological immersion in sexual interaction with technology-based sex partners. More specifically, the model focuses on understanding users’ subjective (illusionary) experience that the interaction with an artificial partner feels like a sexual interaction with an existing, living social being.


Artificial sex partner Sexual interaction illusion Sexualized robots Sexual scripts 


  1. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98. Scholar
  2. Bar-Cohen, Y., & Hanson, D. T. (2009). The coming robot revolution: Expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machines. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). My robotic doppelgänger - A critical look at the uncanny valley. In The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2009: RO-MAN 2009; Sept. 27, 2009–Oct. 2, 2009, Toyama, Japan (pp. 269–276). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
  4. Bartneck, C., & McMullen, M. (2018). Interacting with anatomically complete robots. In T. Kanda, S. Ŝabanović, G. Hoffman, & A. Tapus (Eds.), HRI'18: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction: March 5–8, 2018, Chicago, IL, USA (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
  5. Blade Runner 2049. (2017). Retrieved from
  6. Brewer, J., Kaye, J. J., Williams, A., & Wyche, S. (2006). Sexual interactions. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Eds.), CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’06 (p. 1695), New York, NY: ACM Press.
  7. Bridges, A. J., Sun, C. F., Ezzell, M. B., & Johnson, J. (2016). Sexual scripts and the sexual behavior of men and women who use pornography. Sexualization, Media, and Society, 2, 1–14. Scholar
  8. Briken, P., von Franqué, F., & Berner, W. (2013). Paraphilie und hypersexuelle störungen [Paraphilie and hypersexual disorders]. In P. Briken & W. Berner (Eds.), Praxisbuch Sexuelle Störungen [Book of sexual disorders]: Sexuelle Gesundheit, Sexualmedizin, Psychotherapie sexueller Störungen [Sexual health, Sexual medicine, Psychotherapy of sexual disorders] (1st ed., pp. 239–250). s.l.: Georg Thieme Verlag KG.Google Scholar
  9. Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 377–390. Scholar
  10. CNET. (2017). Sculpting your future robot lover. Retrieved from
  11. Coleridge, S. T. (1817). Biographia literaria. Retrieved from
  12. Das, R. (2017). Goodbye loneliness, hello sexbots! how can robots transform human sex? Retrieved from
  13. Duffy, B. R., & Zawieska, K. (2012). Suspension of disbelief in social robotics. In I. Staff (Ed.), 2012 IEEE Ro-Man (pp. 484–489). IEEE.
  14. Ferguson, A. (2010). The sex doll: A history. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.Google Scholar
  15. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Studies in emotion and social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, G. N. (1980). Erotic communications: Studies in sex, sin and censorship. Communication arts books. New York, NY: Hastings.Google Scholar
  18. Heiman, J. R. (1977). A psychophysiological exploration of sexual arousal patterns in females and males. Psychophysiology, 14, 266–274. Scholar
  19. Hoffmann, L., Krämer, N. C., Lam-chi, A., & Kopp, S. (2009). Media equation revisited: Do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent? In Z. Ruttkay, M. Kipp, A. Nijholt, & H. H. Vilhjálmsson (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (Vol. 5773, pp. 159–165). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, D., Gardner, J., & Wiles, J. (2004). Experience as a moderator of the media equation: The impact of flattery and praise. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 237–258. Scholar
  21. Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. Scholar
  22. Lars and the Real Girl. (2007). Retrieved from
  23. Levy, D. (2008). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relations (1st Harper Perennial ed.). New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. McGraw-Hill paperbacks. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 469–496. Scholar
  26. Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 199–209. Scholar
  27. MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695–710. Scholar
  28. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 7, 33–35.Google Scholar
  30. Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1, 67–85. Scholar
  31. Murray, J. H. (2001). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103. Scholar
  33. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In B. Adelson (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). New York, NY: ACM.
  34. Nummenmaa, L., Hietanen, J. K., Santtila, P., & Hyönä, J. (2012). Gender and visibility of sexual cues influence eye movements while viewing faces and bodies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1439–1451. Scholar
  35. Ortega-Brena, M. (2009). Peek-a-boo, I see you: Watching Japanese hard-core animation. Sexuality and Culture, 13, 17–31. Scholar
  36. Powers, A., Kramer, A. D. I., Lim, S., Kuo, J., Lee, S.-L., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In RO-MAN 2005: 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication: August 14-15, 2005, Nashville, Tennessee (pp. 158–163). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
  37. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Richardson, K. (2016). The asymmetrical ‘relationship’. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45, 290–293. Scholar
  39. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Hoffmann, L., Klatt, J., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Quid pro quo? reciprocal self-disclosure and communicative accommodation towards a virtual interviewer. In H. H. Vilhjálmsson, S. Kopp, S. Marsella, & K. R. Thórisson (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science, lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Vol. 6895. Intelligent virtual agents: 11th International Conference, IVA 2011, Reykjavik, Iceland, September 15–17, 2011; Proceedings (Vol. 6895, pp. 183–194). Berlin: Springer. Scholar
  40. Safron, A. (2016). What is orgasm? A model of sexual trance and climax via rhythmic entrainment. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 6, 31763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandoval, E. B., Brandstetter, J., Obaid, M., & Bartneck, C. (2016). Reciprocity in human-robot interaction: A quantitative approach through the prisoner’s dilemma and the ultimatum game. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 303–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharkey, N., van Wynsberghe, A., Robbins, S., & Hancock, E. (2017). Our sexual future with robots: A foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. Retrieved from
  43. Skakoon-Sparling, S., Cramer, K. M., & Shuper, P. A. (2016). The impact of sexual arousal on sexual risk-taking and decision-making in men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 33–42. Scholar
  44. Sue, D. (1979). Erotic fantasies of college students during coitus. Journal of Sex Research, 15(4), 299–305.
  45. Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3, 398–409. Scholar
  46. Svab. (2010). Perceptions of sexual reciprocity in female university students in Slovenia. Annales Series Historia Et Sociologia, 21, 167–176.Google Scholar
  47. Szczuka, J. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). Not only the lonely—How men explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to the attractiveness of women, and personal characteristics influencing this evaluation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1, 3. Scholar
  48. Worthen, M. G. F. (2016). Sexual deviance and society: A sociological examination (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yeoman, I., & Mars, M. (2012). Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures, 44, 365–371. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica M. Szczuka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tilo Hartmann
    • 2
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Psychology: Media and CommunicationUniversity Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Communication ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations