1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Robots seemingly in possession of an experiential mind, as well as humans allegedly incapable thereof, have been reported to elicit feelings of eeriness in their perceivers. The current work re-examined this claim, asking participants to rate both robots and humans in various social situations regarding their mind capacities (e.g., emotional capability, intelligence), non-mind qualities (e.g., animacy, usefulness), and overall appeal (e.g., eeriness, likeability). It was found that feelings of eeriness towards both targets formed a distinct emotional response that was separable from simple dislike. Yet, unexpectedly, eeriness towards both targets intensified, the less they were seen as possessing a typical human mind. For robots, however, this association was less consistent. Moreover, eeriness towards robots, but not towards humans, was most strongly predicted by a lack of perceived usefulness. These results indicate that mind attributions affect people’s attitudes towards each other more strongly than their attitudes towards humanoid robots.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
2016-12-14
2023-03-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amirabdollahian, F. , Dautenhahn, K. , Dixon, C. , Eder, K. , Fisher, M. , Koay, K. L. , Magid, E. , Pipe, T. , Salem, M. , Saunders, J. , & Webster, M.
    (2013) Can you trust your robotic assistant?Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8239, 571–573.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrett, J. L. , & Johnson, A. H.
    (2003) The role of control in attributing intentional agency to inanimate objects. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3, 208–221. doi: 10.1163/156853703322336634
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156853703322336634 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartneck, C.
    (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Proceedings of the Design & Semantics of Form & Movement (DeSForM2013), Wuxi, August 2013, Philips, 64–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartneck, C. , Kanda, T. , Ishiguro, H. , & Hagita, N.
    (2009) My robotic doppelganger: A critical look at the uncanny valley theory. InProceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp.269–276). Toyama, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartneck, C. , Kulić, D. , Croft, E. , & Zoghbi, S.
    (2009) Measurement instruments for anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 71–81. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑008‑0001‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck, A. , Stevens, B. , Bard, K. A. , & Caǹamero, L.
    (2012) Emotional body language displayed by artificial agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2, 1–29. doi: 10.1145/2133366.2133368
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2133366.2133368 [Google Scholar]
  7. Breazeal, C. , & Scassellati, B.
    (1999) How to build robots that make friends and influence people. Proceedings of theIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 858–863. doi: 10.1109/IROS.1999.812787
     https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.812787 [Google Scholar]
  8. Breuer, T. , Giorgana Macedo, G. R. , Hartanto, R. , Hochgeschwender, N. , Holz, D. , Hegger, F. et al.
    (2012) Johnny: An autonomous service robot for domestic environments. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 66, 245–272. doi: 10.1007/s10846‑011‑9608‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-011-9608-y [Google Scholar]
  9. Broadbent, E. , Kumar, V. , Li, X. , Sollers 3rd, J. , Stafford, R. Q. , MacDonald, B. A. , Wegner, D. M.
    (2013) Robots with display screens: A robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS One, 8, e72589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072589
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072589 [Google Scholar]
  10. Broadbent, E. , Stafford, R. , & MacDonald, B.
    (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 319–330. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑009‑0030‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cangelosi, A.
    (2010) Grounding language in action and perception: From cognitive agents to humanoid robots. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 139–151. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chammat, M. , Foucher, A. , Nadel, J. , & Dubal, S.
    (2010) Reading sadness beyond human faces. Brain Research, 1348, 95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.05.051
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.05.051 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheetham, M. , Suter, P. , & Jäncke, L.
    (2011) The human likeness dimension of the “uncanny valley hypothesis”: Behavioral and functional MRI findings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, Article 126. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00126 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, I. , Looije, R. , & Neerincx, M. A.
    (2014) Child’s perception of robot’s emotions: Effects of platform, context, and experience. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 507–518. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑014‑0230‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0230-6 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cross, E. S. , Liepelt, R. , de Hamilton, A. F. de C. , Parkinson, J. , Ramsey, R. , Stadler, W. , & Prinz, W.
    (2012) Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 2238–2254. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21361
     https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21361 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dautenhahn, K.
    (2007) Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London Series B, 362, 679–704. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2014) Human-Robot Interaction. In M. Soegaard , R. F. Dam (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nded). Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dautenhahn, K. , Woods, S. , Kaouri, C. , Walters, M. , Koay, K. L. , & Werry, I.
    (2005) What is a robot companion – friend, assistant or butler?Proceedings of theIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1192–1197. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189
     https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dominey, P. F. , & Warneken, F.
    (2011) The basis of shared intentions in human and robot cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 260–274. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  20. Enders, C. K. , & Tofighi, D.
    (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi: 10.1037/1082‑989X.12.2.121
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121 [Google Scholar]
  21. Epley, N. , Akalis, S. , Waytz, A. , & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (2008a) Creating social connection through inferential reproduction. Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02056.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Epley, N. , Waytz, A. , Akalis, S. , & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (2008b) When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26, 143–155. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  23. Epley, N. , Waytz, A. , & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (2007) On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.114.4.864
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 [Google Scholar]
  24. Erden, M. S.
    (2013) Emotional postures for the humanoid robot Nao. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 441–456. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑013‑0200‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0200-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, J.R. , & Mathur, A.
    (2005) The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195–219. doi: 10.1108/10662240510590360
     https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fink, J.
    (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the4th International Conference on Social Robotics, 7621, 199–208. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑34103‑8_20
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_20 [Google Scholar]
  27. Flandorfer, P.
    (2012) Population aging and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. International Journal of Population Research, Article 829835. doi: 10.1155/2012/829835
     https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/829835 [Google Scholar]
  28. Galinsky, A. D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Magee, J. C.
    (2003) From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.85.3.453
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ge, J. , & Han, S.
    (2008) Distinct neurocognitive strategies for comprehensions of human and artificial intelligence. PLoS One, 3, e2797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002797
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002797 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gray, H. M. , Gray, K. , & Wegner, D. M.
    (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619. doi: 10.1126/science.1134475
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gray, K. , & Wegner, D. M.
    (2009) Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505–520. doi: 10.1037/a0013748
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 125, 125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goetz, J. , Kiesler, S. , & Powers, A.
    (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human – robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 55–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hallgren, I.
    (2012) Seeing agents when we need to, attributing experience when we feel like it. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 369–382. doi: 10.1007/s13164‑012‑0109‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0109-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hanson, D.
    (2006) Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. Paper presented atthe Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Vancouver.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Harder, M. , Polani, D. , & Nehaniv, C. L.
    (2010) Two agents acting as one. In H. Fellermann , M. Dorr & M. M. Hanczyc (Eds.). Proceedings of Artificial Life XII (pp.599–606). Boston: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Heck, R. H. , Thomas, S. L. , & Tabata, L. N.
    (2014) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hindriks, K. , Neerincx, M. A. , & Vink, M.
    (2012) The icat as a natural interaction partner. Advances Agent Technology: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7068, 212–231. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑27216‑5_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27216-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ho, C. C. , & MacDorman, K. F.
    (2010) Revisiting the Uncanny Valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1508–1518. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ho, C.-C. , MacDorman, K. , & Pramono, Z. A. D.
    (2008) Human emotion and the uncanny valley: A GLM, MDS, and ISOMAP analysis of robot video ratings. InProceedings of thethird ACM/IEEE international conference on human – robot interaction (pp.169–176). March11–14, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Jack, A. I. , & Robbins, P.
    (2012) The phenomenal stance revisited. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 383–403. doi: 10.1007/s13164‑012‑0104‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0104-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Joose, M. , Lohse, M. , Perez, J. G. , & Evers, V.
    (2013) What you do is who you are: The role of task context in perceived social robot personality. Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2134–2139.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ju, W. , & Takayama, L.
    (2011) Should robots or people do these jobs? A survey of robotics experts and non-experts about which jobs robots should do. Proceedings of theIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2452–2459. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2011.6094759
     https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2011.6094759 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kamide, H. , Takubo, T. , Ohara, K. , Mae, Y. , & Arai, T.
    (2014) Impressions of humanoids: The development of a measure for evaluating a humanoid. Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 33–44. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑013‑0187‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0187-x [Google Scholar]
  45. Kaplan, F.
    (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1, 465–480. doi: 10.1142/S0219843604000289
     https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843604000289 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kay, A. C. , Moscovitch, D. A. , & Laurin, K.
    (2010) Randomness, attributions of arousal, and belief in God. Psychological Science, 21, 216–218. doi: 10.1177/0956797609357750
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357750 [Google Scholar]
  47. Knobe, J. , & Prinz, J.
    (2008) Intuitions about consciousness. Experimental studies. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7, 67–83. doi: 10.1007/s11097‑007‑9066‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-007-9066-y [Google Scholar]
  48. Koay, K. L. , Walters, M. L. , May, A. Dumitriu, A. , Christianson, B. , Burke, N. , & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2013) Exploring robot etiquette: Refining a HRI home companion scenario based on feedback from two artists who lived with robots in the UH robot house. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8239, 290–300. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02675‑6_29
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_29 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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, e2597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002597
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597 [Google Scholar]
  50. Krämer, N. C. , von der Pütten, A. , & Eimer, S.
    (2012) Human-agent and human-robot interaction theory: Similarities to and differences from human-human interaction. In: M. Zacarias , J. V. de Oliveira (Eds.). Human-Computer Interactions (pp.215–240). Springer Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kuhlmeier, V. A. , Bloom, P. , & Wynn, K.
    (2004) Do 5-month-old infants see humans as material objects?Cognition, 94, 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  52. Le, Q. A. , Hanoune, S. , & Pelachaud, C.
    (2011) Design and implementation of an expressive gesture model for a humanoid robot. Proceedings of theIEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 134–140. doi: 10.1109/Humanoids.2011.6100857
     https://doi.org/10.1109/Humanoids.2011.6100857 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee, S. , Lau, I. Y. , & Hong, Y.
    (2011) Effects of appearance and functions on likeability and perceived occupational suitability of robots. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5, 232–250. doi: 10.1177/1555343411409829
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411409829 [Google Scholar]
  54. Li, D. , Rau, P. , & Li, Y.
    (2010) A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 175–186. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0056‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9 [Google Scholar]
  55. MacDorman, K. F. , & Entezari, S. O.
    (2015) Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley. Interaction Studies, 16, 141–172. doi: 10.1075/is.16.2.01mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.01mac [Google Scholar]
  56. Mavridis, N. , Katsaiti, M. S. , Naef, S. , Falasi, A. , Nuaimi, A. , Araifi, H. et al.
    (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI and Society, 27, 517–534. doi: 10.1007/s00146‑011‑0370‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-011-0370-2 [Google Scholar]
  57. McShane, M.
    (2014) Parameterizing mental model ascription across intelligent agents. Interaction Studies, 15, 404–425. doi: 10.1075/is.15.3.03mcs
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.15.3.03mcs [Google Scholar]
  58. Meltzoff, A. N. , Brooks, R. , Shon, A. P. , & Rao, R. P. N.
    (2010) Social robots are psychological agents for infants: A test of gaze following. Neural Networks, 23, 966–972. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mitchell, R. W. , & Hamm, M.
    (1997) The interpretation of animal psychology: Anthropomorphism or behavior reading?Behavior, 134, 173–204. doi: 10.1163/156853997X00449
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156853997X00449 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mori, M.
    (1970) Bukimi no tani [The Uncanny Valley]. Energy, 7, 33–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Norenzayan, A. , & Hansen, I. G.
    (2006) Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 174–187. doi: 10.1177/0146167205280251
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205280251 [Google Scholar]
  62. Nourbakhsh, I. R.
    (2013) Robot futures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Patel, H. , & MacDorman, K. F.
    (2015) Sending an avatar to do a human’s job: Compliance with authority persists despite the uncanny valley. Presence, 24, 1–23. doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00212
     https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00212 [Google Scholar]
  64. Piwek, L. , McKay, L. S. , & Pollick, F. E.
    (2014) Empirical evaluation of the Uncanny Valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition, 130, 271–277. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  65. Prakash, A. , & Rogers, W. A.
    (2015) Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: Effects of human-likeness and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 309–331. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑014‑0269‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Raudenbush, S. W. , & Bryk, A. S.
    (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Reiser, U. , Jacobs, T. , Arbeiter, G. , Parlitz, C. , & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2013) Care-O-bot 3 – Vision of a robot butler. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7407, 97–116. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑37346‑6_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37346-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  68. Robbins, P. , & Jack, A. I.
    (2006) The phenomenal stance. Philosophical Studies, 127, 59–85. doi: 10.1007/s11098‑005‑1730‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-1730-x [Google Scholar]
  69. Robins, B. , Dickerson, P. , Stribling, P. , & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2004) Robot-mediated joint attention in children with autism. Interaction Studies, 5, 161–198. doi: 10.1075/is.5.2.02rob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.5.2.02rob [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M. , & Krämer, N. C.
    (2014) How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 422–439. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sciutti, A. , Bisio, A. , Nori, F. , Metta, G. , Fadiga, L. , & Sandini, G.
    (2013) Robots can be perceived as goal-oriented agents. Interaction Studies, 14, 329–350. doi: 10.1075/is.14.3.02sci
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.3.02sci [Google Scholar]
  72. Shaw-Garlock, G.
    (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 249–260. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑009‑0021‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0021-7 [Google Scholar]
  73. Syrdal, D. , Dautenhahn, K. , Koay, K. , & Walters, M.
    (2009) The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (pp.109–115). April8–9. Edinburgh, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Syrdal, D. S. , Nomura, T. , & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2013) The Frankenstein Syndrome Questionnaire – Results from a quantitative cross-cultural survey. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8239, 270–279. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02675‑6_27
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_27 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sytsma, J. , & Machery, E.
    (2010) Two conceptions of subjective experience. Philosophical Studies, 151, 299–327. doi: 10.1007/s11098‑009‑9439‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9439-x [Google Scholar]
  76. Tanaka, F. , Cicourel, A. , & Movellan, J. R.
    (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17954–17958. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707769104
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707769104 [Google Scholar]
  77. Thompson, J. C. , Trafton, J. G. , & McKnight, P.
    (2011) The perception of humanness from the movements of synthetic agents. Perception, 40, 695–704. doi: 10.1068/p6900
     https://doi.org/10.1068/p6900 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tomasello, M. , Carpenter, M. , Call, J. , Behne, T. , & Moll, H.
    (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129 [Google Scholar]
  79. Vogeley, K. , & Bente, G.
    (2010) “Artificial humans”: Psychology and neuroscience perspectives on embodiment and nonverbal communication. Neural Networks, 23, 1077–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2010.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  80. Walters, M. L. , Koay, K. L. , Syrdal, D. S. , Campbell, A. , & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2013) Companion robots for elderlyg people: Using theatre to investigate potential users‘ view. International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man 2013), IEEE, 691–696. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628393
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628393 [Google Scholar]
  81. Walters, M. L. , Lohse, M. , Hanheide, M. , Wrede, B. , Syrdal, D. S. , Koay, K. L. , Green, A. , Hüttenrauch, H. , Dautenhahn, K. , Sagerer, G. & Severinson-Eklundh, K.
    (2011) Evaluating the robot personality and verbal behavior of domestic robots using video-based studies. Advanced Robotics, 25, 2233–2254. doi: 10.1163/016918611X603800
     https://doi.org/10.1163/016918611X603800 [Google Scholar]
  82. Walters, M. L. , Syrdal, D. S. , Dautenhaun, K. , te Boekhorst, R. , & Koay, K. L.
    (2008) Avoiding the Uncanny Valley: robot appearance, personality, and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24, 159–178. doi: 10.1007/s10514‑007‑9058‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3 [Google Scholar]
  83. Wang, Y. , & Quadflieg, S.
    (2015) In our own image? Emotional and neural processing differences when observing human-human versus human-robot interactions. Social Cognitive And Affective Neuroscience, 10, 1515–1524. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv043
     https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv043 [Google Scholar]
  84. Waytz, A. , Gray, K. , Epley, N. , & Wegner, D. M.
    (2010) Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 383–388. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  85. Waytz, A. , Morewedge, C. K. , Epley, N. , Monteleone, G. , Gao, J. H. , & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (2010) Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 410–435. doi: 10.1037/a0020240
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020240 [Google Scholar]
  86. Waytz, A. , & Norton, M. I.
    (2014) Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking – not feeling – jobs. Emotion, 14, 434–444. doi: 10.1037/a0036054
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036054 [Google Scholar]
  87. Wojciszke, B. , & Abele, A. E.
    (2008) The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 139–1147. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.549
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.549 [Google Scholar]
  88. Young, J. E. , Hawkins, R. , Sharlin, E. , & Igarashi, T.
    (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 95–108. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑008‑0006‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y [Google Scholar]
  89. Zlotowski, J. A. , Proudfoot, D. , Yogeeswaran, K. , & Bartneck, C.
    (2015) Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human-robot interactions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 347–360. doi: 10.1007/s12369‑014‑0267‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6 [Google Scholar]
  90. Zlotowski, J. A. , Strasser, E. , & Bartneck, C.
    (2014) Dimensions of anthropomorphism – from humanness to humanlikeness. Proceedings of theACM / IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 66–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Zlotowski, J. A. , Sumioka, H. , Nishio, S. , Glas, D. F. , Bartneck, C. , & Ishiguro, H.
    (2015) Persistence of the uncanny valley: The influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 883. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00883
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00883 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
Loading
Now you feel it, now you don’t
Interaction Studies 17, 211 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
/content/journals/10.1075/is.17.2.03qua
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): impression formation; person perception; robot companion; social robotics; Uncanny Valley

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error