International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 195–204 | Cite as

Does the Design of a Robot Influence Its Animacy and Perceived Intelligence?

  • Christoph Bartneck
  • Takayuki Kanda
  • Omar MubinEmail author
  • Abdullah Al Mahmud
Open Access
Original Paper


Robots exhibit life-like behavior by performing intelligent actions. To enhance human-robot interaction it is necessary to investigate and understand how end-users perceive such animate behavior. In this paper, we report an experiment to investigate how people perceived different designs of robot embodiments in terms of animacy and intelligence. iCat and Robovie II were used as the two embodiments in this experiment. We conducted a between-subject experiment where robot type was the independent variable, and perceived animacy and intelligence of the robot were the dependent variables. Our findings suggest that a robot’s perceived intelligence is significantly correlated with animacy. The correlation between the intelligence and the animacy of a robot was observed to be stronger in the case of the iCat embodiment. Our results also indicate that the more animated the face of the robot, the more likely it is to attract the attention of a user. We also discuss the possible and probable explanations of the results obtained.


Robot Intelligence Animacy Embodiment Perception 


  1. 1.
    Oxford University Press (1999) Animate. The Oxford American dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rakison DH, Poulin-Dubois D (2001) Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull 127:209–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ishiguro H (2007) Scientific issues concerning androids. Int J Robot Res 26:105–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holland O, McFarland D (2001) Artificial ethology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Webb B (2000) What does robotics offer animal behaviour? Anim Behav 60:545–558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halloy J, Sempo G, Caprari G, Rivault C, Asadpour M, Tache F, Said I, Durier V, Canonge S, Ame JM, Detrain C, Correll N, Martinoli A, Mondada F, Siegwart R, Deneubourg JL (2007) Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318:1155–1158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kubinyi E, Miklosi A, Kaplan F, Gacsi M, Topal J, Csanyi V (2004) Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal-like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation. Behav Process 65:231–239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sony (1999) Aibo.
  9. 9.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T (2007) HRI caught on film. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM, New York, pp 177–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poulin-Dubois D, Lepage A, Ferland D (1996) Infants’ concept of animacy. Cogn Dev 11:19–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahn PH, Friedman B, Perez-Granados DR, Freier NG (2004) Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. In: CHI ’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria, 2004. ACM, New York, pp 1449–1452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melson GF, Kahn PH, Beck AM, Friedman B, Roberts T, Garrett E (2005) Robots as dogs?: children’s interactions with the robotic dog AIBO and a live Australian shepherd. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, USA, 2005. ACM, New York, pp 1649–1652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turkle S (1998) Cyborg babies and cy-dough-plasm: ideas about life in the culture of simulation. In: Davis-Floyd R, Dumit J (eds) Cyborg babies: from techno-sex to techno-tots. Routledge, New York, pp 317–329 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahn P, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T (2006) What is a human?—Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN, Salt Lake City, 2006. IEEE, New York, pp 364–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jipson JL, Gelman SA (2007) Robots and rodents: children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Dev 78:1675–1688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okita SY, Schwartz DL (2006) Young children’s understanding of animacy and entertainment robots. Int J Hum Robot 3:393–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nass C, Reeves B (1996) The media equation. SLI publications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scholl B, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blythe P, Miller GF, Todd PM (1999) How motion reveals intention: Categorizing social interactions. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd P (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 257–285 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sparrow R (2004) The turing triage test. Ethics Inf Technol 6:203–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM Press, New York, pp 81–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartneck C, Hoek Mvd, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do!—Switching off a robot. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Washington, DC, 2007. ACM Press, New York, pp 217–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943–951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McAleer P, Mazzarino B, Volpe G, Camurri A, Paterson H, Smith K, Pollick FE (2004) Perceiving animacy and arousal in transformed displays of human interaction. In: 2nd international symposium on measurement, analysis and modeling of human functions, 1st Mediterranean conference on measurement, Genova, 2004 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee KM, Park N, Song H (2005) Can a robot be perceived as a developing creature? Hum Commun Res 31:538–563 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Tavistock, London Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1:e39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warner RM, Sugarman DB (1996) Attributes of personality based on physical appearance, speech, and handwriting. J Personal Soc Psychol 50:792–799 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parise S, Kiesler S, Sproull LD, Waters K (1996) My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents. In: 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. ACM Press, New York, pp 399–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kiesler S, Sproull L, Waters K (1996) A prisoner’s dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers. J Personal Soc Psychol 70:47–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic Doppelgänger—a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. Submitted to the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), 2009 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dawis RV (1987) Scale construction. J Couns Psychol 34:481–489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81. doi: 10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kulic D, Croft E (2006) Estimating robot induced affective state using hidden Markov models. In: Dautenhahn K (ed) RO-MAN 2006—the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, 2006. IEEE, New York, pp 257–262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGurk H, Macdonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bartneck C (2003) Interacting with an embodied emotional character. In: Forzlizzi J, Hamington B, Jordan PW (eds) Design for pleasurable products conference (DPPI2004), Pittsburgh. ACM Press, New York, pp 55–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Honda (2002) Asimo.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Breemen A, Yan X, Meerbeek B (2005) iCat: an animated user-interface robot with personality. In: Fourth international conference on autonomous agents & multi agent systems, Utrecht, 2005 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM Press, London, pp 321–326 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 1
  • Takayuki Kanda
    • 2
  • Omar Mubin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdullah Al Mahmud
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communications LabKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations