Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 347–360 | Cite as

Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction

  • Jakub Złotowski
  • Diane Proudfoot
  • Kumar Yogeeswaran
  • Christoph Bartneck
Article

Abstract

Anthropomorphism is a phenomenon that describes the human tendency to see human-like shapes in the environment. It has considerable consequences for people’s choices and beliefs. With the increased presence of robots, it is important to investigate the optimal design for this technology. In this paper we discuss the potential benefits and challenges of building anthropomorphic robots, from both a philosophical perspective and from the viewpoint of empirical research in the fields of human–robot interaction and social psychology. We believe that this broad investigation of anthropomorphism will not only help us to understand the phenomenon better, but can also indicate solutions for facilitating the integration of human-like machines in the real world.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction  Anthropomorphism Uncanny valley  Contact theory Turing Child-machines 

References

  1. 1.
    Aaker J (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark Res 34:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abend L (2008) In spain, human rights for apes. TIMEcom http://www.time.com/time/world/article/08599(1824206)
  3. 3.
    Adolphs R (2005) Could a robot have emotions? Theoretical perspectives from social cognitive neuroscience. In: Arbib M, Fellous JM (eds) Who needs emotions: the brain meets the robot. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–28Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aggarwal P, McGill A (2007) Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. J Consum Res 34(4):468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbib MA, Fellous JM (2004) Emotions: from brain to robot. Trends Cogn Sci 8(12):554–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Austermann A, Yamada S, Funakoshi K, Nakano M (2010) How do users interact with a pet-robot and a humanoid. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems—Proceedings, Atlanta, pp 3727–3732Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baddoura R, Venture G, Matsukata R (2012) The familiar as a key-concept in regulating the social and affective dimensions of HRI. In: IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Osaka, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bae J, Kim M (2011) Selective visual attention occurred in change detection derived by animacy of robot’s appearance. In: Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems, CTS 2011, pp 190–193Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barrett J (2004) Why would anyone believe in god?. AltaMira Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrett J (2007) Cognitive science of religion: what is it and why is it? Relig Compass 1(6):768–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrett JL (2000) Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bartneck C (2008) Who like androids more: Japanese or US americans? Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, Munich, pp 553–557Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartneck C (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Design & semantics of form & movement (DeSForM2013), Philips, pp 64–70Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bartneck C, Hue J (2008) Exploring the abuse of robots. Interact Stud 9(3):415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartneck C, Rosalia C, Menges R, Deckers I (2005) Robot abuse: limitation of the media equation. In: Proceedings of the interact 2005 workshop on agent abuse, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bartneck C, Reichenbach J, Carpenter J (2006) Use of praise and punishment in human–robot collaborative teams. In: RO-MAN 2006: the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE Cat No. 06TH8907), PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff? In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju, pp 368–373Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robotic doppelganger - a critical look at the uncanny valley theory. In: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN2009. IEEE, pp 269–276Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bartneck C, Bleeker T, Bun J, Fens P, Riet L (2010) The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn 1:1–7Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Becker-Asano C, Ogawa K, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2010) Exploring the uncanny valley with geminoid HI-1 in a real-world application. In: Proceedings of the IADIS international conference interfaces and human computer interaction 2010, IHCI. Proceedings of the IADIS international conference game and entertainment technologies 2010, Part of the MCCSIS 2010, Freiburg, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bering J (2005) Origins of the social mind: evolutionary psychology and child development. The Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bering J (2010) The god instinct. Nicholas Brealey, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bering JM (2006) The folk psychology of souls. Behav Brain Sci 29(05):453–462Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bethel CL, Salomon K, Murphy RR (2009) Preliminary results: humans find emotive non-anthropomorphic robots more calming. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09, pp 291–292Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bloom P (2005) Descartes’ baby: how the science of child development explains what makes us human. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyer P (2001) Religion explained. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boyer P (2003) Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends Cogn Sci 7(3):119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Breazeal C (1998) Early experiments using motivations to regulate human–robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium on emotional and intelligent: the tangled knot of cognition. Technical report FS-98-03, pp 31–36Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Breazeal C (2000) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Breazeal C (2001) Affective interaction between humans and robots. In: Kelemen J, Sosik P (eds) ECAL 2001. LNAI vol 2159. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 582–591Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Breazeal C (2006) Human–robot partnership. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):79–81Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Breazeal C, Fitzpatrick P (2000) That certain look: social amplification of animate vision. In: Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on society of intelligence agents the human in the loopGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2000) Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adapt Behav 8(1):49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2001) Challenges in building robots that imitate. In: Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL (eds) Imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Breazeal C, Buchsbaum D, Gray J, Gatenby D, Blumberg B (2005) Learning from and about others: towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artif Life 11(1–2):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Calverley DJ (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connect Sci 18(4):403–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cheetham M, Suter P, Jancke L (2011) The human likeness dimension of the “Uncanny valley hypothesis”: behavioral and functional MRI findings. Front Hum Neurosci 5:126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chew S, Tay W, Smit D, Bartneck C (2010) Do social robots walk or roll? In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics), LNAI, vol 6414. Springer, Singapore, pp 355–361Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chin M, Sims V, Clark B, Lopez G (2004) Measuring individual differences in anthropomorphism toward machines and animals. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 48. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 1252–1255Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Choi J, Kim M (2009) The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, 16–19 July 2008Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cohen PR (2005) If not turing’s test, then what? AI Mag 26(4):61Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cooney M, Zanlungo F, Nishio S, Ishiguro H (2012) Designing a flying humanoid robot (FHR): effects of flight on interactive communication. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Paris, pp 364–371Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Darwin C (1872) 1998 The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dasgupta N (2004) Implicit in group favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Soc Justice Res 17(2):143–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dennett DC, Dretske F, Shurville S, Clark A, Aleksander I, Cornwell J (1994) The practical requirements for making a conscious robot. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 349(1689):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dill V, Flach LM, Hocevar R, Lykawka C, Musse SR, Pinho MS (2012) Evaluation of the uncanny valley in CG characters. In: 12th international conference on intelligent virtual agents, IVA 2012, September 12, 2012–September 14, 2012. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics) LNAI, vol 7502, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 511–513Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2003) From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, DPPI ’03, ACM, New York, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. DIS, London, pp 321–326Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dovidio J, Gaertner S (1999) Reducing prejudice: combating intergroup biases. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8(4):101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dovidio J, Gaertner S, Saguy T (2009) Commonality and the complexity of “we” social attitudes and social change. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 13(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3—-4):177–190MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4): 864–886Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Epley N, Akalis S, Waytz A, Cacioppo J (2008) Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and hreyhounds: Research article. Psychol Sci 19(2):114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Evers V, Maldonado HC, Brodecki TL, Hinds PJ (2008) Relational vs. group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI. In: HRI 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction: living with robots, Amsterdam, pp 255–262Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2011) Manipulating anthropomorphic inferences about NAO: the role of situational and dispositional aspects of effectance motivation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 467–472Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51(4):724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eyssel F, Loughnan S (2013) “It don’t matter if you’re black or white”? Effects of robot appearance and user prejudice on evaluations of a newly developed robot companion. In: 5th international conference on social robotics, ICSR 2013, October 27, 2013–October 29, 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 8239. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 422–431Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Eyssel F, Hegel F, Horstmann G, Wagner C (2010) Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: A case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. Viareggio, pp 646–651Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S (2011) Effects of anticipated human–robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism. In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. Lausanne, pp 61–67Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S, De Ruiter L, Hegel F (2012) “If you sound like me, you must be more human”: on the interplay of robot and user features on human–robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 125–126Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features. In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 323–330Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fischer K, Lohan KS, Foth K (2012) Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 463–470Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. In: IROS 2002, September 30, 2002–September 30, 2002. Robotics and autonomous systems, vol 42. Elsevier, pp 143–166Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ford K, Hayes P (1998) On computational wings: rethinking the goals of artificial intelligence-the gold standard of traditional artificial intelligence-passing the so-called turing test and thereby appearing to be. Sci Am Presents 9(4):79Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Forster F, Weiss A, Tscheligi M (2011) Anthropomorphic design for an interactive urban robot—the right design approach? In: HRI 2011: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Lausanne, pp 137–138Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD, Yew V (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: HRI 2008: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction: living with robots, Amsterdam, pp 145–152Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Giullian N, Ricks D, Atherton A, Colton M, Goodrich M, Brinton B (2010) Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In: Conference Proceedings: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 2595–2602Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    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 (ROMAN 2003), 2003, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gold K, Scassellati B (2007) A bayesian robot that distinguishes “self” from “other”. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the cognitive science societyGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gray K, Wegner D (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1):125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Greenwald A, Banaji M (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Guthrie S (1995) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hard R (2004) The routledge handbook of greek mythology: Based on HJ Rose’s “Handbook of Greek Mythology”. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hayes P, Ford K (1995) Turing test considered harmful. In: IJCAI (1), pp 972–977.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hegel F, Krach S, Kircher T, Wrede B, Sagerer G (2008) Understanding social robots: a user study on anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 574–579Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hegel F, Gieselmann S, Peters A, Holthaus P, Wrede B (2011) Towards a typology of meaningful signals and cues in social robotics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 72–78Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H (2002) Intergroup bias. Annu Rev Psychol 53:575–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hogg DW, Martin F, Resnick M (1991) Braitenberg creatures. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ishiguro H (2006) Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connect Sci 18(4):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    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, 2006. ROMAN 2006, pp 364–371Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kahn PH Jr, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S, Gary HE, Reichert AL, Freier NG, Severson RL (2012) Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In: HRI’12: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Boston, pp 33–40Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kamide H, Kawabe K, Shigemi S, Arai T (2013) Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Adv Robot 27(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kanda T, Miyashita T, Osada T, Haikawa Y, Ishiguro H (2005) Analysis of humanoid appearances in human–robot interaction. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS, Edmonton, pp 62–69Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kiesler S, Goetz J (2002) Mental models and cooperation with robotic assistants. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 576–577Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kiesler S, Hinds P (2004) Introduction to this special issue on human–robot interaction. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2013) When a robot’s group membership matters. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lee Sl, Lau I, Kiesler S, Chiu CY (2005) Human mental models of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2005. ICRA 2005, pp 2767–2772Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Levin D, Killingsworth S, Saylor M, Gordon S, Kawamura K (2013) Tests of concepts about different kinds of minds: predictions about the behavior of computers, robots, and people. Hum Comput Interact 28(2):161–191Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lohse M (2011) Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 485–490Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    MacDorman KF, Green RD, Ho CC, Koch CT (2009) Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput Hum Behav 25(3):695–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    McDermott D (1976) Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. ACM SIGART Bull 57:4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Mutlu B, Yamaoka F, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Nonverbal leakage in robots: Communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, HRI ’09. ACM, New York, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Oestreicher L, Eklundh KS (2006) User expectations on human-robot co-operation. In: Robot and human interactive communication, 2006. The 15th IEEE international symposium on ROMAN 2006. IEEE, pp 91–96Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ogawa K, Bartneck C, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ono T, Ishiguro H (2009) Can an android persuade you? In: RO-MAN 2009: the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Piscataway, pp 516–521Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Oh JH, Hanson D, Kim WS, Han IY, Kim JY, Park IW (2006) Design of android type humanoid robot albert HUBO. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 1428–1433Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Oztop E, Chaminade T, Franklin D (2004) Human-humanoid interaction: is a humanoid robot perceived as a human? In: 2004 4th IEEE/RAS international conference on humanoid robots, vol 2, pp 830–841Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Paluck E (2009) Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J Pers Soc Psychol 96(3):574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pettigrew T (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annu Rev Psychol 49:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Pettigrew T, Tropp L (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(5):751–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Pollack JB (2006) Mindless intelligence. IEEE Intell Syst 21(3):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Powers A, Kramer ADI, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee SL, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, vol 2005. Nashville, pp 158–163Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Proudfoot D (2011) Anthropomorphism and AI: turing’s much misunderstood imitation game. Artif Intell 175(5):950–957MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Proudfoot D (2013a) Can a robot smile? Wittgenstein on facial expression. In: Racine TP, Slaney KL (eds) A Wittgensteinian perspective on the use of conceptual analysis in psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 172–194Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Proudfoot D (2013b) Rethinking turing’s test. J Philos 110(7):391–411Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Proudfoot D (2015) Turing’s child-machines. In: Bowen J, Copeland J, Sprevak M, Wilson R (eds) The turing guide: life, work, legacy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Proudfoot D (2014) Turing’s three senses of ”Emotional”. Int J Synth Emot 5(2):7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pyysiäinen I (2004) Religion is neither costly nor beneficial. Behav Brain Sci 27(06):746–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Rehm M, Krogsager A (2013) Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. In: 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, pp 45–50Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Reichenbach J, Bartneck C, Carpenter J (2006) Well done, robot! - The importance of praise and presence in human–robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, pp 86–90Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2008) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’09, San Diego, pp 245–246Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Riether N, Hegel F, Wrede B, Horstmann G (2012) Social facilitation with social robots? In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, Boston, HRI ’12, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, vol 3, pp 1613–1622Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Salem M, Eyssel F, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2011) Effects of gesture on the perception of psychological anthropomorphism: a case study with a humanoid robot, Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 7072. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Saver JL, Rabin J (1997) The neural substrates of religious experience. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 9(3):498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Saygin AP, Chaminade T, Ishiguro H, Driver J, Frith C (2012) The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7(4):413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Scassellati B (2000) How robotics and developmental psychology complement each other. In: NSF/DARPA workshop on development and learningGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Scassellati B (2002) Theory of mind for a humanoid robot. Auton Robots 12(1):13–24MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol 28, pp 552–563Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Scassellati B, Crick C, Gold K, Kim E, Shic F, Sun G (2006) Social development [robots]. Comput Intell Mag IEEE 1(3):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Schmitz M (2011) Concepts for life-like interactive objects. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’11. ACM, New York, pp 157–164Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Shic F, Scassellati B (2007) Pitfalls in the modeling of developmental systems. Int J Hum Robot 4(2):435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Short E, Hart J, Vu M, Scassellati B (2010) No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot. In: 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI 2010, Osaka, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Sims VK, Chin MG, Lum HC, Upham-Ellis L, Ballion T, Lagattuta NC (2009) Robots’ auditory cues are subject to anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, vol 3, pp 1418–1421Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Spexard T, Haasch A, Fritsch J, Sagerer G (2006) Human-like person tracking with an anthropomorphic robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 2006. Orlando, pp 1286–1292Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL (2007) Looking good? appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: AAAI spring symposium—Technical report, vol SS-07-07. Stanford, pp 86–92Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Walters ML, Koay KL (2008) Sharing spaces with robots in a home scenario—anthropomorphic attributions and their effect on proxemic expectations and evaluations in a live HRI trial. In: AAAI fall symposium—Technical report, vol FS-08-02, Arlington, pp 116–123Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Tapus A, Matari MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robotics Autom Mag 14(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Torta E, Van Dijk E, Ruijten PAM, Cuijpers RH (2013) The ultimatum game as measurement tool for anthropomorphism in human–robot interaction. In: 5th international conference on social robotics, ICSR 2013, October 27, 2013–October 29, 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNAI, vol 8239. Springer Verlag, pp 209–217Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Trimble M, Freeman A (2006) An investigation of religiosity and the Gastaut-Geschwind syndrome in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 9(3):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Turing A (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Turing A (2004a) Can digital computers think? In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Turing A (2004b) Intelligent machinery. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Turing A (2004c) Lecture on the automatic computing engine. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Turing A, Braithwaite R, Jefferson G, Newman M (2004) Can automatic calculating machines be said to think? In: Copeland J (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Turkle S (2010) In good company? On the threshold of robotic companions. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artifical companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Verkuyten M (2006) Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: a social identity perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 17(1):148–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Vorauer J, Gagnon A, Sasaki S (2009) Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychol Sci 20(7):838–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Wade E, Parnandi AR, Matari MJ (2011) Using socially assistive robotics to augment motor task performance in individuals post-stroke. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2403–2408Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Walters ML, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2008) Human approach distances to a mechanical-looking robot with different robot voice styles. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 707–712Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Walters ML, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Te Boekhorst R (2009) Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human–robot interaction trials. Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systems—proceedings of the 23rd Convention of the society for the study of artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour, AISB 2009, Edinburgh, pp 136–143Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Wang E, Lignos C, Vatsal A, Scassellati B (2006) Effects of head movement on perceptions of humanold robot behavior. In: HRI 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM conference on human–robot interaction, vol 2006, pp 180–185Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Wilson EO (2006) The creation: an appeal to save life on earth. Wiley Online Library, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Wittenbrink B, Judd C, Park B (2001) Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(5):815–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Yamamoto M (1993) Sozzy: a hormone-driven autonomous vacuum cleaner. In: International Society for Optical Engineering, vol 2058, pp 212–213Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Yogeeswaran K, Dasgupta N (2014) The devil is in the details: abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. J Pers Soc Psychol 106(5):772–789Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    von Zitzewitz J, Boesch PM, Wolf P, Riener R (2013) Quantifying the human likeness of a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):263–276Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Złotowski J, Strasser E, Bartneck C (2014) Dimensions of anthropomorphism: from humanness to humanlikeness. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’14. ACM, New York, pp 66–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Złotowski
    • 1
  • Diane Proudfoot
    • 2
  • Kumar Yogeeswaran
    • 3
  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 1
  1. 1.HIT Lab NZUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations