Skip to main content
Log in

Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction

International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/resources/videos/.

  2. Daniel Dennett uses the notion of ‘innocent’ anthropomorphizing in [46].

  3. Turing distinguished between communication by ‘pain’ and ‘pleasure’ inputs and ‘unemotional’ communication that by means of ‘sense stimuli’ [141]; for analysis see [114].

  4. This is not to suggest that what makes a ‘smile’ into a smile is some feeling—an inner state—in the robot. See [111, 113].

References

  1. Aaker J (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. J Mark Res 34:347–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abend L (2008) In spain, human rights for apes. TIMEcom http://www.time.com/time/world/article/08599(1824206)

  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 9–28

    Google Scholar 

  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):468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arbib MA, Fellous JM (2004) Emotions: from brain to robot. Trends Cogn Sci 8(12):554–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 3727–3732

  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 234–241

  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 190–193

  10. Barrett J (2004) Why would anyone believe in god?. AltaMira Press, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barrett J (2007) Cognitive science of religion: what is it and why is it? Relig Compass 1(6):768–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrett JL (2000) Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 553–557

  14. Bartneck C (2013) Robots in the theatre and the media. In: Design & semantics of form & movement (DeSForM2013), Philips, pp 64–70

  15. Bartneck C, Hue J (2008) Exploring the abuse of robots. Interact Stud 9(3):415–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Rome

  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), Piscataway

  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 368–373

  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 269–276

  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 1:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  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 121–128

  22. Bering J (2005) Origins of the social mind: evolutionary psychology and child development. The Guildford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bering J (2010) The god instinct. Nicholas Brealey, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bering JM (2006) The folk psychology of souls. Behav Brain Sci 29(05):453–462

    Google Scholar 

  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 291–292

  26. Bloom P (2005) Descartes’ baby: how the science of child development explains what makes us human. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Boyer P (2001) Religion explained. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boyer P (2003) Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends Cogn Sci 7(3):119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 31–36

  30. Breazeal C (2000) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  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 582–591

  32. Breazeal C (2006) Human–robot partnership. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):79–81

    Google Scholar 

  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 loop

  34. Breazeal C, Scassellati B (2000) Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adapt Behav 8(1):49–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  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):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Calverley DJ (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connect Sci 18(4):403–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 5:126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 355–361

  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 1252–1255

  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 2008

  42. Cohen PR (2005) If not turing’s test, then what? AI Mag 26(4):61

    Google Scholar 

  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 364–371

  44. Darwin C (1872) 1998 The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dasgupta N (2004) Implicit in group favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Soc Justice Res 17(2):143–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 511–513

  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 67–72

  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 321–326

  50. Dovidio J, Gaertner S (1999) Reducing prejudice: combating intergroup biases. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8(4):101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3—-4):177–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4): 864–886

  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):114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 255–262

  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 467–472

  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):724–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 422–431

  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 646–651

  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 61–67

  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 125–126

  62. Fasola J, Matarić MJ (2012) Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc IEEE 100:2512–2526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 323–330

  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 463–470

  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 143–166

  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):79

    Google Scholar 

  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 137–138

  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 145–152

  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 2595–2602

  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 55–60

  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 society

  72. Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812):619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Gray K, Wegner D (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1):125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Greenwald A, Banaji M (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Guthrie S (1995) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  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):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hard R (2004) The routledge handbook of greek mythology: Based on HJ Rose’s “Handbook of Greek Mythology”. Psychology Press, New York

  78. Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hayes P, Ford K (1995) Turing test considered harmful. In: IJCAI (1), pp 972–977.

  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 574–579

  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 72–78

  82. Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H (2002) Intergroup bias. Annu Rev Psychol 53:575–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Hogg DW, Martin F, Resnick M (1991) Braitenberg creatures. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ishiguro H (2006) Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connect Sci 18(4):319–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 364–371

  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 33–40

  88. Kamide H, Kawabe K, Shigemi S, Arai T (2013) Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid. Adv Robot 27(1):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 62–69

  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 576–577

  91. Kiesler S, Hinds P (2004) Introduction to this special issue on human–robot interaction. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kiesler S, Powers A, Fussell SR, Torrey C (2008) Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent. Soc Cogn 26(2):169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2013) When a robot’s group membership matters. Int J Soc Robot 5(3):409–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 2767–2772

  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):161–191

    Google Scholar 

  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 485–490

  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):695–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. McDermott D (1976) Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity. ACM SIGART Bull 57:4–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  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 69–76

  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 91–96

  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 516–521

  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 1428–1433

  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 830–841

  105. Paluck E (2009) Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J Pers Soc Psychol 96(3):574–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Pettigrew T (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annu Rev Psychol 49:65–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Pettigrew T, Tropp L (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(5):751–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Pollack JB (2006) Mindless intelligence. IEEE Intell Syst 21(3):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 158–163

  110. Proudfoot D (2011) Anthropomorphism and AI: turing’s much misunderstood imitation game. Artif Intell 175(5):950–957

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 172–194

    Google Scholar 

  112. Proudfoot D (2013b) Rethinking turing’s test. J Philos 110(7):391–411

    Google Scholar 

  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, Oxford

  114. Proudfoot D (2014) Turing’s three senses of ”Emotional”. Int J Synth Emot 5(2):7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Pyysiäinen I (2004) Religion is neither costly nor beneficial. Behav Brain Sci 27(06):746–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  117. Rehm M, Krogsager A (2013) Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. In: 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, pp 45–50

  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 86–90

  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 245–246

  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 41–48

  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 1613–1622

  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, Berlin

  123. Saver JL, Rabin J (1997) The neural substrates of religious experience. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 9(3):498–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):413–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Scassellati B (2000) How robotics and developmental psychology complement each other. In: NSF/DARPA workshop on development and learning

  126. Scassellati B (2002) Theory of mind for a humanoid robot. Auton Robots 12(1):13–24

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  127. Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol 28, pp 552–563

  128. Scassellati B, Crick C, Gold K, Kim E, Shic F, Sun G (2006) Social development [robots]. Comput Intell Mag IEEE 1(3):41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 157–164

  130. Shic F, Scassellati B (2007) Pitfalls in the modeling of developmental systems. Int J Hum Robot 4(2):435–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 219–226

  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 1418–1421

  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 1286–1292

  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 86–92

  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 116–123

  136. Tapus A, Matari MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robotics Autom Mag 14(1):35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 209–217

  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):407–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Turing A (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  140. Turing A (2004a) Can digital computers think? In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  141. Turing A (2004b) Intelligent machinery. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  142. Turing A (2004c) Lecture on the automatic computing engine. In: Copeland BJ (ed) The essential turing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  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, Oxford

  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 3–10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  145. Verkuyten M (2006) Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: a social identity perspective. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 17(1):148–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Vorauer J, Gagnon A, Sasaki S (2009) Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychol Sci 20(7):838–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 2403–2408

  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 707–712

  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 136–143

  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 180–185

  151. Wilson EO (2006) The creation: an appeal to save life on earth. Wiley Online Library, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  152. Wittenbrink B, Judd C, Park B (2001) Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(5):815–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Yamamoto M (1993) Sozzy: a hormone-driven autonomous vacuum cleaner. In: International Society for Optical Engineering, vol 2058, pp 212–213

  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):772–789

  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):263–276

  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 66–73

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakub Złotowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K. et al. Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 347–360 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

Keywords

Navigation