International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 701–714 | Cite as

Model of Dual Anthropomorphism: The Relationship Between the Media Equation Effect and Implicit Anthropomorphism

  • Jakub ZłotowskiEmail author
  • Hidenobu Sumioka
  • Friederike Eyssel
  • Shuichi Nishio
  • Christoph Bartneck
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro


Anthropomorphism, the attribution of humanlike characteristics to nonhuman entities, may be resulting from a dual process: first, a fast and intuitive (Type 1) process permits to quickly classify an object as humanlike and results in implicit anthropomorphism. Second, a reflective (Type 2) process may moderate the initial judgment based on conscious effort and result in explicit anthropomorphism. In this study, we manipulated both participants’ motivation for Type 2 processing and a robot’s emotionality to investigate the role of Type 1 versus Type 2 processing in forming judgments about the robot Robovie R2. We did so by having participants play the “Jeopardy!” game with the robot. Subsequently, we directly and indirectly measured anthropomorphism by administering self-report measures and a priming task, respectively. Furthermore, we measured treatment of the robot as a social actor to establish its relation with implicit and explicit anthropomorphism. The results suggested that the model of dual anthropomorphism can explain when responses are likely to reflect judgments based on Type 1 and Type 2 processes. Moreover, we showed that the social treatment of a robot, as described by the Media Equation theory, is related with implicit, but not explicit anthropomorphism.


Anthropomorphism Human–robot interaction Dual-process model Humanlikeness Media equation 



The authors would like to thank Kaiko Kuwamura, Daisuke Nakamichi, Junya Nakanishi, Masataka Okubo and Kurima Sakai for their help with data collection. The authors are very grateful for the helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers. This work was partially supported by JST CREST (Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology) research promotion program “Creation of Human-Harmonized Information Technology for Convivial Society” Research Area, ERATO, ISHIGURO symbiotic Human–Robot Interaction Project and the European Project CODEFROR (FP7-PIRSES-2013-612555).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Aaker JL (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. J Market Res 34(3):347–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aggarwal P, McGill AL (2007) Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. J Consum. Res. 34(4):468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Airenti G (2015) The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: from relatedness to empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aviezer H, Trope Y, Todorov A (2012) Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science 338(6111):1225–1229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett J (2004) Why would anyone believe in god?. AltaMira Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: HRI 2007—Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE conference on human-robot interaction—robot as team member, Arlington, VA, United states, pp 81–87.
  7. 7.
    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(1):71–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck A, Caamero L, Bard KA (2010) Towards an affect space for robots to display emotional body language. In: 19th International symposium in robot and human interactive communication, pp 464–469.
  9. 9.
    Bosson JK, Swann WB, Pennebaker JW (2000) Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: the blind men and the elephant revisited? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(4):631–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damiano L, Dumouchel P, Lehmann H (2015) Towards human-robot affective co-evolution overcoming oppositions in constructing emotions and empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darlow A, Sloman S (2010) Two systems of reasoning: architecture and relation to emotion. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1(3):382–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darwin C (1872) 1998. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Houwer J (2006) What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In: Wiers RW, Stacy AW (eds) The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 11–29Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H (1996) Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(2):390–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans J, Stanovich K (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(3):223–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans JSB (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, Italy, pp 646–651.
  19. 19.
    Eyssel FA, Schiffhauer B, Dalla Libera F, Yoshikawa Y, Złotowski J, Wullenkord R, Ishiguro H (2016) Mind perception: from simple shapes to social agents. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2016), pp 916–917Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fischer K (2011) Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 53–60.
  21. 21.
    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.
  22. 22.
    Friedman B, Kahn PH Jr, Hagman J (2003) Hardware companions?: what online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’03, pp 273–280.
  23. 23.
    Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD, Yew V (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction: living with robots, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 145–152. /
  24. 24.
    Gawronski B, Bodenhausen GV (2006) Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol Bull 132(5):692–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gergely G, Csibra G (2003) Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naıve theory of rational action. Trends Cogn Sci 7(7):287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gergely G, Nádasdy Z, Csibra G, Bíró S (1995) Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56(2):165–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hard R (2004) The Routledge handbook of greek mythology: based on HJ Rose’s “Handbook of Greek Mythology”. Psychology Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ho C, MacDorman K (2010) Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1508–1518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson DO, Cuijpers RH, Pollmann K, van de Ven AA (2016) Exploring the entertainment value of playing games with a humanoid robot. Int J Soc Robot 8(2):247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kamide H, Eyssel F, Arai T (2013) Psychological anthropomorphism of robots. In: Herrmann G, Pearson M, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) Social robotics, lecture notes in computer science, vol 8239. Springer International Publishing, pp 199–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuchenbrandt D, Riether N, Eyssel F (2014) Does anthropomorphism reduce stress in hri? In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, HRI ’14, pp 218–219.
  35. 35.
    Lemaignan S, Fink J, Dillenbourg P, Braboszcz C (2014) The cognitive correlates of anthropomorphism. In: 2014 Human-robot interaction conference, workshop” HRI: a bridge between robotics and neuroscience”.
  36. 36.
    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI ’94, pp 72–78.
  38. 38.
    Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (2005) Understanding and using the implicit association test: Ii. method variables and construct validity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31(2):166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Payne B (2001) Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(2):181–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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. In: Mutlu B, Bartneck C, Ham J, Evers V, Kanda T (eds) Social robotics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7072. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 31–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sims VK, Chin MG, Lum HC, Upham-Ellis L, Ballion T, Lagattuta NC (2009) Robots’ auditory cues are subject to anthropomorphism. Proc Hum Factors Ergonom Soc 3:1418–1421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith E, DeCoster J (2000) Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 4(2):108–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Strack F, Deutsch R (2004) Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8(3):220–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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.
  46. 46.
    Wang E, Lignos C, Vatsal A, Scassellati B (2006) Effects of head movement on perceptions of humanoid robot behavior. In: HRI 2006: proceedings of the 2006 ACM conference on human-robot interaction, vol 2006. pp 180–185.
  47. 47.
    Waytz A, Cacioppo J, Epley N (2010) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(3):219–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Waytz A, Klein N, Epley N (2013) Imagining other minds: Anthropomorphism is hair-triggered but not hare-brained. In: Taylor M (ed) The Oxford handbook of the development of imagination, pp 272–287Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weizenbaum J (1966) Eliza-a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9(1):36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wesson CJ, Pulford BD (2009) Verbal expressions of confidence and doubt. Psychol Rep 105(1):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wilson TD, Lindsey S, Schooler TY (2000) A model of dual attitudes. Psychol Rev 107(1):101–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yoshikawa Y, Shinozawa K, Ishiguro H, Hagita N, Miyamoto T (2006) Responsive robot gaze to interaction partner. In: Proceedings of robotics: science and systemsGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Złotowski J, Bartneck C (2013) The inversion effect in HRI: Are robots perceived more like humans or objects? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, Tokyo, Japan, HRI ’13, pp 365–372.
  55. 55.
    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, ACM, Bielefeld, Germany, HRI ’14, pp 66–73.
  56. 56.
    Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Rrobot 7(3):347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HIT Lab NZUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Hiroshi Ishiguro LaboratoryAdvanced Telecommunications Research Institute InternationalKyotoJapan
  3. 3.CITECBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  4. 4.Department of System Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering ScienceOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations