Generalisation of Anthropomorphic Stereotype

Abstract

Anthropomorphic projection can bring familiarity, confidence and simplicity to our interactions with unknown agents showing a human-like resemblance or behaviour. This study examined whether this projection is generalised beyond the individual agent to encompass others of similar type, even if they might be lacking the requisite human-like features. In an experiment participants had to accept or reject recommendations from two robots that had more or less human-like forms and behaviours. It was found that participants were more likely to trust the judgements of a less-human like robot if they had previously interacted with an anthropomorphic variant. Importantly, this effect was found to be symmetric, with trust in anthropomorphic robots reduced if participants had previously interacted with a less human-like variant. These results showed that we generalise our initial attributions across agent categories, a finding with potential application in helping trust and acceptance of complex technological agents.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Conard NJ (2003) Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from southwestern germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426(6968):830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lesher JH (1992) Xenophanes of Colophon. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dennett DC (1989) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117(3):497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1992) How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hauser M (2001) Wild minds: what animals really think. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kennedy JS (1992) The new anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tam KP, Lee SL, Chao MM (2013) Saving Mr. Nature: anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J Exp Soc Psychol 49:514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nass C, Isbister K, Lee E J (2000) Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents. In: Embodied conversational agents, pp 374–402

  11. 11.

    Guthrie SE, Guthrie S (1993) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Carey S, Spelke E (1994) Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In: Hirschfeld L, Gelman S (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.008

  13. 13.

    Baron-Cohen S (1997) Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Arnheim R (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Graham SA, Poulin-Dubois D (1999) Infants’ reliance on shape to generalize novel labels to animate and inanimate objects. J Child Lang 26(2):295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Dennet DC (1996) Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. Basic Books, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mitchell RW, Hamm M (1997) The interpretation of animal psychology: anthropomorphism or behavior reading? Behaviour 134(3):173

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29(8):943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Morewedge CK, Preston J, Wegner DM (2007) Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. J Personal Soc Psychol 93(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dittrich WH, Lea SE (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23(3):253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kahn PH Jr, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T, Freier NG, Severson RL, Miller J (2007) What is a human?: Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interact Stud 8(3):363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Breazeal C, Kidd CD, Thomaz AL, Hoffman G, Berlin M (2005) Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2005). IEEE, pp 708–713

  24. 24.

    Admoni H, Scassellati B (2017) Social eye gaze in human–robot interaction: a review. J Hum-Robot Interact 6(1):25. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.6.1.Admoni

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Huang CM, Thomaz AL (2010) Joint Attention in human-robot interaction. In: AAAI fall symposium: dialog with robots

  26. 26.

    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. IEEE, pp 55–60

  27. 27.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2009) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. ACM, pp 245–246

  29. 29.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kim S, McGill AL (2011) Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. J Consum Res 38(1):94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Riva P, Sacchi S, Brambilla M (2015) Humanizing machines: anthropomorphization of slot machines increases gambling. J Exp Psychol Appl 21(4):313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Leyens JP, Yzerbyt V, Schadron G (1994) Stereotypes and social cognition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Biernat M, Manis M, Nelson TE (1991) Stereotypes and standards of judgment. J Personal Soc Psychol 60(4):485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Wichman AL (2012) Uncertainty threat can cause stereotyping: the moderating role of personal need for structure. Sage Open 2(2):2158244012444442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Arendt F, Steindl N, Vitouch P (2015) Effects of news stereotypes on the perception of facial threat. J Media Psychol 27:78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim-Prieto C, Goldstein LA, Okazaki S, Kirschner B (2010) Effect of exposure to an American Indian mascot on the tendency to stereotype a different minority group. J Appl Soc Psychol 40(3):534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    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. ACM, pp 145–152

  39. 39.

    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 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, pp 321–326

  40. 40.

    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Salem M, Rohlfing K, Kopp S, Joublin F (2011) A friendly gesture: Investigating the effect of multimodal robot behavior in human-robot interaction. In: 2011 IEEE on RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 247–252

  42. 42.

    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML, Ho WC (2013) Sharing spaces, sharing lives–the impact of robot mobility on user perception of a home companion robot. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 321–330

  43. 43.

    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2008) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    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(7):e2597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JYC, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Hum Factors J Human Factors Ergon Soc 53(5):517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Bae J, Kim M (2011) Selective visual attention occurred in change detection derived by animacy of robot’s appearance. In: 2011 International conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS). IEEE, pp 190–193

  48. 48.

    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. In: Procs of new frontiers in human–robot interaction

  49. 49.

    Powers A, Kramer AD, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. ROMAN 2005. IEEE, pp 158–163

  50. 50.

    Yee N, Bailenson JN, Rickertsen K (2007) A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1–10

  51. 51.

    Nass C, Brave S (2005) Wired for speech: how voice activates and advances the human–computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zanatto D, Patacchiola M, Goslin J, Cangelosi A (2016) Priming Anthropomorphism: Can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots? In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 543–544

  53. 53.

    Kuchenbrandt D, Eyssel F, Bobinger S, Neufeld M (2011) Minimal group-maximal effect? evaluation and anthropomorphization of the humanoid robot NAO. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 104–113

  54. 54.

    Freire AL, Barreto GA, Veloso M, Varela AT (2009) Short-term memory mechanisms in neural network learning of robot navigation tasks: A case study. In: 2009 6th Latin American on robotics symposium (LARS). IEEE, pp 1–6

  55. 55.

    Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Mason MF, Tatkow EP, Macrae CN (2005) The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception. Psychol Sci 16(3):236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Bayliss AP, Tipper SP (2006) Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: should eye trust you? Psychol Sci 17(6):514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Staudte M, Crocker MW (2011) Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human-robot interaction. Cognition 120(2):268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Mutlu B, Shiwa T, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 61–68

  60. 60.

    Garau M, Slater M, Bee S, Sasse MA (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 309–316

  61. 61.

    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41(4):1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Shamsuddin S, Yussof H, Ismail LI, Mohamed S, Hanapiah FA, Zahari NI (2012) Initial response in HRI—a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot nao. Procedia Eng 41:1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Reysen S (2005) Construction of a new scale: the Reysen likability scale. Soc Behav Personal Int J 33(2):201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG (2006) The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J Res Personal 40(1):84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    McCroskey JC, Young TJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Commun Stud 32(1):24

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Hofmann W, Gawronski B, Gschwendner T, Le H, Schmitt M (2005) A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 31(10):1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Dijksterhuis A, Van Knippenberg A (1998) The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. J Personal Soc Psychol 74(4):865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Baldwin MW, Carrell SE, Lopez DF (1990) Priming relationship schemas: my advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of my mind. J Exp Soc Psychol 26(5):435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Kiesler S, Goetz S (2002) Mental models of robotic assistants. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 576–577

  70. 70.

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

  71. 71.

    Choi J, Kim M (2009) The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008

  72. 72.

    Tapus A, Mataric MJ, Scassellati B (2007) Socially assistive robotics [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14(1):35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF under Award No. FA9550-15-1-0025.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debora Zanatto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF under Award No. FA9550-15-1-0025.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zanatto, D., Patacchiola, M., Cangelosi, A. et al. Generalisation of Anthropomorphic Stereotype. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 163–172 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00549-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Stereotype activation
  • Anthropomorphism
  • Trust
  • Human–robot interaction