Advertisement

Influences on the Intention to Buy a Sex Robot

An Empirical Study on Influences of Personality Traits and Personal Characteristics on the Intention to Buy a Sex Robot
  • Jessica M. SzczukaEmail author
  • Nicole C. Krämer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10237)

Abstract

The first sex robots will hit the market within the next few years, but no empirical research has gathered insights into the question who possible costumers could be. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate personal characteristics (e.g. relationship status) and personality traits (such as loneliness) that would influence the intention to buy a Sex Robot. An online survey with 263 male participants showed that 40.3% would buy such a robot now or within the next five years. We could show that while the affiliation-related personality traits, the relationship status and sexual fulfilment does not have any impact on the intention to buy a sex robot, rather, negative attitude towards robots and anthropomorphic tendency are influential.

Keywords

Sex robots Intention to buy Personal characteristics 

References

  1. 1.
    Barss, P.: The Erotic Engine: How Pornography has Powered Mass Communication, from Gutenberg to Google. Doubleday Canada, Toronto (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Worthen, M.G.: Sexual Deviance and Society: A Sociological Examination. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levy, D.: Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuetz, M., Arnold, T.: Are we ready for sex robots? In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interation, pp. 351–358. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fullerton, J.: Lonely men to get guide on building a sex robot, The Times, Newspaper article (2016). http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lonely-men-to-get-guide-on-building-a-sex-robot-hn69zggs0
  6. 6.
    Szczuka, J.M., Krämer, N.C. (revise and resubmit): Not Only the Lonely. How males explicitly and implicitly evaluate the attractiveness of sex robots in comparison to women and personal characteristics that influence this evaluation. Special Issue: Love and Sex with Robots. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson, K.: The asymmetrical ‘relationship’: parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 45(3), 290–293 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sullins, J.P.: Applied Professional Ethics for the Reluctant Roboticist. Portland, OR, US. The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction workshop at HRI (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson, A.: The Sex Doll: A History. Mcfarland & Co Inc., USA (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reece, M., Herbenick, D., Dodge, B., Sanders, S.A., Ghassemi, A., Fortenberry, J.D.: Vibrator use among heterosexual men varies by partnership status: results from a nationally representative study in the United States. J. Sex Marital Ther. 36(5), 389–407 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Jozkowski, K.N., Middelstadt, S.E., Sanders, S.A., Dodge, B.S., Ghassemi, A., Fortenberry, J.D.: Beliefs about women‘s vibrator use: results from a nationally representative survey in the United States. J. Sex Marital Ther. 37(5), 329–345 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J.: Technosexuality. In: Wong, A., Wickramasinghe, M., Hoogland, R., Naples, N.A. (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, pp. 1–3. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Singapore (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillespie, C.: Lars and the Real Girl, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flintoff, T., Raphael, M.: Guys and dolls [Motion picture documentary]. [Directed by N. Holt]. [Narrated by M. Strong]. North One-BBC America, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eyssel, F., Reich, N.: Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots): on the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 121–122. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117(3), 497–529 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolbeck, S.: Zur psychometrischen Differenzierbarkeit von sozialen Ängsten und sozialen Defiziten. Eine empirische Studie an nichtklinischen und klinischen Stichproben. Dissertation (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leary, M.R., Dobbins, S.E.: Social anxiety, sexual behavior, and contraceptive use. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(6), 1347–1354 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suzuki, T., Yamada, S., Kanda, T., Nomura, T.: Influence of social avoidance and distress on people’s preferences for robots as daily life communication partners. In: Conference Proceedings New Friends 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K.L., Walters, M.L.: The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K.: Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact. Stud. 7(3), 437–454 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nomura, T., Shintani, T., Fujii, K., Hokabe, K.: Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. In: Chamonix, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. ACTA Press (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marelich, W.D., Lundquist, J.: Motivations for sexual intimacy: Development of a needs-based sexual intimacy scale. Int. J. Sex. Health 20(3), 177–186 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neave, N., Jackson, R., Saxton, T., Hönekopp, J.: The influence of anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours. Pers. Individ. Differ. 72, 214–219 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russel, D., Peplau, L.A., Cutrona, C.E.: The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39(3), 472–480 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Fuchslocher, A., Eimler, S.C., Szczuka, J.M., Brand, M.: Do i need to belong? development of a scale for measuring the need to belong and its predictive value for media usage. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), 17–21 June 2013, London, Great Britain (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.: Uncannily Human. Empirical Investigation of the Uncanny Valley Phenomenon. Dissertation (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Psychology: Media and CommunicationUniversity Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations